Documenti di Didattica
Documenti di Professioni
Documenti di Cultura
When and How Dirhams First Reached Russia: A Numismatic Critique of the Pirenne
Theory
Author(s): Thomas S. Noonan
Source: Cahiers du Monde russe et soviétique, Vol. 21, No. 3/4 (Jul. - Dec., 1980), pp. 401-
469
Published by: EHESS
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/20169903
Accessed: 16-08-2017 11:24 UTC
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide
range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and
facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at
http://about.jstor.org/terms
EHESS is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Cahiers du
Monde russe et soviétique
This content downloaded from 203.130.107.115 on Wed, 16 Aug 2017 11:24:30 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
DOSSIER
THOMAS S. NOONAN
This content downloaded from 203.130.107.115 on Wed, 16 Aug 2017 11:24:30 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
402 THOMAS S. N00NAN
This content downloaded from 203.130.107.115 on Wed, 16 Aug 2017 11:24:30 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
WHEN AND HOW DIRHAMS REACHED RUSSIA 403
this method has not been fully accepted and a reversion to pre-Fasmer
practices is all too frequent. Despite these continuing disputes over how
to determine when dirhams first reached European Russia, we must
keep in mind that this question is the best studied of the three posed at
the start of this work. And, it is the only question for which a method
ology or method for resolving the issue has been developed. Despite
his later day critics, Fasmer was able to demonstrate when dirhams first
reached medieval Russia. To date, no such method has been devised
for determining how they reached Russia, i.e., the routes by which
dirhams were initially brought to Eastern Europe. And, to the best
of my knowledge, no one has yet examined the specific circumstances
which would explain why dirhams began to circulate in Russia around 800.
The purpose of this study is to propose some solutions for the question
of how and to begin to address the question of why the period around
800 A.D. in particular.
This content downloaded from 203.130.107.115 on Wed, 16 Aug 2017 11:24:30 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
4o4 THOMAS S. NOONAN
This content downloaded from 203.130.107.115 on Wed, 16 Aug 2017 11:24:30 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
WHEN AND HOW DIRHAMS REACHED RUSSIA 405
Caucasus route through the Khazar kaganate. In the second group,
the most recent dirhams were struck in Khurasan and Transoxiana.
These hoards allegedly were brought to Eastern Europe from Central Asia
through the Volga Bulgar lands.11 The second method is thus the reverse
of the first; it is based on the place of origin of the dirhams within Islam
rather than their find-spot in Russia.
While useful in certain circumstances, the second method is far from
infallible. The circulation of dirhams within Islam combined with
the sporadic emission of coins from certain mints makes it impossible
for us to conclude that dirhams, even the most recent ones, were neces
sarily incorporated into a hoard in the city of their issue or at the time
of their issuance. Coins could be exported from a region which had few
active mints at the time and the most recent dirhams might well be those
from distant mints whose production was large and whose coins conse
quently circulated throughout numerous areas.
The geographical determinism of the second method becomes
problematic if the most recent coins were struck outside such provinces
as ?dharb?yj?n, Jib?l, Tabarist?n, and Jurj?n along the Caspian or
Khw?razm and M? war?' al-Nahr in Central Asia. Did coins from
Iraq and Ahw?z necessarily flow north toward the Caucasus? What
about F?rs, Sijist?n, and western Khurasan which lay somewhere between
the Caspian/Caucasus and Central Asia? The second method only works
well as an indicator of routes if the most recent mints are located in
certain areas.
The second method also raises an interesting question about the
nature of monetary circulation. If hoards were put together from the
coins circulating in one part of Islam and transported directly to their
find-spot in Eastern Europe for deposit, the logic of this approach has a
certain validity. But, if dirhams circulated within Eastern Europe and
were mixed there with dirhams imported at various times as well as
coins from other countries, then the hoard reflects the coin stock found
in Russia as much as the coins circulating within the exporting regions of
Islam at the time. The presence of Byzantine, Volga Bulgar, Rus', and
Western European coins in the dirham hoards from Russia demonstrates
that some mixing of coins, some degree of monetary circulation, did take
place in Eastern Europe.12 The second method does not take into
account the impact of monetary circulation within Russia upon the
composition of a dirham hoard.
The second method, while helpful in certain circumstances, is not a
perfect guide. It is best employed in conjunction with other evidence
as a supplementary source. I might also note that Bolin's work, which
has not been published, is only known to readers through the summaries
found in Sawyer. There is no indication in Sawyer's book of how Bolin
analyzed the route by which the earliest dirham hoards reached Eastern
Europe and Scandinavia.
The solution to the question of how dirhams first reached medieval
Russia does not lie, I believe, in an investigation which is confined to
either their find-spots or their places of origin. Rather, we should focus
our attention on the regions through which these dirhams were likely to
travel, i.e., their possible routes. This rather straightforward approach
n
This content downloaded from 203.130.107.115 on Wed, 16 Aug 2017 11:24:30 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
4o6 THOMAS S. NOONAN
This content downloaded from 203.130.107.115 on Wed, 16 Aug 2017 11:24:30 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
WHEN AND HOW DIRHAMS REACHED RUSSIA 407
in the Caucasus, as measured by hoard formation, seems to have declined
precipitously after ca. 630 and to have been minimal or non-existent
after ca. 685.
The hoardless period in the numismatic history of the Transcaucasus
ended around 770. In Appendix 1, I have summarized the data on
Caucasian dirham hoards of the late eighth and early ninth centuries
found in Pakhomov and other sources. The number of hoards listed in
Appendix 1 is not to be considered as a hard and fast figure. Only one
or a few dirhams from several hoards have been identified (No. 1, 2, 11)
and thus, their inclusion in Appendix 1 is only tentative. Several other
hoards were very small (No. 6, 10) while only part of another hoards was
preserved (No. 15). We cannot tell, for certain, how much confidence
can be placed in such hoards. Nevertheless, we have reliable information
about nine sizeable hoards found in the Caucasus whose most recent
dirham dates to the period in question, i.e., whose date of burial most
likely took place sometime in the late eighth and early ninth centuries
(No. 3, 4, 5, 7, 8, 9,12,13, 14). The dates of these nine hoards, arranged
in chronological order, are: 771/72, 780/81, 782/83, 785/86, 803/04,
804/05 (2), 807/08 and 811/12. In other words, there can be no doubt
that, starting around 770, coin hoards were again buried in the Caucasus
after a hiatus of 100-150 years. The dates of the two mini-hoards and
the one partially preserved hoard further buttress this conclusion: 786/87
(2), 787/88. In the period after 770, coin hoards reappeared in the
Caucasus.
According to one point of view, the hoarding of coins results from
disturbed conditions and war. Conversely, the absence of coin hoards
is attributed to peace. From this perspective, the sharp decline and
then disappearance of Caucasian coin hoards starting ca. 630 might be
explained not by the decline and disappearance of coinage in circulation,
but by the peaceful conditions which prevailed at this period. Similarly,
the reappearance of Caucasian coin hoards after 770 could be linked with
more disturbed conditions rather than the resumption of a significant
level of monetary circulation. Whatever its validity elsewhere may be,
the war -> hoarding, peace -> non-hoarding thesis does not apply to the
case in question. The period from ca. 640 to ca. 750 witnessed a major
struggle between the Khazars and the Arabs for domination of the
Caucasus. This conflict involved several major campaigns and numerous
raids.16 Yet, despite all of the well documented Khazar raids into Trans
caucasia, only one small dirham hoard and three Byzantine hoards can
be dated to this period. The Arab-Khazar struggle for control of the
Caucasus seems to have inhibited rather than encouraged coin hoarding.
While Arab-Khazar warfare continued after 750 and Khazar raids as
well as native uprisings against Arab rule are recorded, we also have
evidence, to be discussed later, that Arab-Khazar relations became better
after 750 and that Khazar campaigns into Transcaucasia ceased after 800.
Thus, the reappearance of coin hoards in the Caucasus dates to the period
when Arab-Khazar relations were clearly improving. Although other
factors need to be considered, it appears, on balance, that the most
extreme phase of Arab-Khazar hostility proved detrimental to coin
hoarding while more peaceful relations encouraged hoard formation.
This content downloaded from 203.130.107.115 on Wed, 16 Aug 2017 11:24:30 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
4o8 THOMAS S. NOONAN
This content downloaded from 203.130.107.115 on Wed, 16 Aug 2017 11:24:30 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
WHEN AND HOW DIRHAMS REACHED RUSSIA 409
dirham hoards in either Russia or the Caucasus. Thus, we must deal
with two distinct numismatic phenomena which have similar features
and attempt to determine if they are in some way connected. Our
hypothesis can be buttressed if we can find a development dating from
the late eighth-early ninth century which would explain why dirhams
would begin to appear in both regions at this time. In short, our hypo
thesis cannot be evaluated in the same way as an exercize in abstract logic
or a physics experiment. At best, we can show similarities that would
seem to preclude coincidence and suggest an explanation for these
similarities.
