(PDF) Classifying and interpreting Viking-Age dirham imitations

Marek Jankowiak Classifying and interpreting Viking-Age dirham imitations Abstract: On the basis of Gert Rispling’s research on dirham imita- WLRQVWKLVSDSHUSURSRVHVDFODVVL¿FDWLRQRIGLUKDPLPLWDWLRQVWKDWLQ addition to die-links and stylistic criteria, takes into account also the chronology of their production and their distribution in the hoards. Four more or less coherent major groups of dirham imitations emer- ge from this analysis: the early Khazar, the irregular issues of the second half of the ninth century, the late Khazar, and the Volga Bulgar. Several minor groups also have clear contours. This typology, when placed within the framework of the slave trade between Scandinavian and Muslim merchants at such marketplaces as Itil and Bulgar, leads to a reconsideration of the motivations for the production of the dir- ham imitations. Their weight and quality, similar if not superior to their prototypes – Abbasid and Samanid dirhams – rules out simple FRQVLGHUDWLRQVRISUR¿W,WZLOOEHDUJXHGLQVWHDGWKDWWKHLPLWDWLRQV were a means to mitigate the instability inherent in the early medieval long-distance trade connections. ,Q&DUO-RKDQ7RUQEHUJMXVWL¿HGKLVGHFLVLRQWRH[FOXGHWKHGLU- ham imitations from his catalogue of Islamic coins in the Royal Coin Cabinet in Stockholm in the following terms: Such is their diversity that I was able to collect as many as 124 various [types]. (…) [Their] inscriptions cannot be expressed unless sketches of the coins be added, inasmuch as they very often present letters of an astonishingly monstrous form. But even described in this way they GRQRW\LHOGWKHLURULJLQWRWKRVHZKRVWXG\WKHPQRUGRWKH\RৼHU DQ\EHQH¿WIRUVFLHQFHZKHUHIRUH,WKRXJKWLWPRUHSXUSRVHIXOWRRPLW them here altogether.1 53 Marek Jankowiak 7RUQEHUJ FRUUHFWO\ LGHQWL¿HG WKH GL൶FXOW\ RI GHVFULELQJ FDWD- loguing and provenancing the imitations, but he was wrong – as this paper will attempt to demonstrate – about their lack of historical value. Not only are the imitations the third most common group of eastern coins, after Samanid and Abbasid dirhams, in Viking-Age hoards from Scandinavia, Rus and Poland, but they also provide invaluable insights into the mechanisms of the trade between the Islamic world and northern Europe. As they were no doubt produced somewhere between these two areas, they also shed light on the history of the Khazars and Volga Bulgars, and raise broader questions regarding the FRQFHSWRIR൶FLDOFRLQDJHLQWKHPHGLHYDO,VODPLFZRUOG )URP7RUQEHUJWR5LVSOLQJ The bewildering diversity of the dirham imitations, their unintelli- JLEOH OHJHQGV DQG WKH GL൶FXOW\ RI SURYHQDQFLQJ WKHP ± DOO SRLQWHG out by Tornberg – have long dissuaded Islamic numismatists from their closer scrutiny. In the century and a half after Tornberg had been defeated by their intractability, Russian and Polish numismatists were DEOHWRGH¿QHVRPHEDVLFW\SHV2 but it was only Gert Rispling, one of Tornberg’s successors in the Royal Coin Cabinet in Stockholm, who took a more systematic approach. Over the course of several deca- des, he has patiently developed a system for cataloguing, describing and categorising the dies used for the production of dirham imita- tions found in the silver hoards from Gotland and mainland Sweden. Rather than focus on rare salient types, he looked at the ‘dark matter’ of dirham imitations: the nondescript dies that hold the key to the un- derstanding of their production and function. He was gradually able to connect the dies into die-chains, some of remarkable complexity, 1 Tornberg 1848:242: tantaque est eorum varietas, ut numero CXXIV diversos colligere potuerim. (…) ,QVFULSWLRQHVQRQQLVLDGGLWDQXPRUXPGHOLQHDWLRQHH[SULPLSRVVXQWXWSRWHTXDHGXFWXVRৼHUDQWOLW- terarum saepissime mirum in modum monstrosos. At neque ita descripti, intuentibus originem produnt, QHTXHVFLHQWLDHHPROXPHQWXPDOLTXLGDৼHUXQWTXDUHFRQVXOWLXVGX[LHRVKLFSODQHRPLWWHUHTXDPXW libri molem iis describendis nimio augerem. 2 &RLQVH[SOLFLWO\DWWULEXWHGWRWKH9ROJD%XOJDUVZHUH¿UVWGHVFULEHGE\)UDHKQEXWWKHHDUOLHVW VWXG\RIWKHLULPLWDWLYHFRLQDJHLV9DVPHU±IROORZHGE\,DQLQDWKH¿UVWVWXGLHVRI Khazar coinage are Bykov 1971 and 1974. Several publications of hoards contributed much to the un- derstanding of dirham imitations: Czapkiewicz et al. 1964 (Klukowicze); Fomin & Kovács 1987 with Rispling 1993 (Máramaros); Fomin 1988 (Vizhegsha); Petrov 2014 (Bezliudovka). Kmietowicz 1973 is a rare attempt at a historical interpretation of dirham imitations. 54 Classifying and interpreting Viking-Age dirham imitations LGHQWLI\EURDGHUSDWWHUQVGH¿QHDGR]HQRUPRUHW\SHVDQGSURSRVHD precise chronology and a more or less tentative geographical attribu- tion for most of them. Rispling’s monumental achievement has been only partly pub- lished.3 In 2013, Luke Treadwell and I started collaborating with Gert with a view to the full publication of his catalogue of dirham imita- tions. All the material has been digitised and transferred into a data- base that will serve as the basis for the printed publication and that will eventually be accessible online. The database is primarily based on hoards found in Gotland and mainland Sweden, mostly stored in the Royal Coin Cabinet (KMK) in Stockholm, but more than a third of catalogued coins come from other countries. Additional material from Russia and Ukraine is being added, although no attempt at com- prehensiveness will be made. The work on the catalogue is in pro- JUHVVLQZKDWIROORZVDOOWKH¿JXUHVDVZHOODVWKHFRQFOXVLRQVDUH provisional in character. This work now makes it possible to provide an overview of dir- KDPLPLWDWLRQVDQGWRSURSRVHWKHLUSUHOLPLQDU\FODVVL¿FDWLRQIRXQ- ded on Rispling’s types, but integrating them more closely into the EURDGHUFRQWH[WRIWKHLQÀRZRI,VODPLFVLOYHUFRLQVWRQRUWKHUQ(XUR- pe.4 Based on this new typology, I will propose an answer to what re- mains, after all, the fundamental question relating to the early medie- val imitative coinages: why were they produced? 7KHFRUSXV As of summer 2019, the database of dirham imitations included 9,944 FRLQV2IWKHVHFRLQVKDYHEHHQDVFULEHGWRVSHFL¿FGLHVWKH remainder consists of small fragments, coins for which no photo- graphs are available and coins awaiting attribution. A total of 3,674 GLHVKDYHVRIDUEHHQLGHQWL¿HGDOPRVWDUHµVLQJOHWRQV¶LHGLHV that form die-pairs that are not connected to any other dies; the re- maining 763 dies were connected by Rispling into 134 die-chains of varying length, from three to 130 dies (Table 1). 