Tables 1 and 11 contain data on the dynastic composition of the early
Caucasian and Russian dirham hoards. An examination of the data
in Table 1 clearly shows that 'Abb?sid dirhams constituted the predomi
nant component in the early Caucasian hoards with the precise figure
running 80% or more. At the same time, the two earliest hoards,
Kirovabad and Georgia 780/81, form an exception to this rule. The
Kirovabad hoard, which is the very earliest from the Caucasus, contained
almost 90% Umayyad dirhams and slightly more than 10% 'Abbasid
coins. The 780/81 Georgia hoard consisted of an almost equal percentage
of Umayyad and 'Abb?sid dirhams (38% vs. 41% respectively). With
the Kariagino hoard of 782/83, the situation changes dramatically and
the era of 'Abb?sid preponderance begins.
TABLE I
*s
-Z8
&?
Kirovabad 771/72 158 89 11
Georgia 780/81 32 38 41 13
Kariagino 782/83 93 10 89
Georgia 785/86 35 3 97
Tauz 786/87 10 100
Verkhnii Adiaman 786/87 10 20 80
Sepnekeran 787/88 22 14 86
Agdam 803/04 59 3 81
Petrovskoe 804/05 34 3 91
Agdam 804/05 68 9 81
Pshaveli 807/08 122 4 94
Arkhava 811/12 250
This content downloaded from 203.130.107.115 on Wed, 16 Aug 2017 11:24:30 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
410 THOMAS S. N00NAN
This content downloaded from 203.130.107.115 on Wed, 16 Aug 2017 11:24:30 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
WHEN AND HOW DIRHAMS REACHED RUSSIA 4II
by far the largest component in every single hoard and a clear majority
of all coins in all but two hoards. Even in these two hoards (Kniashchino
and Tsimliansk), they are very close to forming a majority (48% and
50% respectively). At the same time, the percentage of 'Abbasid dir
hams does not consistently exceed 80%. In fact, only the two earliest
Russian hoards contain over 80 % 'Abb?sid dirhams. The percentage in
two of the next three hoards then drops sharply to about 50%. While
the Staraia Ladoga hoard stands alone chronologically (787), the four
hoards from the period 806-810 display great fluctuations. Thus, while
we cannot tell how typical the Staraia Ladoga hoard is with its 100%
'Abbasid composition, the first decade of the ninth century is characteriz
ed by great differences in the percentage of 'Abb?sid dirhams. Kri
vianskaia (806) and Kniashchino (808), while only two years apart, have
'Abb?sid components that are 36% apart. After 810, however, the zig
zag pattern abruptly ceases. There is a relatively small range in the
'Abb?sid component of the hoards from 810/11-813 (67%-8o%). The
early Russian hoards thus begin in the 780's with an isolated all-'Abb?sid
hoard, experience great fluctuations in the percentage of 'Abb?sid dirhams
between 805-810, and then run consistently between 2/3 and 4/5 'Abb?sid.
TABLE II
THE DYNASTIC COMPOSITION OF THE EARLY RUSSIAN
DIRHAM HOARDS EXPRESSED IN PERCENTAGES17
<0
SZ
2
z c
*fl5 O
This content downloaded from 203.130.107.115 on Wed, 16 Aug 2017 11:24:30 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
412 THOMAS S. NOONAN
This content downloaded from 203.130.107.115 on Wed, 16 Aug 2017 11:24:30 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
WHEN AND HOW DIRHAMS REACHED RUSSIA 413
This content downloaded from 203.130.107.115 on Wed, 16 Aug 2017 11:24:30 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
414 THOMAS S. NOONAN
25-1
SASANIAN
TABARIST?N
IDR?SID
15H
10H
<=> ?J
OO ^J
^ CO OO O ? \?* lac
? _? 03
cvi +-?
S ^ E ^D OO
00 oo oo OJ oo > _
w ? c>o
30 > ? >* 00
oo u co Z co_r
k- co cq >_ ? m ca -?-. ?_ t=
o a> do + * -o jc= eo .2 " >
a> txo co -t-> *_ c: eu &0 .= z: .22 00
CD m CD H > 00 <c H < CL W i? ?? N
This content downloaded from 203.130.107.115 on Wed, 16 Aug 2017 11:24:30 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
WHEN AND HOW DIRHAMS REACHED RUSSIA 415
quantitative rather than a qualitative expression) are visually represented
in Table iv where the Sasanian, Tabarist?n, and Idrisid components of
Russian and Caucasian hoards are charted. If anything, Table iv plays
down the differences since it omits the Kirovabad hoard which consisted
of only 'Abb?sid and Umayyad dirhams. It is interesting to note that
the only two Caucasian hoards to follow the Russian pattern of diversity
were both discovered at Agdam. The early Russian and Caucasian
dirham hoards thus differ in the relative weight of ther non-'Abb?sid,
non-Umayyad components.
As we shall see, part of the difference in "lesser" dynasties can be
explained by the larger proportion of north African dirhams in the early
Russian hoards. The presence of such dirhams accounts for the large
Idrisid and smaller Aghlabid and Spanish Umayyad components in these
hoards. At the same time, the larger proportion of north African
dirhams cannot explain why Sasanian and Tabarist?n drachms, for
example, are better represented in the Russian hoards. We must thus
conclude that the early Russian hoards were more diverse than the
early Caucasian hoards; while the latter contained a larger 'Abb?sid
component, the former had relatively more coins from the "lesser"
dynasties.
TABLE V
?8? ?
o E
O -M T
<u <y co o
4JO 4->
fO <u o ? -
Q OC ?? O
This content downloaded from 203.130.107.115 on Wed, 16 Aug 2017 11:24:30 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
4i6 THOMAS S. NOONAN
50-1
</> m co 0 c/jcotoc'jcoc/ocoOcooo'ico
O O O C3 C3C3CDCr>CDCDCDC3cZ>CDCr>C>
OO CD CD ??? o^CNjro<vt-ifi(DNoocoOrt
r^ r-~ co Co
This content downloaded from 203.130.107.115 on Wed, 16 Aug 2017 11:24:30 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
WHEN AND HOW DIRHAMS REACHED RUSSIA 417
dirhams (49 %) were issued within a decade or so of the hoard's deposit.
The comparable figure for the 785/86 Georgia hoard is 45%. Never
theless, when we turn to the ninth century, great fluctuations can be
observed within this overall pattern. The four hoards from the early
ninth century were probably deposited at approximately the same time.
In the two Agdam hoards, the percentage of dirhams issued in 790 or
later was 29% and 30%. In the Petrovskoe and Pshaveli hoards, the
comparable figures were 50% and 56%. What we observe then is some
what different patterns of aging within contemporaneous Caucasian
hoards with 'Abb?sid predominance. Some of the hoards, e.g., Kariagino,
have comparatively more new 'Abb?sid dirhams while others, e.g.,
Agdam, have comparatively more older dirhams. Furthermore, as we
noted with the hoards of the early ninth century, there is no trend which
clearly distinguishes the aging patterns of the hoards of the 780's from
those of the 8oo's.
Under ideal conditions, one would expect that new dirhams would
compose the majority of the coins in a hoard and that the percentage of
older dirhams would decline in proportion to their age. Tables vi and
50-1
AGDAM, 804/05
50-1
40
PSHAVELI, 807/08
PETROVSKOE, 804/05 I
30 H
20
10 H
cot/?e/?co</>Goc/?c/?c/></?</?t/> ^* c/>'?/je/>t/jeoe/jt/jt/jc/??/)c/>t/>
CD CD CD CD CD CD CD CD CD CD CD CD OCDCDCDCDCDCDCDCDCDCDCDCD
cd ??1 N n rr m to 1? oo co cd r?? t.O'-?CMoo'?intosoooio ???
1? r-^. i>~. r-? r^. i-?^ r-. r-. i? r--. oo oo o_ r>~ i? 1?t-^r<r-~r^r-.r-.r^.oooo
This content downloaded from 203.130.107.115 on Wed, 16 Aug 2017 11:24:30 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
4i8 THOMAS S. NOONAN
TABLE VIII
?o
O + ? t* C <U O r? CM 00 ?a
O O) (OU O I I I I I I I I
+j 0 +-> ?-?oooooooo
to <u o?f- ?-ti-??r-c\icr>?<a-ir>ior^
This content downloaded from 203.130.107.115 on Wed, 16 Aug 2017 11:24:30 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
WHEN AND HOW DIRHAMS REACHED RUSSIA 419
chronological group of 'Abb?sid dirhams. If hoards from the same
decade can differ amongst themselves and with hoards only two decades
apart in time, we should not expect contemporaneous hoards from two
distinct regions to be identical. Within the basic pattern of relatively
new 'Abb?sid dirhams, many variations appeared in the Caucasus.
Consequently, it should be no surprise, if early Russian and Caucasian
hoards had a similar origin, that they might display different patterns
within a larger common framework.
50
STARAIA LADOGA, 787 ZAVALISHINQ, 810
40
30
20
10
50
40 UGQDICHI, 813
30
20
10
50 cucdcdcdcdcdcdcdcdcdcdcdcd
'-O'HcsiroTi'LOiONoocDO'-'
a.r-.r-.r>.r^f^f-^r-r^.r^r^.oooo
40
KNIASHCHINO, 808
30
Table IX.
20
THE CHRONOLOGICAL COMPOSITION
10 OF EARLY RUSSIAN DIRHAM HOARDS
EXPRESSED IN PERCENTAGES
0
, C/,>C/?cO</?C/?c/?C/'?</^C/?t',t'', .tn
O CD O O CDCDCDCDCDCD CD CD CD
?- cd ??iCNioo^fLocor-??oo .cr> CD ??
CLNrNN.rs|s.rsNNisivoooo
This content downloaded from 203.130.107.115 on Wed, 16 Aug 2017 11:24:30 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
420 THOMAS S. N00NAN
This content downloaded from 203.130.107.115 on Wed, 16 Aug 2017 11:24:30 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
WHEN AND HOW DIRHAMS REACHED RUSSIA
TABLE X
5-? .2
*3 X S <3 u ?o v>
?? ?. ? C ?
TABLE XI
1A C
3 T
2? 'S ? s
S? o ** 4= 8. ?
Staraia
787 30 63 27 3 3 3
Ladoga
Krivianskaia 806 79 19 61 11 5 1 1
Kniashchino 808 73 23 27 18 1 19 4
Zavalishino 810 46 24 43 13 2 9 2 4 2
Ugodichi 813 121 27 50 12 4 2 2 2 1
This content downloaded from 203.130.107.115 on Wed, 16 Aug 2017 11:24:30 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
422 THOMAS S. NOON AN
hoards. We can thus conclude that the sole Russian hoard of the late
eighth century is compatible with the Kariagino hoard from the Caucasus
while the hoards of both regions from the early ninth century are compa
rable in general terms and contain some of the same variations.
As a final test of the compatibility of early Caucasian and early
Russian dirham hoards, their regional distribution will be examined.
The data for the Caucasian hoards is found in Table x. As this table
demonstrates, four regions are very strongly represented: Iraq, northern
Africa, Jib?l, and Transcaucasia. By and large, the dirhams from Iraq
constitute the strongest regional component. They are present in every
hoard and always in significant numbers?the exact figures range between
1/5 and 3/4 of the entire hoard. But, as usual, there are significant
fluctuations. In the two earliest hoards, with their large Umayyad
element, Iraq dirhams are clearly the majority component. This
preponderance reflects the large output of W?sit and Mad?nat al-Sal?m
more than anything else. The commanding position of Iraq dirhams
continued in the three smaller hoards of the 780^ although it is question
able how much reliance can be placed in their data. The five hoards of
the early ninth century show a decline in the position of Iraq dirhams.
They do not constitute a majority of any hoard and in two cases are
outnumbered by north African dirhams. In the last three hoards, Iraq
dirhams compose about 40 % of each hoard but in each case there are a
very significant number of dirhams from two other regions. In general,
the preponderance of Iraq dirhams in hoards from the late eighth century
gives way to a more balanced geographical distribution in hoards from
the early ninth century.
North African dirhams form a very insignificant part of the two
earliest Caucasian hoards. However, the hoards of the early ninth
century display symptoms bordering on schizophrenia. In the 803/04
Agdam and Petrovskoe hoards, African dirhams are clearly the largest
component and come very close to forming a majority. In the other
three hoards, however, they form a much smaller proportion. In two
of these three cases, the percentage of African dirhams does not exceed
5%. If we use the percentage of African dirhams as a criterion, the
early ninth-century hoards from the Caucasus can be divided into two
distinct groups: those where African dirhams compose the largest com
ponent and those where they are only present in small numbers.
Jib?l is probably the region whose representation in Caucasian hoards
is most consistent. In the two earliest hoards, the number of Jib?l
dirhams is very modest, never exceeding 10%. In the five hoards of
the early ninth century, Jib?l dirhams compose from 14 % to 28 % of the
entire hoard, roughly between 1/7 and 2/7. Jib?l dirhams consistently
form a large element in these hoards but never the largest element.
Transcaucasian dirhams form slightly over 10% of the two earliest
Caucasian hoards. In the hoards from the early ninth century, we again
note some schizophrenia between the 803/04 Agdam and Petrovskoe
hoards, on the one hand, and the three remaining hoards on the other.
In the former, Transcaucasian dirhams are either a very small proportion
or absent entirely. In the latter hoards, however, they form between
18 % and 26 % of all coins. It is important to note that this division of
This content downloaded from 203.130.107.115 on Wed, 16 Aug 2017 11:24:30 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
WHEN AND HOW DIRHAMS REACHED RUSSIA 423
hoards according to Transcaucasian dirhams corresponds exactly to that
found when examining north African dirhams. In other words, we seem
to find a definite correlation: those hoards with a large percentage of
African dirhams have few or none from Transcaucasia while hoards with
a fairly significant number of Transcaucasian dirhams (1/5 to 1/4)
contain a comparatively small number of African dirhams. This corre
lation also extends to the Iraq dirhams; those hoards with a very large
north African component have significantly fewer Iraq dirhams and vice
versa. We therefore find two distinct groups among the Caucasian hoards
of the early ninth century based on their regional distribution.
The Caucasian hoards contain coins from nine other regions. How
ever, in many cases, this means only that a few dirhams from a region are
present in one or two hoards. The Kirovabad hoard has coins from
seven of these nine regions but only those from Syria are significant.
This circumstance would seem to reflect the large number of active
Umayyad mints, especially Dimashq, represented in the coin stock from
which this hoard was composed. Several areas have a few coins in three
of the five hoards from the early ninth century, but only the 9 % Taba
rist?n drachms in the 803/04 Agdam hoard seems worth noting.
Table xi contains data on the regional distribution of the early
Russian dirham hoards. As before, let us focus initially on the dirhams
from Iraq, Africa, Jib?l, and Transcaucasia. Iraq dirhams form the
preponderant component in the 787 Ladoga hoard composing almost
2/3 of all coins. This clear dominance of Iraq dirhams corresponds to
what we encountered in the two earliest Caucasian hoards. As was the
case with the Caucasian hoards, the percentage of Iraq dirhams clearly
declines in Russian hoards of the early ninth century. Instead of 2/3,
they now compose only 1/5 to 1/4 of all coins. These figures are compa
rable to those in the 803/04 Agdam and Petrovskoe hoards and are much
less than those in the other three ninth-century Caucasian hoards. The
consistency of the Russian hoards thus contrasts with the mild schizo
phrenia of the Caucasian hoards.
Some years ago, Richard Fasmer noted that one of the distinctive
characteristics of the early Russian dirham hoards was their high percent
age of north African dirhams. According to Fasmer, the decline in
the relative number of African dirhams only came in hoards whose most
recent dirham dated to ca. 825/26 or later.19 Table xi confirms Fasmer's
observation. North African dirhams composed an important part of
every early Russian hoard with the figures ranging from about 1/4 to
slightly over 3/5 of all coins. Unlike the Iraq dirhams, there is little
consistency or pattern with those from north Africa. The 787 Ladoga
and 808 Kniashchino hoards contain the exact same percentage, 27%.
The percentages in the other three hoards are all greater, but also vary
considerably amongst themselves ranging from 43% to 61%. North
African dirhams constituted a very significant although highly variable
component of the Russian hoards. Despite this fluctuation, the 803/04
Agdam and Petrovskoe hoards are clearly closer to the Russian hoards
than to the other early ninth-century Caucasian hoards in this respect.
We shall return to the problem of north African dirhams later and
attempt to explain why they were so important in all Russian and some
This content downloaded from 203.130.107.115 on Wed, 16 Aug 2017 11:24:30 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
424 THOMAS S. NOONAN
This content downloaded from 203.130.107.115 on Wed, 16 Aug 2017 11:24:30 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
WHEN AND HOW DIRHAMS REACHED RUSSIA 425
Caucasian hoards, but composed only a relatively small part of other
Caucasian hoards.
Aside from the Ladoga hoard, where their representation was minimal,
Jib?l dirhams consistently formed between 10% and 20% of the early
ninth-century Russian hoards. Of the three main regional components
in these hoards, Jib?l dirhams unquestionably had the most uniform and
equal distribution. We have already noted the same consistency of
Jib?l dirhams in the ninth-century Caucasian hoards although the
figures there were slightly higher on average (14% to 28%). Using this
one criterion, it could be argued that the early Russian and early Cau
casian hoards were either derived from the same general source, a source
2 er ?- ?5
'ZZ j= to "??
? < =i W H- 5? -^ K IT X CO 5 W CO
? < -^ w 1? ac-Si? u. a: w s: ? co
This content downloaded from 203.130.107.115 on Wed, 16 Aug 2017 11:24:30 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
426 THOMAS S. NOONAN
This content downloaded from 203.130.107.115 on Wed, 16 Aug 2017 11:24:30 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
WHEN AND HOW DIRHAMS REACHED RUSSIA 427
this respect. To facilitate this task, Tables xii and xin portray our
data on regional distribution in a more graphic form. The larger hoards
from both areas are composed primarily of coins from four regions: Iraq,
Africa, Jib?l, and Transcaucasia. The only other region which might be
included is Tabarist?n and then only for the early ninth century. The
dirhams from Jib?l constitute the single most common feature among
all these hoards. They form a small percentage of all the late eighth
century hoards (3 %-y %) and a more significant percentage of all early
ninth-century hoards, n%-i8% in Russian hoards and i4%-28% in
Caucasian hoards.
When we go beyond the Jib?l dirhams, significant differences appear.