3 The main publication is Rispling 2005; see also, among his other articles, Rispling 1985, 1987 and 1990. Rispling’s die numbers have already been used in numerous publications, e.g. Leimus 2007:434– 436; Lebedev & Rispling 2017. 4 As set forth in Jankowiak 2021a. 55 Marek Jankowiak 'LHW\SH 1XPEHURIGLHV 1XPEHURIFRLQV S (‘singletons’) 2,9115 H[FOXQLGHQWL¿HG .GLHFKDLQV H[FOXQLGHQWL¿HG 8QLGHQWL¿HG ± 7RWDO Table 1. Number of dies and coins in the database. ,QFRPSDULVRQZLWKWKHSURGXFWLRQRIWKHR൶FLDOPLQWVRIWKH0XV- lim world, the total number of imitative obverse and reverse dies, al- most 2,000 of each, may seem very high. The main Samanid mints, for instance, appear, as a rule, to have used less than 50 obverse (and a similar number of reverse) dies per year during the reign of Isma‘il b. Ahmad (892–907), when the Samanid monetary production seems to have reached its maximum.6 This represented a marked decrease IURPWKH¿UVWFHQWXU\RIWKH$EEDVLG&DOLSKDWHZKHQWKHODUJHVW,VOD- mic mints used hundreds of dies per year,7 but within the fragmented Muslim world of the tenth century such a number of imitative dies PLJKWVXJJHVWDQRXWSXWHTXLYDOHQWWRWKDWRIDOHDGLQJR൶FLDOPLQW 7KHVH¿JXUHVDUHKRZHYHUQRWGLUHFWO\FRPSDUDEOH7KHSURGXF- tivity of the imitative dies (i.e. the number of coins struck with a die) ZDVSUREDEO\PXFKORZHUWKDQWKDWRIWKHR൶FLDORQHV0DQ\LPLWD- tive dies were manifestly used to produce ad hoc a limited number RIFRLQVDQGWKHQGLVFDUGHG7KLVLVFRQ¿UPHGE\WKHIDFWWKDW pairs of ‘singletons’ (69 %) are known from a single extant specimen. By contrast, dies belonging to die-chains survive, on average, in a much higher number of coins (Fig. 1) and sometimes display traces of wear, indicating a prolonged period of use (Fig. 2). One consequence of this pattern is that, although more than three-quarters of dies are µVLQJOHWRQV¶ WKH PDMRULW\ RI LGHQWL¿HG FRLQV LQ WKH GDWDEDVH EHORQJ to die-chains (56 %, Table 17KLVLVDVWDWLVWLFDOO\VLJQL¿FDQWSDWWHUQ that cannot be discounted by the hazards of survival. It implies that, on average, a die belonging to a die-chain, especially to a long die- 5 The counterintuitive odd total number of ‘singletons’ results from some coins being struck with only one die, either bracteates or, in very rare cases, coins struck with the same die on both sides (e.g. S356). 6 Treadwell 2011; unpublished die studies by Gert Rispling. 7 1DXH LGHQWL¿HG REYHUVH DQG UHYHUVH GLHV IRU WKH VROH PLQW RI -D\\ LQ DQG extrapolated it using Esty’s formula to a notional total c. 1200 dies of each side for that single year. 56 Classifying and interpreting Viking-Age dirham imitations 1. Number of die chains and extant coins per die in relation to chain length. chain, actually produced more dirham imitations than a ‘singleton’. How many coins such a die could produce is anyone’s guess, but the fact that a dozen dies are known from more than 100 specimens (with the maximum of 297 coins for K101/R12)8 suggests the order of thou- sands of coins for the most productive dies.9 ,WLVFOHDUWKDWGL൵HUHQWPRGHOVRIPLQWLQJRIWKHGLUKDPLPLWDWLRQV coexisted, with, at the one end of the spectrum, ad hoc issues struck with the ‘singletons’, and, at the other, long-term, centralised opera- tions such as those illustrated by the longest chains K101 and K65. They were not mutually exclusive: some ‘singletons’ are so similar to dies from the die-chains that they may have been engraved by the VDPHKDQG%XWWKLVGLYHUVLW\UHÀHFWVWKHYDULRXVFRQWH[WVSODFHVDQG no doubt purposes of the production of the imitations. 8 The dies are designated by the number of the die-chain (beginning with ‘K’) or the singleton pair (‘S’), IROORZHGE\WKHQXPEHURIWKHREYHUVHZLWKQRSUH¿[RUUHYHUVHSUHFHGHGE\µ5¶GLH7KHRUGHURI GLHVFRUUHVSRQGVWRWKHRUGHURIWKHLULGHQWL¿FDWLRQE\*HUW5LVSOLQJ 9 Kmietowicz 1973:48, extrapolating from the proportions of coins in the hoards, estimated the total production of the imitations at ‘between several hundred thousand and a million, if not more’. This is a reasonable estimate that would imply an average productivity of an imitative die of c. 500 coins. 57 Marek Jankowiak 2. The widening crack on the die K101/07. All three coins are from the systematic collection of the KMK. &ODVVL¿FDWLRQ By the time we started our joint work in 2013, Gert Rispling had de- ¿QHGDURXQGW\SHVRILPLWDWLRQV6HYHUDORIWKHPLQFOXGHYHU\IHZ FRLQVHJµ,P(X¶LQFOXGLQJWKHIDPRXVµ2൵DUH[¶GLQDURWKHUVPD\ have been produced within the Caliphate (e.g. ‘ImAfg’, ‘ImClph’, ‘ImAfr’).10 The remaining dozen types, the most common in the northern hoards, are a convenient starting point for a comprehensive typology of the imitations. Criteria 5LVSOLQJ¶VW\SHVDUHGH¿QHGSULPDULO\RQDVW\OLVWLFEDVLV11 Like regu- lar dirhams that, although they reproduce an almost identical legend, can be broadly attributed at a glance, the style of an imitation is often diagnostic. Additional complexity is, however, added by the diversity of engravers’ approaches to the prototypes, as well as by their varying literacy and technical dexterity. The stylistic criteria used by Rispling cannot always be precisely formulated, but, being based on decades of a close scrutiny of the material, they can be trusted. The future catalogue will enable the readers to assess their consistency. One has to defer to stylistic criteria because of the paucity of infor- mation on the dies themselves. Only around 30 obverses are inscribed with the name of a mint and, in most cases, a date: two were produced in ard al-Khazar (‘the land of the Khazars’) in 223/837,12 and the re- 10 See Ilisch 2016. 11 See especially Rispling 2005. 