These differences are not entirely between Russian and Caucasian hoards
as one might expect. Instead, two ninth-century hoards from the
Caucasus diverge from all the other early hoards of this area and in their
regional composition come very close to the contemporaneous Russian
pattern. The Russian pattern of the early ninth century was already
foreshadowed in the 787 Ladoga hoard which was composed of about
1/4 north African dirhams. This figure never declines in the early ninth
century hoards and in one case reaches 61%. The large African com
ponent meant a reduction in the percentage of Iraq dirhams to a level of
20%-25% and a minimal Transcaucasian presence, i%-5%. The
majority Caucasian pattern of the early ninth century was also fore
shadowed in the earliest hoards from this area. Here, we find a very
large Iraq component which clearly predominates. Transcaucasian
dirhams constitute a significant percentage while there are only a minimal
number of north African coins. The majority Caucasian hoards of the
early ninth century are distinguished by a very high percentage of Iraq
dirhams (37%~42%), a significant number of Transcaucasian coins
(i8%-26%), and relatively few north African dirhams (3%-n%).
The minority hoards from the Caucasus (803/04 Agdam and Petrov
skoe) are in every respect closer to the contemporaneous Russian hoards
than to the majority Caucasian hoards. In fact, the regional distribution
of the 810 Zavalishino and 813 Ugodichi hoards is almost identical with
these two Caucasian hoards: Iraq?24% and 27% vs. 21% and 28%;
north Africa?43 % and 50 % vs. 47 % and 44 %; Jib?l?13 % and 12 % vs.
14 % and 25 %; Transcaucasia?2 % and 4 % vs. 5 % and 0 %; and, finally,
Tabarist?n?9% and 2% vs. 9% and 3%. This similarity is so striking
that it clearly raises the possibility that in the early ninth century, all
Russian and some Caucasian hoards had a common origin or source. In
any case, we cannot view the hoards from the Caucasus as forming one
homogeneous mass. These hoards, it turns out, were quite different.
Let us now turn to the problem of why north African dirhams were
a significant component in all Russian and some Caucasian hoards while
constituting a minimal part of the other Caucasian hoards. These
differences are graphically depicted in Table xiv. The answer, at least
for some of the hoards, emerges if we examine the oldest 'Abb?sid dirham
from each African mint in the early Russian hoards:
This content downloaded from 203.130.107.115 on Wed, 16 Aug 2017 11:24:30 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
428 THOMAS S. NOONAN
Kirovabad Kariagino
none
al-'Abbas?yah, 769/70
Agdam, 803/04
al-'Abbas?yah, 777/78
Ifr?q?yah, 780/81
This content downloaded from 203.130.107.115 on Wed, 16 Aug 2017 11:24:30 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
WHEN AND HOW DIRHAMS REACHED RUSSIA 429
Tudgha, 790/91
Misr, 798/99
Petrovskoe
al-eAbbas?yah, 780/81
Ifr?q?yah, 781/82
Bad'a, 792/93
Agdam, 804/05 Arkhava
al-'Abb?siyah, 787/88 Ifr?q?yah, 781/82
Ifr?q?yah, 782/83
Wal?la, 790/91
This data confirms our conclusion drawn from the early Russian hoards,
namely, that north African dirhams could only have begun to reach the
Near East in the 770^. Furthermore, the north African dirhams reach
ing the Near East at this time seem to have come primarily from one
mint, i.e., al-'Abbas?yah. The number of dirhams from Tudgha to reach
the Near East seems to have been comparatively small. Dirhams from
the other major north African mint, Ifr?q?yah, could only have appeared
in the Near East in the early 780^. Since half of the Caucasian hoards
were composed by the late 780^, they were apparently drawn from a coin
stock in which north African dirhams did not yet constitute a significant
element. The bulk of the coins in these early Caucasian hoards came, as
would be expected, from neighboring Iraq.
In addition to the general chronological considerations, there are more
specific factors which apply to these five hoards. As we have already
seen, about 90% of the Kirovabad hoard was composed of pre-'Abb?sid
dirhams, i.e., dirhams struck long before north African dirhams reached
the Near East in large quantities. Given the large number of older coins
in this hoard, it is not surprising to find so few north African 'Abb?sid
dirhams in it.
An examination of the 'Abb?sid dirhams in the Kariagino hoard
indicates that the dirhams from all non-Transcaucasian mints were struck
in 778/79 or earlier. The most recent dirhams in this hoard come from
Arm?n?yah and were thus most probably mixed with the other dirhams
after they had reached the Caucasus. Apparently, north African
'Abb?sid dirhams had not yet reached the Near East in significant
quantities by the late 770^.
The hoards from Tauz, Verkhnii Adiaman, and Sepnekeran are all
small to start with so we cannot be sure how representative they are.
Furthermore, both the Tauz and Verkhnii Adiaman hoards are composed
primarily of non-Transcaucasian dirhams struck by 780 or so to which
slightly later dirhams from a Transcaucasian mint (al-H?r?niyah) have
been added. Thus, the bulk of the coins in these mini-hoards may have
reached the Transcaucasus and circulated there briefly before being
buried. Finally, it is difficult to say how much faith we can place in the
few dirhams from the Sepnekeran hoard which have been preserved. It
is thus possible to find reasons for the paucity or absence of north African
dirhams in the five Caucasian hoards dating to the late eighth century.
But, I am not certain that these reasons completely explain why the
This content downloaded from 203.130.107.115 on Wed, 16 Aug 2017 11:24:30 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
430 THOMAS S. NOON AN
earliest Russian hoard, Staraia Ladoga, which dates to almost the exact
same time as the three early mini-hoards from the Transcaucasus, should
have 27 % African dirhams while the mini-hoards do not contain even a
single north African dirham.
When we turn to the five Caucasian hoards from the early ninth
century, the comparable Russian hoards would lead one to expect to
find a sizeable percentage of African dirhams in each. In fact, two of
these five (Petrovskoe and 803/04 Agdam) do have such a concentration.
Therefore, we should attempt to see if there are any special circumstances
which might explain the low percentages in the other three hoards. The
Agdam hoard of 804/05 contains four north African dirhams of the 780^
and 790's. At the same time, its most recent coins (800 and later) come
from Transcaucasia and Jib?l. These dirhams suggest that the hoard
as a whole might have been put together from dirhams circulating in the
Transcaucasus and neighboring Jib?l rather than in Iraq.
Unfortunately, the information at my disposal concerning the dates
of the dirhams in the Pshaveli hoard is incomplete. The available data
nevertheless prompts several observations. First of all, this hoard does
consist of 11% north African dirhams. While this figure is not compa
rable to those found in the early Russian hoards, it is significantly greater
than that found in seven of the eight other hoards from the Transcau
casus. Secondly, the Pshaveli hoard seems to share many attributes
with the 804/05 Agdam hoard, i.e., many very recent Transcaucasian
dirhams and a comparable percentage of Iraq and Jib?l dirhams. We can
thus conjecture that this hoard was composed in the Transcaucasus from
coins circulating there and in adjacent provinces, but with evidence of
greater contact with Iraq.
While our information about the Arkhava hoard is less than optimum,
it does not suggest either a hoard which was put together in the Trans
caucasus from the coins available there nor does it have more than a
minimal representation of north African dirhams. The hoard, however,
is somewhat unique: it is the only hoard found along the western Trans
caucasian river basin and it is the only hoard which seems to have
contained dinars originally.
The special reasons which might explain the paucity of north African
dirhams in the three Caucasian hoards of the early ninth century may not
be completely convincing. It is, of course, tempting to attribute the
divergent percentage of African dirhams to different areas in which the
Caucasian and Russian hoards were composed or to different routes by
which they reached their find-spots. This approach, however, only
seems to have limited applicability. As we shall see, the same route was
apparently used in the export of the earliest dirhams to both Trans
caucasia and European Russia. Non-Transcaucasian dirhams may have
circulated in the Caucasus for some time before being deposited, but
originally they were drawn from the same general Near Eastern coin
stock as the early Russian hoards. And, there is no reason to believe that
representative coins in circulation in the Near East, especially in Iraq
and Jib?l, would be so divergent if the coins constituted a true random
sample. In short, one is forced to the conclusion that there must have
been some conscious, non-random factor which best explains why north
This content downloaded from 203.130.107.115 on Wed, 16 Aug 2017 11:24:30 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
WHEN AND HOW DIRHAMS REACHED RUSSIA 4SI
African dirhams were always exported to Russia in significant quantities
but usually only appeared in Transcaucasia in small numbers.
In his study of the medieval Russian monetary system, V. L. Ianin
uncovered some very interesting metrological information about the
earliest dirhams to reach European Russia. The norm for 325 north
African dirhams from the period 769-826 which were weighed was between
2.7 and 2.8 grams. On the other hand, the norms for 'Abb?sid dirhams
from Near Eastern mints which were struck during this same period was
2.8 to 2.9 grams. Thus, the earliest 'Abb?sid dirhams issued in the Near
East consistently weighed .1 gram or so more than dirhams of the same era
struck in northern Africa.20
Since the weight of coins was frequently checked, this difference of
around .1 gram between the typical north African and Near Eastern
dirham was not likely to go unnoticed. It would not take very long for
people within the Near Eastern provinces of the caliphate to learn that
the north African dirham was probably worth slightly less than the Near
Eastern dirham. Therefore, it is quite likely that the inhabitants of
Transcaucasia were aware of the difference and proved reluctant to accept
this slightly lighter north African dirham. On the other hand, the
peoples of European Russia, living outside the caliphate, were less attuned
to the finer distinctions between dirhams and would thus not share this
aversion to north African dirhams. We can consequently envision a
situation wherein north African dirhams sent to the Near East as tribute
and as payment for debts were not universally welcomed as currency in
other parts of the caliphate because their value would usually be less than
that of an ordinary dirham. However, the distinction was not so great
that north African dirhams could not be used in foreign trade.
It might be argued that the weight differential between north African
and Near Eastern dirhams was not sufficient to cause discrimination
against the former. Furthermore, since dirhams were easily weighed,
any shortfall in the north African coins would quickly be detected and
compensation made by adding extra dirhams. In other words, 100 Near
Eastern dirhams might weigh 285 grams while 100 north African coins
would be 275 grams. This difference could be quickly determined and
remedied by adding another 3.6 north African dirhams to that pile.
Roughly speaking, 29 average African dirhams would weigh the equivalent
of 28 average Near Eastern dirhams. Thus, the difference in weight
might not have been the crucial factor in creating a resistance to the
acceptance of north African dirhams in the Transcaucasus.
Perhaps the best explanation can be found in the x-ray fluorescence
analysis of 200 dirhams from medieval Polish hoards which was conducted
by Zofia Stos-Fertner.21 This study clearly suggests that north African
dirhams were, on average, less fine than those from the Near East at the
very time when north African 'Abb?sid coins first began to reach the
Near East. In Table xv, Part A, Stos-Fertner's data on 9 north African
dirhams from the mid-770's to mid-78o's shows that the silver content
ranged between a high of 92.1 % and a low of 81.2 %. Six of the 9 north
African dirhams were composed of less than 90 % silver and the average
silver content was 87.5%. The north African dirhams also tended to
weigh between 2.55 and 2.65 grams. Only one coin (2.71) exceeded this
This content downloaded from 203.130.107.115 on Wed, 16 Aug 2017 11:24:30 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
432 THOMAS S. NOONAN
range while only one fell below it. The average weight was 2.57 grams.
We thus find that the average north African dirham studied from the
period in question consisted of 2.25 grams silver (2.57 x .875).
TABLE XV
(776/77-786/87)22
A. North Africa
Wania, ? 2.56 83.8 2.15
al-rAbb?siyah, 776/77 2.57 81.2 2.09
782/83 2.54 88.5 2.25
782/83 2.71 86.5 2.34
782/83 2.61 92.0 2.40
783/84 2.64 92.1 2.43
787/88 2.63 90.4 2.38
774/ 5-785/ 6 2.65 83.4 2.21
Ifr?q?yah, 787/88 2.23 89.8 2.00
B. Near East
?rm?nTyah, 778/79 2.85 97.7 2.78
AdharblyjSn, 783/84 2.84 89.3 2.54
M?d?nat al-Sal?m, 776/77 2.82 99.1 2.79
778/79 2.85 97.5 2.78
778/79 2.76 97.2 2.68
778/79 2.92 98.5 2.88
782/83 2.86 97.8 2.80
783/84 2.80 91.6 2.56
784/85 2.52 88.4 2.23
al-Basra, 776/77 2.82 97.1 2.74
776/77 2.83 99.0 2.80
783/84 2.85 85.7 2.44
al-Muhammad?yah, 776/77 2.61 97.7 2.55
776/77 2.45 96.2 2.36
782/83 2.83 92.8 2.63
782/83 2.83 95.3 2.70
783/84 2.90 93.3 2.71
784/85 2.87 97.6 2.80
784/85 2.71 92.8 2.51
Kirman, 783/84 88.5 2.44
N?s?b?r, 782/83 93.6 2.63
This content downloaded from 203.130.107.115 on Wed, 16 Aug 2017 11:24:30 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
WHEN AND HOW DIRHAMS REACHED RUSSIA 433
2.5~
s\lprii|VlJi
NORTH
AFRICAN NEAR EASTERN DIRHAMS
DIRHAMS
Table XVI. THE TOTAL SILVER CONTENT (IN GRAMS) OF THIRTY DIRHAMS
OF THE MID-770S TO MID-78?S
This content downloaded from 203.130.107.115 on Wed, 16 Aug 2017 11:24:30 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
434 THOMAS S. NOONAN
the last quarter of the eighth century probably knew that north African
dirhams tended to be less fine. While the government in Baghdad may
have been obliged to accept these dirhams, there was no reason why
others had to follow suit and thus risk the loss of almost one-half gram
of silver per coin. Consequently, a resistance to north African dirhams
in a region such as Transcaucasia is both natural and intelligible. On the
other hand, the north African 'Abb?sid dirhams were close enough to the
Near Eastern dirhams so that foreigners, unaware of their lesser fineness,
would probably accept them at par value.
A solution to the mystery concerning the different percentages of
north African dirhams in early Caucasian and Russian hoards can thus
be advanced. This difference is due, to some extent, to the time when
north African dirhams initially reached the Near East. Many early
Caucasian hoards were composed before north African dirhams reached
the Near East in large numbers. But, this difference resulted primarily
from a resistance to the less fine, slightly lighter and hence less valuable
north African dirham in Transcaucasia. The difference can therefore
be attributed to conscious discrimination and not some unexplicable
aberration in the random sample of coins circulating in the Near East.
This content downloaded from 203.130.107.115 on Wed, 16 Aug 2017 11:24:30 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
WHEN AND HOW DIRHAMS REACHED RUSSIA 435
were bilingual?Pehlevi and Sogdian. Under the 'Abb?sids, the local
Arab governors began to issue coins with Arabic legends, either bilingual
(Sogdian and Arabic) or entirely in Arabic. All of these coins are
considered drachms of one type or another, Bukh?r-Khud?t or 'Abb?sid.
Finally, we see the striking of normal caliphate dirhams (2.97 grams) in
Samarqand (767/68) and Bukhara (765/66) although they were not
issued on a regular basis by these mints until 790 and 808 respectively.
Ernazarova, with good reason, argues that the local drachms of
Bahram v formed the basis of monetary circulation in Central Asia during
the eighth century while the coins issued by the local 'Abb?sid governors,
the so-called 'Abb?sid drachms, were most numerous in the finds from
Afrasiab (the fortress of Samarqand) and vicinity.27 In addition, Masson
concluded that the paucity of Central Asian finds of regular dirhams issued
in other parts of the caliphate indicated that their circulation did not
become widespread in Central Asia until the very end of the eighth
century.28 Thus, the silver coin stock of Transoxiana until the early
ninth century was apparently characterized by a relative abundance of
local coins based on the Sasanian drachm and very few post-reform dir
hams, particularly those issued elsewhere in Islam.
The hoards of silver coins found in Central Asia during the eighth and
early ninth centuries are listed in Appendix iv. Of the six hoards of
this time from Transoxiana, we can safely discount the four dirhams found
at Guzar (No. i). This hoard, or, more properly speaking, mini-hoard, is
so small that it is of very little scientific value other than to show that a
few eighth-century dirhams, Umayyad as well as 'Abb?sid, did reach
beyond the Oxus/Amu Darya by the very end of the eighth century. The
two hoards of the early ninth century recently reported from the excava
tions at Afrasiab (No. 4 and 5) have great potential significance. Unfor
tunately, I have not been able to uncover any subsequent analysis of
these hoards beyond the initial brief notice. As a result, there is no way
of knowing precisely what types of dirhams were contained in them.
Were they composed of regular 'Abb?sid dirhams struck outside of
Transoxiana or were they really the so-called cAbb?sid drachms that
were issued in Transoxiana by local officials up to about the time of al
Arn?n?29 In either case, the publication of these two hoards will be of
great value.
A current description of eighth-century hoards of silver coins from
Transoxiana must be based primarily on the three hoards with more than
a few coins for which we have more abundant information (No. 2, 3, 6).
The first of these three hoards (No. 2) consisted of six Umayyad dirhams
and twelve local Bukhara drachms. While this hoard is small, it does
point to two possible conclusions: 1) regular caliphate dirhams from
elsewhere tended to be deposited along with the local drachms, and 2)
the local drachms predominated in these mixed hoards. The second
hoard (No. 3) appears to confirm both conclusions. The short account
thus far published indicates that the approximately 180 coins examined
were regular caliphate dirhams and Bukh?r-Khud?t drachms. While the
author does not give the percentage of each type, it would be reasonable
to assume that the latter prevailed. Thus, regular dirhams were buried
together with local drachms and the local coins probably formed the
This content downloaded from 203.130.107.115 on Wed, 16 Aug 2017 11:24:30 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
436 THOMAS S. NOONAN
larger component. The last of the three hoards (No. 6) is small (only
ten coins) and contained local 'Abb?sid drachms exclusively. It seems
to bear out the predominance of local silver coins as well as the paucity
of imported dirhams.
While the evidence on eighth-century hoards from Transoxiana is
not as abundant as one would like, the data we do possess supports the
observations on Central Asian coinage of this period made by Ernazarova
and Masson. Up until the ninth century, the local silver coinage was
evidently predominant while dirhams brought from elsewhere in the
caliphate apparently composed only a relatively small part of the coins in
circulation. This situation explains why we have mixed hoards in which
local drachms outnumber imported dirhams and why some drachm hoards
do not contain any dirhams.