12 8QOHVVLQGLFDWHGRWKHUZLVHWKHGDWHVDUHJLYHQDVD+LMUL\HDUIROORZHGE\WKH¿UVWRULQVRPHFDVHV the only) corresponding Christian year. 58 Classifying and interpreting Viking-Age dirham imitations maining ones in Bulgar and Suwar, cities of Volga Bulgaria, in c. AD 935–1000. To this we can add two dozen reverses with names usually LGHQWL¿HGDVWKRVHRI9ROJD%XOJDUDPLUV13 Fortunately, many of these securely provenanced dies belong to die-chains, including some of the longest ones (K108 for Khazar dies, K101 for Volga Bulgar dies). $VDUHVXOWZHDUHDEOHWRLGHQWLI\ZLWKPXFKFRQ¿GHQFHWKHSODFH and time of production of eight or nine die-chains and around 2,500 coins. Although, in terms of coins, this corresponds to only a quarter of the database, this is a good beginning. The securely attributed dies allow us to get a sense of the techniques of imitation within each type, the most commonly copied prototypes and the characteristic featu- res of the dies. At the same time, they also exemplify their stylistic diversity, even within single die-chains. To take the example of the (exceptionally long) Volga Bulgar chain K101, even if many dies copy Samanid reverses with the names of Caliph al-Muqtadir and Amir Nasr b. Ahmad, their transcriptions vary from faithful, with each character clearly legible, to more sketchy, with the name of the caliph contracted to ‘al-Mudir’ or similar, or not recognisable at all. The prototypes, in general, are not a faithful guide to categorisation: they provide termini post quem for the literate imitative dies, but the time span separating them from their imitations cannot be determined.14 To a far greater extent than on similarities between the dies, the typology of dirham imitations that will be proposed in the forth- coming catalogue relies on the patterns in which die-chains and µVLQJOHWRQV¶DUHFRPELQHGLQGLUKDPKRDUGV5LVSOLQJKDVLGHQWL¿HG over 300 hoards relevant for the study of dirham imitations: among them, around a hundred contain more than twenty imitative coins, DQG DURXQG IRUW\ FRQWDLQ PRUH WKDQ ¿IW\15 The earliest appearance of a type, chain or die in a hoard provides a terminus ante quem for their production, while the patterns in which they combine within in- dividual hoards can be indicative of their joint production. Of special VLJQL¿FDQFHDUHµPHUFKDQW¶KRDUGVLHKRDUGVZKRVHFRPSDFWFKUR- QRORJLFDOFRPSRVLWLRQVXJJHVWVWKDWWKH\UHÀHFWWKHPRQHWDU\VWRFN 13 Listed in Jankowiak forthcoming a. 14 See e.g. Rispling 1985. 15 )RUDOLVWRIKRDUGVVLJQL¿FDQWIRUWKHVWXG\RIGLUKDPLPLWDWLRQVVHH5LVSOLQJ± 59 Marek Jankowiak 3. Dies K108/02 (ard al-Khazar 223) and K108/R09 (Musa rasul Allah). SHM 1457 (= CNS 1.3.19) and KMK 103303 (Spillings 1999 hoard). available at a given time at the slave markets of eastern Europe.16 While few Gotlandic dirham hoards, mostly sealed in the 950s after DQH[WHQGHGSHULRGRIDFFXPXODWLRQPHHWWKLVFULWHULRQ¿QGVIURP Russia, Ukraine and Poland are more helpful. There is no doubt that the new material now surfacing in these countries will modify many of the current attributions. 7KHFODVVL¿FDWLRQSURSRVHGKHUHWKXVWDNHVDFRQWH[WXDODSSURDFK DQG GH¿QHV WKH W\SHV QRW VROHO\ RQ QXPLVPDWLF FULWHULD EXW DOVR LQ UHIHUHQFH WR VSHFL¿F KLVWRULFDO FRQWH[WV LQ ZKLFK WKH\ ZHUH SURGX- ced. These contexts are, to some extent, known from written sour- ces, mostly the works of Arab geographers, but they are above all UHFRQVWUXFWHG RQ WKH EDVLV RI WKH WHQWDWLYH FKURQRORJ\ RI WKH ÀRZV of dirhams from the Islamic world to northern Europe that I have proposed elsewhere.17 The overarching framework is that of the trade between the Scandinavians and the Islamic world, no doubt mostly in slaves, who were often of a Slavic origin.18 As a result, four major groupings of dirham imitations can be LGHQWL¿HG7KH¿UVWZDVSURGXFHGLQ.KD]DULDLQWKHODWH$'VWKH second, the least coherent, seems to originate in the borderlands of the Caliphate in the last third of the ninth century; it was continued by the third, dating to the late ninth and early tenth century and tentatively DWWULEXWHGWR.KD]DULD¿QDOO\WKHIRXUWKDQGODUJHVWJURXSZDVSURGX- ced in Volga Bulgaria in the tenth century. In addition, several smal- OHULPLWDWLYHW\SHVFDQEHGH¿QHGDVZHOODVVHYHUDOJURXSVRIFRLQV that have irregular characteristics, but may still represent the produc- 16 7KH PRVW LPSRUWDQW ¿QGV DUH %HUWE\ tpq 890), Klukowicze (tpq 901), Máramaros (tpq 935), and Bezliudovka (tpq 935). For the Bertby hoard, see Granberg 1966:50–122; for the remaining ones, see above, note 2. Tpq stands for terminus post quem, i.e. the date of the latest coin in a hoard. 17 Jankowiak 2021a. 18 On which see Jankowiak forthcoming b and forthcoming c. 60 Classifying and interpreting Viking-Age dirham imitations 5LVSOLQJ¶VW\SH 5LVSOLQJ¶VGHVFULSWLRQ 3URSRVHGW\SH ImKz1 Khazar 1 (220–243/835–857) Early Khazar ImKz2 Khazar 2 (243–270/857–884) Provincial Abbasid? Im253 Samarqand 253 (c. 253/867) Provincial Abbasid? ImArm Armenia/Caucasus (270–277/883–891) Provincial Abbasid? ImUgly ‘Ugly’ group (270–298/883–911) Late Khazar ImVB Volga Bulgar Volga Bulgar 9% µ2൶FLDO¶9ROJD%XOJDUPLQWHGLQ Bulgar and Suwar Volga Bulgar ImRus Rus: Novgorod and Kiev (c. 330–350/941–962) Volga Bulgar? ImGeo Georgian (ninth century) Abkhazian ImKök ‘Turkic’ (270–298/883–911) ‘Runic’ (late Khazar) ,PWK 8QNQRZQRULJLQ±± 8QLGHQWL¿HG ,PWK 8QNQRZQRULJLQ±± 8QLGHQWL¿HG Table 2. Correspondence between Gert Rispling’s types and types proposed in the catalogue of the dirham imitations. WLRQRIWKHR൶FLDOPLQWVRIWKH,VODPLFZRUOG7KHFRUUHVSRQGHQFHRI Rispling’s types with the types proposed below is shown in Table 2. Early Khazar imitations (‘ImKz1’) The early Khazar imitations include probably the best known of the imitative dies: a good-quality imitation of a reverse of an Abbasid dirham of Caliph al-Mahdi (775–785), with the words Musa rasul Allah (‘Moses is the prophet of God’) somewhat clumsily added at WKHERWWRPRIWKH¿HOG.5Fig. 37KHVLJQL¿FDQFHRIWKLV GLH±LQWHUSUHWHGDVDFRQ¿GHQWHYHQGH¿DQWVWDWHPHQWRI-XGDLVPE\ a supposedly freshly converted Khazar elite – has been exaggerated.19 The die is known from few (less than a dozen) specimens; moreover, none of the remaining 23 dies of the chain K108 (Fig. 4), and indeed none of the c. 250 dies of this group, alludes in any way to Judaism. Several, however, have signs interpreted as Turkic tamghas. 19 Kovalev 2005. 