The most important conclusion to be drawn from our limited evidence
on the eighth-century hoards from Transoxiana is that these hoards differ
very fundamentally from contemporaneous hoards in the Caucasus and
Russia. The latter two groups, despite some variations, were composed
primarily of fairly recently minted 'Abb?sid dirhams struck in four main
regions. The hoards from Central Asia, on the contrary, are distinguished
by a preponderance of locally minted drachms which are sometimes
mixed with a lesser quantity of dirhams originating outside Transoxiana.
Given these profound differences, we can only conclude that the earliest
dirham hoards from Russia were not exported via Transoxiana. If the
Russian hoards were composed, in toto or in part, from the Central Asian
coin stock, then we could justifiably expect that the hoards found in both
regions would have certain basic similarities and that the Russian hoards
would contain some of the Bukhara and 'Abb?sid drachms characteristic
of Transoxiana in the eighth century. The data currently available
forces us to rule out the Transoxianan route for the export of dirhams to
Russia in the late eighth and early ninth centuries.
During the past fifteen years, several dirham hoards of the late eighth
and early ninth centuries from various parts of the Near East have been
published. Information on these hoards is found in Appendix v. Of the
seven hoards listed, one (No. 3) is only noted for the sake of completeness.
The data about this hoard is so vague that we do not know where it was
found nor how many coins it contained. Furthermore, the coins mention
ed were all issued by the 'Abb?sid governors of Tabarist?n. While such
coins do occur in various hoards of this period, a hoard of any size compos
ed entirely of these half-dirhams would certainly be an anomaly. In
short, it seems most appropriate not to include this hoard in our analysis
until more information becomes available.
While we would naturally desire as much data as possible, the other
six hoards seem to provide both geographical and chronological balance.
They come from such diverse parts of the Near East as Saudi Arabia,
Syria, Turkey, Iran and Iraq. Consequently, we can form some idea of
the general characteristics of the Near Eastern coin stock as opposed to
the features of any one given region. We have one hoard from the 780^,
one from the 790's, two from the 800's, and two from the 8io's. In other
words, the hoards are fairly evenly distributed over the time period in
question. The 819/20 hoard from Iran falls just outside the temporal
This content downloaded from 203.130.107.115 on Wed, 16 Aug 2017 11:24:30 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
WHEN AND HOW DIRHAMS REACHED RUSSIA 437
boundaries employed for Russia and the Caucasus (ca. 813), but it has
been included in order to maximize our knowledge of the Near Eastern
coin stock. While the twenty-five Russian and Caucasian hoards clearly
outnumber the six Near Eastern hoards, the latter group includes some
very large hoards. The Denizbaji hoard from Turkey, for example,
contained over 2 500 dirhams, the 819/20 Iranian hoard consisted of
more than 650 coins, and the Umm Hajarah hoard from Syria was
composed of over 400 coins. The large size of the Near Eastern hoards
reduces the chance that fluctuations in a few coins could materially
distort our calculations. In short, although we do not have as many
Near Eastern hoards as we do from Russia or the Caucasus, our six hoards
are widely dispersed geographically, well distributed chronologically,
and large enough to be representative of the coin stock.
TABLE XVII
+ > a
?o a?
? 2
al-Khobar 784/8512 42 12 5 67
Nippur 793/94 76 1 11 87
How, then, do the Near Eastern hoards compare with those from
Russia and the Caucasus? Are the similarities sufficient to document
our hypothesis that dirhams first reached Russia by way of the Caucasus/
Caspian route? The dynastic breakdown of the Near Eastern hoards is
given in Table xvn. Perhaps the most striking dynastic aspect of these
hoards is the overwhelming predominance of 'Abb?sid dirhams in five of
the six hoards. In these five hoards, the percentage of 'Abbasid coins
began at 67 % in the 784/85 Arabian hoard and reached a high of 91 % in
the 819/20 Iranian hoard. We must also note the great consistency of
the figures from four of the hoards: 79 %, 80 %, 87 %, and 91 %. It would
thus seem fair to conclude that most Near Eastern hoards of this time were
composed overwhelmingly of 'Abb?sid dirhams with the exact figures
ranging from 2/3 to 9/10 of the entire hoard.
13
This content downloaded from 203.130.107.115 on Wed, 16 Aug 2017 11:24:30 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
438 THOMAS S. NOONAN
This content downloaded from 203.130.107.115 on Wed, 16 Aug 2017 11:24:30 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
WHEN AND HOW DIRHAMS REACHED RUSSIA 439
We can summarize by stating that Sasanian and Sasanian-type coins
were found in the 78o's, but after then they disappeared from circulation
almost entirely with the exception of Syria and, to a lesser extent, Iraq.
None of the other dynastic components reached 10 % of any hoard.
A small number of Idr?sid dirhams were found in three hoards. However,
there doesn't seem to be any pattern here. They are present and absent
in earlier as well as later hoards and in both Iraq hoards. A relatively
few coins from several other dynasties appear in one to three of the
hoards, but they do not seem to have any particular importance.
In addition to 'Abb?sid and Umayyad dirhams, the average Near
100 n
o
00
This content downloaded from 203.130.107.115 on Wed, 16 Aug 2017 11:24:30 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
440 THOMAS S. N00NAN
TABLE XIX
O) Q)
+J O
(O O)
This content downloaded from 203.130.107.115 on Wed, 16 Aug 2017 11:24:30 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
WHEN AND HOW DIRHAMS REACHED RUSSIA 44I
The Nippur and Denizbaji hoards, for which we have complete data,
follow the same general trend?relatively few pre-750 coins (11% and
14% respectively) and an overwhelming percentage of more recent,
post-750 dirhams (89% and 86% respectively). Although separated by
fifteen years, there is also a similarity in the distribution of their post
750 dirhams. There are very few coins from the 75o's (4 % and 3 %) and
very few from the period before burial?only 5 % from the 790^ in the
Nippur hoard and only 2 % from the 8oo's and 8io's among the Denizbaji
coins. In fact, the latter hoard has only one coin from the 8io's and its
comparatively few coins of the 8oo's were all struck very early in the
decade. As a result, 80 % of the Nippur hoard dates from the 760^ to
78o's while 80 % of the Denizbaji hoard dates from the 760^ to 79o's. If
we omit the 760^, then 69 % of the Nippur hoard comes from the 770^
to 79o's. The comparable figure for the Denizbaji hoard is 70%. In
short, both hoards are composed primarily of dirhams struck between
770 and 799 with at least half issued between 770 and 789.
50
40 AL-KHOBAR, NIPPUR, I UMM HAJARAH,
X Li
784/85 793/94 808/09
30
20
[-79-]
10
0
50
DENIZBAJI,
40 H KUFAH, 808/09 IRAN, 819/20
811/812
30
E?84?3
20 H -95
"il ?00000000
?-OLOtor^-oocno??1
o.r%.rv.Nivr>.r>.caoo
This content downloaded from 203.130.107.115 on Wed, 16 Aug 2017 11:24:30 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
442 THOMAS S. NOONAN
TABLE XXI
VI C 01 <J V) <o
O T- -Q ?- ro C C
S O E ?- U MS (0
O 3 t/> ?t-3 4-> C 1
?f- z: e <t <o </> its. x
o +J ?- O ?i- l/> o
Ci? O -?=?/> i? &- KO Oft
tu tu <tj <-> cr-t->ci<ofl3&-ct/>
+-> u +-> ros-iTj-Qjarjrtjs
<d a) . o **- s- o s- -i- <tjjc j_uo
qo; 1-0 ?-?zh-^i? i?f-u
al-Khobar 784/85 + + + + +
Nippur 793/94 76 67 7 1 24 1
Unm Hajarah 808/09 199 29 56 4 8 2 111
Kufah 808/09 170 60 16 1 13 2 1 112 112 1
Denizbaji 811/12 2496 47 32 2 11 1+112 1111
Iran 819/20 662 49 29 + 18 11 1 +
This content downloaded from 203.130.107.115 on Wed, 16 Aug 2017 11:24:30 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
WHEN AND HOW DIRHAMS REACHED RUSSIA 443
793/94 Nippur hoard, the highest figure for any Near Eastern hoard.
The two 808/09 hoards typify the great disparities that sometimes arise
in contemporaneous hoards from the same part of the world. The Kufahi
hoard is 60% Iraq while the Umm Hajarah hoard contains almost
exactly half that number (29%). The low percentage of Iraq dirhams
in the latter is due to the very large percentage of north African coins.
It is tempting to attribute this difference to geography, i.e., the path from
north Africa to the Near East led through Syria before reaching Iraq
while one would expect locally minted Iraq coins to predominate in a
hoard from Iraq. However, more hoards from the same time and regions
are needed in order to substantiate such an explanation. Finally, Iraq
dirhams constitute just under half of the two hoards from the 8io's.
Once again the Umm Hajarah hoard proves to be an exception. Iraq
dirhams are the dominant element in all other Near Eastern hoards
(47%-67%). In Umm Hajarah, while composing a large component
(29%), they are much less than the north African dirhams (56%) as well
as the lowest figure from the other hoards (47%).
North African dirhams are the second largest component, particularly
in hoards from the early ninth century. In the two late eighth-century
hoards, they are either absent (al-Khobar) or minimal (7%-Nippur).