61 Marek Jankowiak 1 Ard alKhazar 223 2 Ard alKhazar 223 R09 Musa rasul Allah 4. Die-chain K108. The attribution of this group to Khazaria relies on two dies min- ted, according to their legends, in ard al-Khazar (‘the land of the Khazars’) in 223/837 (K108/01 and K108/02; Fig. 3). It is plausible that the entire die-chain K108 was produced in, or very near to, this year. Two other chains (K106 and K107) must have been produced concurrently with K108: they imitate similar Abbasid dirhams, have similar characteristics (e.g. high quality of engraving, same tam- ghas), and, above all, are found in a cluster of similar hoards with termini post quem in or just after 223/837 (Kislaia, Devitsa, Kohtla, Ocksarve I, Dobrino). In fact, these are the earliest hoards to contain any imitations at all; it is thus likely that all the imitative dies present in them (and those die-linked with them) belong to the early Khazar group. The production of the early Khazar imitations must have taken place within a short period of time in the late 830s. I have argued elsewhere that, unusually for the imitations, their minting may have been motivated not that much by commercial considerations as by the recruitment of Scandinavian warriors in the context of the existential threat posed to the Khazar Khaganate by the migration of the Magyars from the Middle Volga to the Pontic steppe.20 20 Jankowiak 2021a:113–114; see also Zuckerman 1997. 62 Classifying and interpreting Viking-Age dirham imitations Irregular issues of the second half of the ninth century (‘Im253’, ‘ImArm’, ‘ImKz2’) Irregular dirhams minted in the second half of the ninth century do not form a consistent group. Rispling singled out three groups that have GL൵HUHQWIHDWXUHVEXWFDQDOOEHSODFHGLQWKHFRQWH[WRIWKHGHFOLQHRI the Abbasid monetary production during the ‘Samarra anarchy’ in the VDQGWKHZHDNHQLQJRIFHQWUDOFRQWURORYHUIDUÀXQJSURYLQFLDO mints. The ‘Im253’ were struck, according to their legends, in Samar- qand and al-Shash in 253/867. Their unusually high quantity suggests that this may be a frozen date and that they continued to be issued for another couple of years. They give the impression of a hasty produc- tion, but their correct legends suggest that they were minted within WKHR൶FLDOV\VWHP The ‘Armenian imitations’ (‘ImArm’) are more puzzling: although the inscriptions on the dies are, as a rule, literate and well-engraved, some dies display unusual characteristics (e.g. mint name at the bot- WRPRIWKH¿HOGOHJHQGRIWKHUHYHUVHRQ.5DQG.5 Dies inscribed with widely divergent mints and dates are sometimes linked within the same chains: the chain K113, for instance, consists of obverses ‘Madinat al-Salam 190’, ‘Madinat al-Salam 220’ and ‘Arminiyya 277’, and two early Abbasid reverses, one of them with WKHDGGHGPLQWQDPHµ%DUGKDµD¶0DQ\RIWKHLUÀDQVDUHQRWLFHDEO\ thicker than those of the usual Abbasid dirhams; consequently, their ZHLJKWVH[FHHGVLJQL¿FDQWO\WKHQRWLRQDOVWDQGDUGRIJ,WVHHPV that their self-attribution to the Caucasian mints of Arminiyya and Bardha‘a can be trusted, as can the most common dates of 267/880, 273/886 and 277/890. )LQDOO\WKHJURXSFDXWLRXVO\ODEHOOHGE\5LVSOLQJµ,P.]¶LVGH¿- ned not by the inscriptions on the dies but by the physical characteris- tics of the coins, most notably very weak impression, or even absence, of one of the dies, with the result that only one side of the coin, often FUXGHO\HQJUDYHGLVOHJLEOH7KHGLHVGDWHIURPWKH¿UVWFHQWXU\RI the Abbasid rule and look authentic: their reuse probably represents 63 Marek Jankowiak an attempt of the provincial mints to maintain their monetary produc- tion in the context of a shortage of dies, still centrally supplied by the increasingly chaotic caliphal court.21 It appears that the production of these types started in the 860s (‘ImKz2’) and continued, if we trust their dates, in the late 860s (‘Im253’) and, more episodically, in the following two decades µ,P$UP¶7KLVFKURQRORJ\LVFRQ¿UPHGE\WKDWRIWKHKRDUGVVHYH- ral coins found their way to the famous Spillings hoard (tpq 870), but WKH\DSSHDULQELJJHUQXPEHUVLQVOLJKWO\ODWHU¿QGVVXFKDV.LQQHU, (tpq 883) or Bertby (tpq 890). They were thus produced in the context of an increasing disparity between the growing Scandinavian demand for silver – the hoard evidence suggests a spell of frantic trading in the late 860s and early 870s – and the inability of the Caliphate, mired since the 860s in a deep internal crisis, to satisfy it. This tension proba- bly contributed to the collapse of trade between Scandinavia and the Islamic world c. 875; in the following quarter century, only a trickle of dirhams and their imitations reached the Baltic Sea.22 The three groups of imitations can thus be interpreted as attempts to alleviate the shortage of dies in the provincial Abbasid mints of Central Asia (‘Im253’) and the Caucasus (‘ImArm’ and probably ‘ImKz2’), in the context of a declining monetary production in the central provinces. Their standard epigraphy suggests that they were SURGXFHGLQR൶FLDOPLQWVDOEHLWZLWKOHVVFDUHWKDQWKHHDUOLHULVVXHV As they were destined for exportation outside the Islamic world, it did not matter whether up-to-date or old dies were used, or whether their LPSUHVVLRQVRQWKHÀDQVZHUHOHJLEOH7KHDEVHQFHRIORQJGLHFKDLQV indicates an ad hocSURGXFWLRQUHVSRQGLQJWRDVSHFL¿FGHPDQGIRU coins. Late Khazar(?) imitations (‘ImUgly’) A new, highly distinctive group of dirham imitations appeared in large quantities in the earliest hoards of Samanid dirhams (minted in Cen- WUDO$VLDVLQFHEXULHGLQQRUWKHUQ(XURSHLQWKH¿UVW\HDUVRI 21 Treadwell 2011:23–24. The initial attribution of this type to Khazaria was based on the early assump- tion that all irregular issues originated outside the Islamic world. 22 See, more in detail, Jankowiak 2021a:114–117. 64 Classifying and interpreting Viking-Age dirham imitations 5. Chain K65, dies 12 and R09. This coin is from the late hoard Övide I (tpq 971), but 14 coins stamped with the same die-pair were found in the Klukowicze hoard (tpq 901). SHM 7465:553. the tenth century (Klukowicze, tpq 901; ‘Ukraine’, tpq 902?; Viken, tpq 907).23 Single specimens found their way already to some ear- lier hoards (Bryli, tpq 890; Översävja, tpq 892) which, together with their relative scarcity in the earliest currently known Samanid hoard (‘Liw’, tpq 900),24 suggests that although their production began by c. 890, it accelerated only a decade later. Their most striking feature is their clumsy, often illiterate, lette- ring (Fig. 5). It is not synonymous, however, with carelessness: most dies are carefully, deeply engraved, and the coins are well minted and follow the standard metrology. The consistency of this group is due not only to its style, but also to numerous die-links: more than 40 dies can be connected into the die chain K65, the second longest imitative die-chain after K101 (Fig. 6)2WKHUVLJQL¿FDQWGLHFKDLQV.. .DQGDQXPEHURIµVLQJOHWRQV¶HLWKHUDUHVLPLODUWRWKHGH¿QLQJ chain K65 or were found in the same diagnostic hoards. On this basis, around 100 dies can be assigned to this group. The complexity of the chain K65 and the existence of other die-chains indicate a stable, relatively large-scale output, localised LQDVLQJOHSURGXFWLRQFHQWUHZKLFKLVGL൵HUHQWIURPWKHW\SHVGH scribes in the previous section. The dies themselves do not point to DQ\ VSHFL¿F JHRJUDSKLFDO ORFDOH EXW WKH EURDGHU FRQWH[W RI WKHLU production suggests Khazaria. Indeed, they must have been produ- ced somewhere on the route from Central Asia to the Baltic, outside the Islamic world but close to the domain of the Samanids – whose earliest issues they imitate and accompany in the northern hoards. 23 Also of importance is the later hoard of Koz’ianki (tpq 944). For the ‘Ukraine’ hoard, see Rispling 2005:212, no. 144. 24 FMP iii, no. 66. 65 Marek Jankowiak 'LHFKDLQV.DQG.UHFHQWO\PHUJHGWKDQNVWRDQHZO\LGHQWL¿HGFRLQ The circles represent individual dies scaled to represent the number of H[WDQWFRLQVWKHOLQHVUHSUHVHQWGLHOLQNVVFDOHGWRUHSUHVHQWWKHQXPEHURI coins struck with a given pair of dies. 7KH FKDLQ . HYHQ LQFOXGHV DQ R൶FLDO HDUO\ 6DPDQLG GLQDU GLH (K65/01). They were, furthermore, certainly minted in connection with trade, in practice the slave trade, conducted by the Scandinavi- ans. This leaves us with two candidates, the Khazars and the Volga Bulgars, who, according to Arab geographers, acted as intermedia- ries in the northern slave trade.25 The Khazars should be preferred not only because this group of the imitations pre-dates the emergence of Volga Bulgaria as a com- mercial hub. More conclusive are the reports of the exploits of the Rus (i.e. Scandinavians) in the Caspian Sea c. 910, when their trad- ing activities morphed, in a characteristically Scandinavian fashion, into raiding. According to al-Mas‘udi, the scale of devastation they wrought around the Caspian Sea shocked the Muslim mercenaries of the Khazar khagan who massacred them on their way back home.26 This event must have durably damaged the relations between the Rus 25 See e.g. Ibn Rustah (early tenth century) in Lunde & Stone 2012:126. 26 Mas‘udi §§458–462. Mas‘udi dates the event after 300/912, but other sources imply a slightly earlier date of c. 910, see Jankowiak 2021a:118. 66 Classifying and interpreting Viking-Age dirham imitations and the Khazars, given that several decades later the Hebrew Khazar documents still attest to their mutual hostility.27 It also probably ac- counts for the shift of the main trade route connecting Central Asia with Rus and Scandinavia from Khazaria to Volga Bulgaria, and for the rise to prominence of the latter, attested already a decade later, in 922, by Ibn Fadlan. Volga Bulgar imitations (‘ImVB’, ‘VB’) After they had replaced c. 910 the Khazars as the main intermed- iary in the trade between the Islamic world and the North, the Volga Bulgars retained this position until the end of the exchanges at the beginning of the eleventh century. This is, however, not the only rea- son why most tenth-century imitations should be attributed to them. Several dozen dies are engraved with the names of their two main FLWLHV%XOJDUDQG6XZDURURILQGLYLGXDOVXVXDOO\LGHQWL¿HGDVWKHLU rulers, such as Mika’il b. Ja‘far, probably the son of Almish b. Shilki who hosted Ibn Fadlan during his visit to Bulgar and received from him the Muslim name Ja‘far b. ‘Abdallah. Many of these dies belong to die-chains otherwise composed of anonymous dies, and thus enable their attribution to Volga Bulgaria. The longest among them, and the longest known imitative die-chain, is the remarkable chain K101 which currently includes 1,796 coins and 130 dies (Fig. 7).28 Some of its dies survive in unusually high numbers of specimens: the die K101/R12, for instance, is known from around 300 coins, and is the most widely disseminated imitative die (Fig. 8). The chain has a remarkably complex structure: it is com- posed of several clusters of strongly interconnected dies that are in turn joined by very weak links. This suggests that the production took place in short vigorous pulses when multiple dies were simultaneous- ly in use, and that these pulses were separated by periods of lull when, however, some dies were kept in storage for future use. Such a mode of production accounts for the remarkable longevity of the chain: its earliest coins have been found in hoards buried c. 910 (Viken, tpq 27 Kokovtsov 1932:83–84; Golb & Pritsak 1982:106–121. 28 Preliminary publication in Rispling 1990; see also Vasmer 1925, and a more detailed description in Jankowiak forthcoming a. 67 Marek Jankowiak 7. Die-chain K101. 907; Stora Velinge I, tpq 910), the most prominent clusters seem to have been produced c.±WKHODWHVWLGHQWL¿DEOHSURWRW\SHGDWHV probably from 332/943 (K101/51), and new types still seem to appear in the 950s. The precise contours of the Volga Bulgar imitative coinage may not be possible to delineate, but common stylistic features (such as WKLFN GXFWXV RU FRPSDFW ¿HOG OHJHQGV RFFXS\LQJ D UHODWLYHO\ VPDOO space within the inner ring) and diagnostic hoards such as Máramaros (tpq 934) and Bezliudovka (tpq 935) suggest that the vast majority of tenth-century die-chains and a very substantial number of ‘singletons’ were produced in Bulgar and Suwar. The activity of these workshops – or rather mints, given the scale of their production – peaked between c. 930 and 950, judging from the chronology of the hoards and of the chain K101, as well as from their most common prototypes, Samanid dirhams of Nasr b. Ahmad (913–941). 