These low figures can be explained, in part, by the comparatively small
number of north African dirhams in the Near East at the time these
hoards were composed. It may also be possible that Saudi Arabia lay
to the south of the route from Tunisia to Iraq via Syria. We have
already noted the great discrepancies in the two 808/09 hoards, discrep
ancies which are even more pronounced for north African dirhams
(56 % vs. 16 %). While the Kufah hoard only had 28 % of the north Afri
can component found in the Umm Hajarah hoard, it does nevertheless
point to an increase in the number of north African dirhams reaching Iraq.
Our two hoards of the 810's again show an almost identical figure, ca. 30 %
north African dirhams. If the Iraq predominance was reduced between
the 79o's and 810's from ca. 60 % to ca. 50 %, the north African component
increased from under 10% to ca. 30%.
Transcaucasian dirhams are present in five of the six hoards but
always in very small numbers (less than .5% to 4%). Like the north
African dirhams, they are absent in the al-Khobar hoard. Geography
may provide the best explanation for this omission. In short, Trans
caucasian dirhams are a consistent but very modest component of the
Near Eastern hoards.
Dirhams from Jib?l are found in all of the six hoards. While never
the largest component, they nevertheless constitute a significant factor
in all five hoards for which we have detailed data, ranging from 8 % to
18%. Until we obtain precise information on the al-Khobar or other
late eighth-century hoards, it is not possible to say whether the 24 % in
the Nippur hoard was typical or perhaps due to the proximity of Jib?l to
Iraq. Jib?l dirhams thus form a component of some size in all Near
Eastern hoards but never exceed 25 %.
Before proceeding to the other regions, we should emphasize that the
four chief regions represented in early Russian and Caucasian hoards
were Iraq, north Africa, Transcaucasia, and Jib?l. It is no coincidence
This content downloaded from 203.130.107.115 on Wed, 16 Aug 2017 11:24:30 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
444 THOMAS S. NOONAN
70/u-i UMM I
60
604| N,PPUR HAJARAH I KUFAH DENIZBAJI IRAN
Russian hoards
A. Dynastic
i. 'Abb?sid predominance in every hoard, ca. 48%-ioo%;
between 810/11 and 813 they run 2/3-4/5 'Abb?sid
2. Umayyad in all but two hoards but never over 15 %
This content downloaded from 203.130.107.115 on Wed, 16 Aug 2017 11:24:30 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
WHEN AND HOW DIRHAMS REACHED RUSSIA 445
3. About six different dynasties in the average hoard
4. Sasanian, Tabarist?n, and Idrisid coins (less than .5%
to 24%) in most hoards
5. A small percentage of Arab-Sasanian, Umayyad Gover
nors, Spanish Umayyad, Governors of Tudgha, Ispahbad,
and Aghlabid coins in several hoards.
B. Chronological
1. All hoards overwhelmingly composed of dirhams struck
after 769
2. Pyramidal and U patterns for recent dirhams
C. Regional
1. Primarily Iraq and north African dirhams?the former
predominate in the 787 hoard, the latter in all early
ninth-century hoards although the figures vary greatly
(27%-6i%)
2. Small (under 5 %) number of Transcaucasian dirhams in
every hoard
3. Jib?l coins in every hoard, n%-i8% in early ninth
century hoards
4. Tabarist?n coins in most hoards (1 %-i9 %)
5. A few coins from Khur?s?n, Jazira, Transoxiana, F?rs,
Kh?zist?n, Syria, Kirm?n, Spain and Sist?n in one or
more hoards
A. Dynastic
1. 'Abb?sid predominance in every hoard, ca. 44%-9i%;
between 811/12 and 819/20 they run 4/5 to 9/10 'Abb?sid
2. Umayyad in all hoards but never over 15%
3. About five different dynasties in the average hoard
4. Sasanian, Tabarist?n, and Idrisid coins in half the hoards
(i%-38%)
5. A small percentage of Arab-Sasanian, Umayyad Gover
nors, Spanish Umayyad, Governors of Tudgha, and Aghla
bid coins in several hoards
B. Chronological
1. Overwhelming majority in five of six hoards apparently
struck after 769; in sixth hoard, 40 % post-769
2. Pyramid patterns for recent dirhams
C. Regional
1. Primarily Iraq and north African dirhams?the former
predominant in five of six hoards, the latter few in late
This content downloaded from 203.130.107.115 on Wed, 16 Aug 2017 11:24:30 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
446 THOMAS S. NOON AN
This content downloaded from 203.130.107.115 on Wed, 16 Aug 2017 11:24:30 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
WHEN AND HOW DIRHAMS REACHED RUSSIA 447
Caucasian hoards
A. Dynastic
i. Earliest hoard primarily Umayyad but all other hoards
show an 'Abb?sid predominance; the four hoards of the
8oo's run 8i%-94% 'Abb?sid
2. Umayyad large in late eighth-century hoards (38%
89 %) but less than 10 % in early ninth-century hoards
3. About three and one-half dynasties in the average hoard
4. Sasanian, Tabarist?n, and Idrisid coins (i%-8%) in
several hoards
5. A small percentage of Arab-Sasanian, Umayyad Gover
nors, and Aghlabid coins in several hoards
B. Chronological
1. Two earliest hoards composed primarily of pre-770
dirhams, two later hoards of 780^ dominated by coins
of 75o,s?770,s, but all early ninth-century composed
overwhelmingly of post-769 coins
2. Pyramidal and U patterns for recent dirhams
C. Regional
1. Eighth-century hoards primarily Iraq and very little
north Africa; ninth-century hoards divergent?three
primarily Iraq and only a few north African while two
have north African predominance
2. Large number of Transcaucasian dirhams (i2%-26%)
in most hoards but few or none in two
3. Jib?l coins in every hoard; i4%-28% in early ninth
century hoards
4. Tabarist?n coins in over half the hoards (i%-g%)
5. A few coins from Khur?s?n, Jaz?ra, F?rs, Kh?zist?n,
Syria, Kirm?n, Spain and Sist?n in one or more hoards
We have already seen that the early dirhams to reach Russia did not
come by way of Central Asia. Consequently, they must have been
transported by the Caucasus/Caspian route. Our question thus becomes
whether the early Russian hoards were drawn from the Caucasus as well
as the Near East or whether they were composed in the Near East and
shipped more or less in tact across the Caspian/Caucasus.
The earliest Caucasian hoards are quite different from contempora
neous Russian and Near Eastern hoards due to their large Umayyad
component. At the same time, we do not have hoards of the 770^ from
either Russia or the Near East so we cannot make an exact comparison.
However, the early ninth-century Caucasian hoards show considerable
similarities with contemporaneous hoards from the other two regions in
both their 'Abb?sid predominance and in the dirhams of "lesser" dynas
ties. This same distinction between late eighth and early ninth-century
This content downloaded from 203.130.107.115 on Wed, 16 Aug 2017 11:24:30 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
448 THOMAS S. NOONAN
Minneapolis, 1979.
i. Thomas S. Noonan, "When did dirhams first reach the Ukraine?," Harvard
Ukrainian Studies, 2 (1978): 27-29.
2. See, in particular, R. R. Fasmer, Zavalishinskii klad kuficheskikh monet VIII
IX v. (hereafter ZKFM) (Izvestiia gos. Akademii istorii materiaFnoi kul'tury,
VII, vyp. II) (Leningrad: 1931) and R. R. Fasmer, "Ob izdanii novoi topografii
nakhodok kuficheskikh monet v Vostochnoi Evrope," Izvestiia Akademii nauk
SSSR, otd. obshchestvennykh nauk, 6-7 (1933): 473-484.
3. ZKFM : 13.
This content downloaded from 203.130.107.115 on Wed, 16 Aug 2017 11:24:30 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
WHEN AND HOW DIRHAMS REACHED RUSSIA 449
4- V. L. Ianin, Denezhno-vesovye sistemy russkogo srednevekov'ia : domongoVskii
period (Moscow: 1956): 79-85. For a critique of Ianin's approach to this problem,
see Th. S. Noonan, art. cit. : 30-32.
5. N. F. Kotlar, "Obr?t arabskich dirhem?w na terytorium Ukrainy," Wiado
mosci numizmatyczne, 14 (1970): 19-30.
6. Ulla S. Linder Welin, "The first arrival of oriental coins in Scandinavia and
the inception of the Viking age in Sweden," Fornv?nnen (1974): 22-29.
7. Linder Welin's article is sharply criticized by Johan Callmer, "Oriental coins
and the beginning of the Viking period/' ibid. (1976): 175-185. There is a critique
of Kotlar's views in Th. S. Noonan, art. cit. : 26-40.
8. V. L. Ianin, op. cit. : 104-105.
9. V. V. Kropotkin, "Novye materialy po istorii denezhnogo obrashcheniia v
Vostochnoi Evrope v kontse VHI-pervoi polovine IX v.," in Slaviane i Rus'
(Moscow: 1968): 76; V. V. Kropotkin, Ekonomicheskie sviazi Vostochnoi Evropy v
I tysiacheletii nashei ery (Moscow: 1976): 120-122.
10. P. H. Sawyer, The age of the Vikings (London: 1962): 91-92.
11. Sture Bolin, Studier over Mynt och Myntfynd i ostra och Norra Europa under
Vikingatiden : 102-105 quoted in P. H. Sawyer, op. cit. : 106-107.