7KH 9ROJD %XOJDU FRLQDJH LOOXVWUDWHV WKH ÀXLGLW\ RI ERXQGDULHV EHWZHHQµR൶FLDO¶DQGµXQR൶FLDO¶FRLQDJHVµ2൶FLDO¶LVVXHVRI9ROJD Bulgar amirs are rare: only two dozen die-pairs conforming to the canonical form of an Islamic dirham – with mint and date on the ob- 68 Classifying and interpreting Viking-Age dirham imitations 8. Dies K101/R12 (left) and K101/R45 (right), the best attested dies of the chain K101. KMK systematic collection (left) and SHM 12025 (right). verse, and the name of the ruler on the reverse – are known. The ear- liest such die-pair dates to 338/949 (S780); it was followed by limited LVVXHVHYHU\±\HDUV7KLVSDWWHUQLVGL൶FXOWWRH[SODLQ29 but the rarity of non-anonymous dies makes it clear that the Volga Bulgar DPLUVDWWDFKHGOLWWOHVLJQL¿FDQFHWRSODFLQJWKHLUQDPHVRQWKHFRLQV 7KH µR൶FLDO¶ FRLQDJH WKXV UHSUHVHQWV RQO\ WKH WLS RI WKH LFHEHUJ D very minor fraction of the Volga Bulgar coinage; it is risky to use it as the basis for any general conclusions on the monetary production of Volga Bulgaria.30 Moreover, the boundary between ‘prototype’ and ‘imitation’ was also less clear-cut than it might seem. Similar to the main late Kha- zar chain K65, the chain K101 includes authentic Samanid dinar dies (K101/70 and R40). It is not known how they ended up in Volga Bul- garia. Travelling die-engravers are known from other contexts, both Islamic and Scandinavian,31 but in this case we rather have to do with travelling dies. They may have been brought to Khazaria and Volga Bulgaria by Khorezmian merchants,32 not necessarily unbeknownst to the Samanid amirs, who were perhaps happy to outsource the pro- duction of what was in reality an export coinage. It may not be a coincidence that all the currently known original dies integrated in the longest imitative die-chains are dinar dies: the silver coins produced with them could not be mistaken by anyone literate in Arabic for ori- ginal dirhams. We might therefore think of the mints of Khazaria and Bulgar as of subsidiary Samanid mints. 29 See Jankowiak forthcoming a. 30 Pace Kovalev 2016. 31 Treadwell 2011; Blackburn 1985. I am aware of one imitative die possibly signed by its engraver (K101/68: ‘Umar). 32 On their key role in the trade with the North, see Kmietowicz 1973 (who also located the production of the imitations ‘in the northern part of Central Asia’) and Jankowiak (forthcoming b). 69 Marek Jankowiak 9. One of the falcon imitations (S1351, left and centre) and the obverse of S8 (right). KMK 104146:67 and the systematic collection of the KMK. Rus imitations? (‘ImRus’) After much hesitation, Rispling labelled ‘ImRus’ a major group of around 180 dies, implying that they were produced in Rus or by the Rus. This attribution relies in large part on three dies representing a ELUGXVXDOO\LGHQWL¿HGDVDIDOFRQZLWKDFURVVRQLWVKHDGWKHLQ- scriptions replicate, more or less legibly, the standard Arabic legends (S99, S100, S1351). They are known from a small number of spe- cimens, the earliest of which comes from the Gotlandic hoard Nors (tpq 941). These so-called ‘falcon imitations’ have recently been more precisely attributed to Pskov and to the initiative of Princess Helga (Ol’ga).33 Such an attribution is, however, problematic for two UHDVRQV RQ WKH RQH KDQG WKH HDUOLHVW ¿QG SUHGDWHV WKH EDSWLVP RI Helga in Constantinople in 947 or 956 (the date is disputed); on the other, and more importantly, it ignores the similarities between the QRQ¿JXUDOGLHVRIWKLVJURXSDQGWKHLPLWDWLRQVDWWULEXWHGWR9ROJD Bulgaria. The obverse of S1351, for instance, is very similar to the ob- verse of S8 (Fig. 9), a die attested already in the Bezliudovka hoard,34 and therefore without much doubt of Volga Bulgar provenance. Most dies of the ‘ImRus’ type are, in fact, indistinguishable from the Volga %XOJDULPLWDWLRQVPRUHRYHUDVZHZLOOVHHEHORZLWLVGL൶FXOWWR¿QG a plausible motive for such a large-scale production of imitations in Rus around the mid-tenth century. It is safer, at this stage, to attribute the ‘ImRus’ dies to Volga Bulgaria, even if they were produced, as most dirham imitations were, for the Rus. 33 Rispling 1987; Kovalev 2012; Kuleshov 2015. 34 Petrov 2014, coin no. 573. 70 Classifying and interpreting Viking-Age dirham imitations Abkhazian imitations (‘ImGeo’) An imitation inscribed in a mixture of Georgian and Arabic script KDVUHFHQWO\SURPSWHG9LDFKHVODY.XOHVKRYWRGH¿QHDVPDOOJURXS of a dozen die-pairs of Georgian, or more precisely Abkhazian, imi- tations.35 The bilingual die (S1404) reads ‘Christ, magnify Bagrat, the king of the Abkhazians’, and refers no doubt to Bagrat I who ruled at the end of the ninth century. If this date is correct, the Abkhazian LPLWDWLRQVZRXOG¿WWKHVDPHEURDGHUFRQWH[WRIDVKRUWDJHRIGLUKDPV as other imitations of the late ninth century.36 ‘Runic’ dirhams (‘ImKök’) Four dies (K146 [formerly S642] and S641) are inscribed in an al- phabetic script that has not yet been deciphered.37 The characters are similar to those engraved on silver vessels and other objects from the area of the Khazar Khaganate and Central Asia. Their Khazar origin LVWKXVOLNHO\DQGVXJJHVWVLQFRQMXQFWLRQZLWKWKHLU¿UVWRFFXUUHQFH in an early tenth-century hoard (Over Randlev I, tpq 910), that they belong to the late Khazar group of dirham imitations. Unattributed imitations (‘Im9th’, ‘Im10th’) Given the number of dies represented by very few coins – often only RQH DQG RI XQNQRZQ SURYHQDQFH ± D VLJQL¿FDQW JURXS RI GLHV ZLOO UHPDLQXQDWWULEXWHG)XWXUH¿QGVPD\KHOSWRDVVLJQVRPHRIWKHPWR one of the foregoing categories, or perhaps, with less likelihood, to a QHZDV\HWXQLGHQWL¿HGW\SH :K\ZHUHGLUKDPLPLWDWLRQVSURGXFHG" The four major groupings of dirham imitations emerging from this analysis have in common one fundamental trait: almost all of them were found in hoards from northern Europe. They thus belong to the 35 Kuleshov 2013a. 36 Kuleshov 2013b. 37 Kuleshov 2009; Kuleshov 2013b. 71 Marek Jankowiak broader framework of Scandinavian-Muslim trade. But the precise reasons for their production have so far been discussed very little.38 Some imitations were certainly used as a medium to convey ideo- logical messages such as the faith of their issuers, their names, or perhaps even their cultural autonomy expressed in their scripts. But LWFDQQRWEHRYHUHPSKDVLVHGWKDWVXFKGLHVUHSUHVHQWDQLQ¿QLWHVLPDO part of the entire corpus of dirham imitations. Apart from these excep- tional cases, the imitations were not tools of propaganda. 1RU ZHUH WKH\ D PHDQV RI DFKLHYLQJ ¿QDQFLDO SUR¿W39 Neither visual inspection nor the limited available metallographic analysis VXJJHVWWKDWWKH\ZHUHRILQIHULRUTXDOLW\WRWKHR൶FLDOGLUKDPV40 If anything, they seem to be slightly heavier than their prototypes. With the exception of very rare coins with a copper core coated in silver, they were not produced with a fraudulent intent (and even then the coins may have been produced to serve as pendants); it is thus incor- rect to call them ‘counterfeits’. They were not a means of introducing new silver into circulation – Volga Bulgar imitations contain bismuth, a trace element characteristic for Samanid issues from Afghanistan41 ± RU RI WD[LQJ WKH FRPPHUFLDO ÀRZV WUDQVLWLQJ WKURXJK WKH PDUNHWV of Khazaria or Volga Bulgaria, which was more easily done by col- lecting a tithe on dirhams, slaves and furs brought there by the mer- chants.421RU¿QDOO\ZHUHWKH\LVVXHGZLWKWKHYLHZRIIDFLOLWDWLQJ LQWHUQDOH[FKDQJHVLQWKHVHWZRSROLWLHVZKHUH¿QGVDUHVFDUFHDQG signs of monetised economies are missing. Why, then, were Abbasid and Samanid dirhams melted down and reminted into coins of a similar silver content and appearance, but often slightly heavier and illiterate? Two considerations related to the rhythms of the trade between the Scandinavians and the Muslims go some way towards providing an explanation. The trade system within the framework of which the imitations were produced consisted primarily in the exchange of furs and Slavic slaves brought by Scandinavian warrior-merchants against monetary silver supplied by merchants from the Islamic world. The two sides 38 The only extensive discussion I am aware of is Kmietowicz 1973. 39 Pace Kmietowicz 1973:53. 40 Ilisch et al. 2003:112–113. 41 Similarly Kmietowicz 1973:54. 42 See e.g. Ibn Fadlan in Lunde & Stone 2012:44. 72 Classifying and interpreting Viking-Age dirham imitations met at markets situated roughly half-way between Rus and the Cali- phate, i.e. far from both. Their remoteness had logistical implications: Ibn Fadlan, who accompanied a large caravan of Khorezmian mer- chants, reached Bulgar only after 70 days of an exacting journey that began well before the spring thaw; the Rus, who travelled by rivers, could not start that early, and also needed several weeks to reach Kha- zaria or Bulgar. This implies a strictly annual rhythm of trade, with the two parties meeting only in the summer.43 Given the distances involved, the quantity of goods brought for exchange by either side could not be changed; in these conditions, any major imbalance risked to be explosive. Let us suppose, for instance, that the Khorezmian merchants EURXJKW WRR IHZ GLUKDPV WR EX\ WKH IXUV DQG VODYH JLUOV R൵HUHG IRU sale by the Rus. If the shortfall was small, the imbalance could be UHGXFHGE\SULFHDGMXVWPHQWV%XWLIWKLVZDVQRWVX൶FLHQWDGGLWLRQDO money had to be found, given that leaving the Scandinavian demand IRUVLOYHUXQVDWLV¿HGZDVGDQJHURXVWKHEXUQLQJGRZQRI%XOJDUE\ the Rus c. 969 can perhaps be interpreted as their reaction to the in- DELOLW\RIWKH9ROJD%XOJDUVWRGHOLYHUVX൶FLHQWTXDQWLWLHVRIGLUKDPV This additional money, which had to have the form of round silver objects the Scandinavians were accustomed to,44 could be disbursed only by the Khazars and Volga Bulgars from the reserves of silver they had accumulated from the taxes collected on their markets. In contrast to the Scandinavians, however, rather than hoarding the sil- ver they enjoyed it in the form of ornaments or silverware. Such ob- jects could be easily reintroduced into the monetary circulation in the form of dirham imitations whenever such a need arose. We can ima- gine, at this point, two scenarios: the money could be disbursed to the Khorezmian merchants as a loan, or the Khazars and Volga Bulgars could acquire the slaves for themselves. The former is suggested by the mention, in the account of Ibn Fadlan, of the use of credit in the relations between the Khorezmians and the Ghuzz Turks; the latter by the vertiginous demographic growth experienced by Volga Bulgaria 43 See, more in detail, Jankowiak forthcoming b. 44 Compare with the importation of silver vessels to the Upper Kama basin and the Urals: Jankowiak E6XFK¿QGVDUHDEVHQWIURPWKHDUHDRIGLUKDPKRDUGLQJ 73 Marek Jankowiak in the tenth century.45 The two scenarios were not mutually exclusive; they may perhaps be correlated with the varying levels of literacy of the dies or the length of the die-chains. The conjunctural imbalances resulting from the annual rhythm of trade could easily worsen into a structural crisis. With the possible ex- ception of the early Khazar group, the production of most imitations FRLQFLGHGZLWKSHULRGVRIUHGXFHGGLUKDPÀRZVIURPWKH&DOLSKDWHWR WKH1RUWK7ZRVXFKHSLVRGHVD൵HFWHGWKH6FDQGLQDYLDQ0XVOLPWUDGH particularly deeply: the crisis of the last third of the ninth century, when the exportation, and no doubt also the production, of Abbasid coinage was drastically curtailed, and the gradual diminution of the quantity of Samanid dirhams exported northwards in the course of the second third of the tenth century. The imbalance seems to have EHHQH[DFHUEDWHGLQERWKFDVHVE\VRPHWKLQJRIDµVQRZEDOOH൵HFW¶ (or ‘bubble’) on the part of the Scandinavians, attracted in increasing numbers to try their luck in the East by the success of their predeces- sors. The imitations thus compensated, at least in the short term, for WKHGH¿FLWRIWKHRULJLQDOGLUKDPVDQGSURORQJHGWKHIXQFWLRQLQJRI the trade system until the exhaustion of Volga Bulgar silver reserves, apparently in the 960s or 970s. Dirham imitations thus emerge as a sophisticated instrument in- tended to sustain the trade between the Islamic world and the North, and to smooth out the inevitable imbalances in the supply and demand of the main traded goods, the dirhams and the slaves. They reveal the otherwise invisible aspects of these exchanges and, as demonstrated by the research of Gert Rispling and contrary to Tornberg’s assess- PHQWLQGHHGR൵HUPXFKµEHQH¿WIRUVFLHQFH¶ 3KRWRJUDSKV Gabriel Hildebrand, the Royal Coin Cabinet. 45 Khorezmians and the Ghuzz: Lunde & Stone 2012:14–15; similar mechanisms are attested in trans- Saharan slave trade: Prange 2006. Demography of Volga Bulgaria: Vyazov et al. 2018. 74 Classifying and interpreting Viking-Age dirham imitations 5HIHUHQFHV 3ULPDU\VRXUFHVDQGDEEUHYLDWLRQV CNS. Corpus Nummorum Saeculorum IX–XI qui in Suecia reperti sunt, 9 vols., Stockholm 1975–. FMP. Frühmittelalterliche Münzfunde aus Polen: Inventar, ed. M. Bogucki et al., 5 vols., Warsaw 2013–17. KMK. Kungliga Myntkabinettet (the Royal Coin Cabinet), Stockholm. Mas‘udi, Muruj al-dhahab, French tr. Ch. Pellat, Les prairies d'or, 5 vols, Paris 1962–97. SHM. National Historical Museums, Sweden. Here referring to the common inventory number system of the Swedish History Museum and the Economy museum – Royal Coin Cabinet. 6HFRQGDU\VRXUFHV Blackburn, M. 1985. English Dies used in the Scandinavian Imitative Coinages. Hikuin 11, 101–124. Bykov, A. A. 1971. O khazarskom chekane VIII–IX vv. Trudy Gosudartvennogo Ermitazha. Numizmatika 4 (1971), 26–36. — 1974. Iz istorii denezhnogo obrashcheniia Khazarii v VIII I IX vv. In: A. S. Tveritinova (ed.), Vostochnye istochniki po istorii narodov Iugo-Vostochnoi i Tsentral’noi Evropy, vol. 3. Moskva, 26–71. Czapkiewicz, M., A. Gupieniec, A. Kmietowicz, W. Kubiak. 1964. Skarb monet arabskich z Klukowicz, powiat Siemiatycze:URFáDZ )RPLQ$99\]KHJVKVNLLNODGNX¿FKHVNLNKPRQHWSHUYRLSRORYLQ\,;YHND,Q096HGRYD (ed.), Problemy izucheniia drevnerusskoi kul’tury (rasselenie i etnokul’turnye processy na Severo- Vostoke Rusi). Moskva, 103–131. Fomin, A. V. & L. Kovács. 1987. The tenth-century Máramaros county (“Huszt”) dirham hoard. Budapest. Fraehn, C. M. 1832. Drei Münzen der Wolga-Bulgharen aus dem X. Jahrhundert n. Chr. erlaütert, Mémoires de l’Académie Impériale des Sciences de St-Petersbourg, 6ème série: Sciences Politiques Histoire et Philologie I, 171–204. Golb, N. & Pritsak, O. 1982. Khazarian Hebrew documents of the tenth century. Ithaca. Granberg, B. 1966. )|UWHFNQLQJ|YHUNX¿VNDP\QWI\QGL)LQODQG. Helsinki. Ianina, S. A. 1962. Novye dannye o monetnom chekane Volzjskoi Bolgarii X v. Materialy i issledovaniia po archeologii SSSR 111 (1962), 179–204. Ilisch, L. 2016. The Coinage of the Rustamid State. In: R. Eisener (ed.), Today’s Perspectives on Ibadi History. Hildesheim, 139–160. Ilisch, L. et al. 2003. Dirham und Rappenpfennig: mittelalterliche Münzprägung in Bergbauregionen. Bonn. -DQNRZLDN0D'LUKDPÀRZVLQWRQRUWKHUQDQGHDVWHUQ(XURSHDQGWKHUK\WKPVRIWKHVODYH WUDGHZLWKWKH,VODPLFZRUOG,Q-*UXV]F]\ĔVNL0-DQNRZLDN -6KHSDUGHGVViking-Age Trade: Silver, Slaves and Gotland, London. — 2021b. Contacts between the Islamic world and northern Europe in the pre-Mongol period. In: B. Walker (ed.), The Oxford Handbook of Islamic Archaeology, Oxford, 105–131 — forthcoming a. The Volga Bulgar imitative coinage. In: J. Shepard & L. Treadwell (eds), Muslims on the Volga in the Viking Age: Diplomacy and Islam in the world of Ibn Fadlan. London. — forthcoming b. Infrastructures and organisation of the early Islamic slave trade with northern Europe. In: F. Bessard & H. Kennedy (eds), The Early Islamic Economy, 750–1050. — forthcoming c. Tracing the Saqaliba: Slave trade and the archaeology of the Slavic lands in the tenth century. In: F. Biermann & M. Jankowiak, The invisible commodity: The archaeology of slavery in early medieval northern Europe. Kmietowicz, F. 1973. Some remarks on the origin of imitations of Arabic dirhems. Polish Numismatic News 2 [=:LDGRPRĞFL1XPL]PDW\F]QH 17], 47–62. Kokovtsov, P. 1932. Evreisko-khazarskaia perepiska v X veke. Leningrad. 75 Marek Jankowiak Kovalev, R. K. 2005. Creating Khazar Identity through Coins: The Special Issue Dirhams of 837/38. In: F. Curta (ed.), East Central and Eastern Europe in the Early Middle Ages, Ann Arbor, 220–253. — 2012. Grand Princess Olga of Rus’ Shows the Bird: Her ‘Christian Falcon’ Emblem. Russian History 39, 460–517. ²:KDWGRµR൶FLDO¶9ROJD%XOJDUFRLQVVXJJHVWDERXWWKHSROLWLFDOKLVWRU\RIWKH0LGGOH9ROJD region during the second half of the 10th century? In: I. Zimonyi & O. Karatay, Central Eurasia in the Middle Ages: studies in honour of Peter B. Golden. Wiesbaden. Kuleshov, V. S. 2009. «Runicheskii dirkham»: novyi istochnik dlia istorii khazarskoi geral’diki? In: Seminar «Geral’dika – vspomogatel’naia istoricheskaia disciplina». Mai, 2009. St. Petersburg. — 2013a. O gruzinskikh podrazhaniakh Abbasidam i o tak nazyvaemoi «monete Bagrata III» iz sobraniia Ermitazha. In: V. N. Zalesskaia (ed.), Byzantium within the context of world culture. St. Petersburg, 370–382. — 2013b. O tipologicheskom i khronologicheskom sootnoshenii khazarskikh runicheskikh dirkhamov i monet Abkhazskogo tsarstva IX v. Numizmaticheskie chteniia GIM 2013, 40–42. — 2015. Dirkham s izobrazheniem uvenchannogo krestom sokola (Rispling FM/BC II) v sobranii Ermitazha. In I. V. Volkov et al., Russkoe denezhnoe obrashchenie v X–XVII vv. Moskva, 26–31. /HEHGHY93 5LVSOLQJ*%HORYVNLLNODGNX¿FKHVNLNKGLUNKDPRYSHUYRLFKHWYHUWL;YL] Kurskoi oblasti. Arkheologia evraziiskikh stepei 6/2017, 51–64. Leimus, I. 2007. Sylloge of Islamic coins 710/1–1013/4 AD. Estonian public collections. Tallinn. Lunde, P. & Stone, C. 2012. ,EQ)ƗGODQDQGWKHODQGRIGDUNQHVV$UDEWUDYHOOHUVLQWKHIDUQRUWK London. 1DXH0$Q(VWLPDWLRQRI(DUO\‫ޏ‬$EEƗVLG0LQW2XWSXW0DGƯQDW-D\\$+±&( In: O. Tekin (ed.), Second International Congress on the of History of Money and Numismatics in the Mediterranean World, 5–8 January 2017, Antalya: Proceedings. Antalya, 515–523. Petrov, P. N. (ed.). 2014. Bezliudovskii klad X v.: materialy i issledovaniia. Kazan’. 3UDQJH65µ7UXVWLQ*RGEXWWLH\RXUFDPHO¿UVW¶7KHHFRQRPLFRUJDQL]DWLRQRIWKHWUDQV6DKDUDQ slave trade between the fourteenth and nineteenth centuries. Journal of Global History 1, 219–239. Rispling, G. 1985. Islamic imitations. A contribution on account of the publication of a Ghaznawid/ Samanid mule. Nordisk Numismatisk Årsskrift 1982, 27–40. — 1987. Coins with crosses and bird heads – Christian imitations of Islamic coins? Fornvännen 82, 75–87. — 1990. The Volga Bulgarian Imitative Coinage of al-Amir Yaltawar (‘Barman’) and Mikail b. Jafar. In: K. Jonsson, B. Malmer (eds), Sigtuna Papers. Proceedings of the Sigtuna Symposium on Viking- Age Coinage 1–4 June 1989, Commentationes de nummis saeculorum IX–XI in Suecia repertis, n.s. 6. Stockholm–London, 275–282. — 1993. Ungarische Beiträge zur islamischen Numismatik. Hamburger Beiträge zur Numismatik 36/38, 119–134. — 2005. Osteuropäische Nachahmungen islamischer Münzen. In T. Mayer (ed.), Sylloge der Münzen des Kaukasus und Osteuropas im Orientalischen Münzkabinett Jena. Wiesbaden, 172–225. Tornberg, C. J. 1848. 1XPLFX¿FL5HJLL1XPRSK\ODFLL+ROPLHQVLVUppsala. Treadwell, L. 2011. &UDIWVPHQDQGFRLQVVLJQHGGLHVLQWKH,UDQLDQZRUOGWKLUGWRWKH¿IWKFHQWXULHV AH). Wien. Vasmer, R. 1925. Beiträge zur Muhammedanischen Münzkunde. Numismatische Zeitschrift 58 (N. F. 18), 49–84. Vyazov, L. A. et al. 2018. Demographic Changes, Trade Routes, and the Formation of Anthropogenic Landscapes in the Middle Volga Region in the Past 2500 Years. In: L. E. Yang et al. (eds.). Socio- Environmental Dynamics along the Historical Silk Road. Cham, 411–452. =XFNHUPDQ&/HV+RQJURLVDXSD\VGH/HEHGLD8QHQRXYHOOHSXLVVDQFHDX[FRQ¿QVGH Byzance et de la Khazarie ca 836–889. In: K. Tsinakis (ed.). To empolemo Vyzantio (9os–12os ai.) / Byzantium at war (9th–12th c.). Athina, 51–74. 76