12. The question of monetary circulation within Eastern Europe is discussed in
Th. S. Noonan, "Monetary circulation in early medieval Rus': a study of Volga
Bulgar dirham finds", Russian History, 7 (1980): 294-311.
13. E. A. Pakhomov, Monetnye klady Azerbaidzhana i drugikh respublik, kraev
i oblastei Kavkaza (hereafter MKAiK), I-IX (Baku: 1926-1966.)
14. In addition to the Pakhomov volumes, there is a very good study of the
medieval coin finds from Armenia by Kh. A. Mushegian, Denezhnoe obrashchenie
Dviny po numizmaticheskim dannym (hereafter DOD) (Erevan: 1962) and a recent
work on the dirham hoards from Georgia by Irina L. Dzhalaganiia, Topografiia
kuficheskikh monet na territorii Gruzii (hereafter TKMG) (Tbilisi: 1972) which I could
only partially utilize due to the fact that it is in Georgian. As the reader can see
from Appendix 1, the descriptions of the Caucasian dirham hoards found in Pakho
mov, Mushegian, and Dzhalaganiia do not always agree. Fortunately, most of
the discrepancies are minor so that the use of one account in making calculations
does not substantially alter the outcomes in most cases. The author acknowledges,
however, that some readers might have selected alternate accounts for equally
good reasons and that future studies may show his choice to have been inaccurate.
But, until numismatics becomes an exact science and our data always remains
consistent, I do not know of any definitive solution to this problem of divergent
information.
15. MKAiK, I, No. 72:45. The Umayyad dirhams, including one from Arm?
niyah, 721/22, found in the environs of Tbilisi during the second-quarter of the
nineteenth century are sometimes described as a hoard. But, the information
about these dirhams {MKAiK, I, No. 73: 45) does not permit us to consider them as
a true coin hoard.
16. The Arab-Khazar struggle at this time is described in detail by D. M. Dun
lop, The history of the Jewish Khazars (Princeton: 1954): 41-87; W. Barthold
P. B. Golden, "Khazar," in Encyclopaedia of Islam, new ed., IV (1978): 1173
1174; and, M. I. Artamonov, Istoriia Khazar (Leningrad: 1962): 177-192, 202-232.
17. Based on V. L. Ianin, op. cit., Table II, and V. V. Kropotkin, "Novye na
khodki sasanidskikh i kuficheskikh monet v Vostochnoi Evrope," (hereafter "Sas.
mon."), Numizmatika i epigrafika, 9 (1971), N? 12: 79; N? 47:82; N? 59: 83; N? 76:84.
18. Based on V. L. Ianin, op. cit., table I.
19. R. R. Fasmer, "Klad kuficheskikh monet, naidennyi v Novgorode v
1920 g.," Izvestiia gos. Akademii istorii materiaVnoi kul'tury, IV (1925): 267-268;
ZKFM: g, 12.
20. V. L. Ianin, op. cit. : 93-96. See, in particular, Ianin's chart (p. 96) compar
ing the weights of the north African and Near Eastern dirhams from the Elmed
hoard of 821.
21. Zofia Stos-Fertner, "Zastosowanie radioizotopowej analizy fluorescencyjnej
do oznaczania zanieczyszcze? ci?zkimi metalami srebra dirhem?w arabskich,"
Wiadomosci numizmatyczne, 19 (1975): 207-224.
22. Based on the data contained in Stos-Fertner's Annex: 220-223.
23. E. A. Davidovich, "Denezhnoe obrashchenie v Maverannakhre pri Samani
This content downloaded from 203.130.107.115 on Wed, 16 Aug 2017 11:24:30 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
450 THOMAS S. NOONAN
dakh," Numizmatika i epigrafika, 6 (1966): 132-134; Earle R. Caley, "Chemical
composition of some early dirhems," American Numismatic Society Museum Notes,
7 (1957): 211-217.
24. See, for example, the recent study of B. I. Vainberg, Monety drevnego
Khorezma (Moscow: 1977).
25. See, for example, E. A. Davidovich, Numizmaticheskie dannye po sotsial'no
ekonomicheskoi i politicheskoi istorii Srednei Azii X-XVIII vv., Avtoreferat dok
torskoi dissertatsii (Dushanbe-Moscow: 1964).
26. M. E. Masson, "K voprosu o 'chernykh dirhemakh' museiiabi," Trudy
Institu?a istorii i arkheologii Akademii nauk Uzbekskoi SSR, 7 (1955): 175-196;
T. S. Ernazarova, "Denezhnoe obrashchenie Samarkanda po arkheologo-numizma
ticheskim dannym (do nachala IX v.)," Afrasiab, 3 (1974): 155-243, especially
180-183; Jolm Walker, A catalogue of the Arab-Sassanian coins (London: 1941):
lxxx-xcvii; Richard N. Frye, Notes on the early coinage of Transoxiana (Numis
matic Notes and Monographs, No. 113) (New York: 1949). Also see the references
given in Appendix iv.
27. T. S. Ernazarova, art. cit. : 181.
28. M. E. Masson, art. cit : 186-187, quoted in ibid. : 182.
29. J. Walker, op. cit. : xciv-xcvi.
30. Muhammad Abu-1-Faraj al Ush, The silver hoard of Damascus (Damascus:
1972).
This content downloaded from 203.130.107.115 on Wed, 16 Aug 2017 11:24:30 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
WHEN AND HOW DIRHAMS REACHED RUSSIA 451
APPENDIX I
This content downloaded from 203.130.107.115 on Wed, 16 Aug 2017 11:24:30 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
452 THOMAS S. NOONAN
Arm?n?yah, 713/14 (4), 716/17, 717/18, 720/21, year cut off?Umayyad, 763/64
(2), 771/72 (4), year cut off?'Abb?sid
Istakhr, 710/11, 714/15 (2)
al-Andalus, 724/25, 726/27, 732/33
al-B?b, 737/38
al-Basra, 718/19 (3)
al-Taimara, 709/10
al-Jaz?ra, 747/48
Jundai-S?b?r, 709/10, year cut off?Umayyad
D?r?bjird, 710/11, 711/12 (2), 712/13, 713/14
Dimashq, 705/06, 706/07 (3), 707/08 (2), 708/09, 711/12, 712/13, 718/19 (2), 722/
23, 723/24, 726/27, 729/30, 732/33, 739/4?? 74I/42, year cut off?Umayyad (4)
al-Rayy, 762/63, 764/65
S?b?r, 701/02, 711/12
S?q al-Ahw?z, 716/17
al-'Abb?s?yah, 769/70
Kirm?n, 709/10 (2), 710/11
M?hi, 711/12
al-Mub?raka, 727/28
al-Muhammad?yah, 767/68
Marv, 707/08, 708/09, 710/11 (2), 728/29
Mais?n, 699/700
Nahr-T?r?, 713/14
Har?t, 713/14
Hamad?n, 711/12
W?sit, 7?4/?5 (2), 7?5 (3), 705/06 (4), 707/08 (7), 708/09, 709/10 (4), 710/11 (4),
711/12 (7), 712/13 (8), 713/14 (5), 714/15 (3)> 715/16 (2), 717/18 (3), 721/22, 723/
24, 725/26, 726/27 (2), 727/28 (4), 728/29 (4), 730/31 (2), 731/32, 735/36, 737
(2), 737/38 (3), year cut off?Umayyad (8)
Mint cut off, 705, 710/11, 714/15, 745/46, 761/62
Mint and year cut off, Umayyad?13 & Abbasid?1.
5. From Kariagino, Kariagino raion, Azerbaidzh?n SSR, in March 1934, a
hoard of 93 silver coins reached the Sector of Precious Metals in Baku. The earliest
coin dated to 698/99 and the most recent to 782/83. Sixteen coins from this hoard
were sent to the Azerbaidzh?n State Museum (Inventory Catalogue 6678-6693).
[E. A. Pakhomov, MKAiK, II, No 386: 22; Kh. A. Mushegian, DOD: 39, 155,
No 4.]
I. Ispahbads of Tabarist?n (1)
Khursh?d, 731
II. Umayyad (9)
Istakhr, 709/10, 713/14
Ifr?q?yah, 731/32
Jayy, 698/99
al-Mub?raka, 737/38
W?sit, 704/05, 709/10, 717/18, 735/36
III. 'Abb?sid (83)
Arm?n?yah, 760/61, 762/63 (2), 767/68 (2), 768/69, 777/78 (3), 778/79, 781/82,
782/83
* Pakhomov (Vol. II) lists 15 coins from Arm?n?yah, 5 coins with the mint cut
off but not the date, and 14 coins whose mint and date are both cut off. Mushegian,
however, lists 14 coins from Arm?n?yah and 20 with no mint. As best I can
determine, there are at least 14 dirhams struck in Arm?n?yah, at least 19 dirhams
whose mint has been cut off, and apparently one disputed dirham which is either
Arm?n?yah or has its mint cut off.
This content downloaded from 203.130.107.115 on Wed, 16 Aug 2017 11:24:30 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
WHEN AND HOW DIRHAMS REACHED RUSSIA 453
al-Basra, 751/52 (3), 752/53, 753/54, 755/56, 756/57, 75^/59, 760/61, 761/62,
764/65, 777/78
al-Rayy, 764/65
al-K?fah, 749/50 (2), 751/52, 756/57, 758/59, 761/62 (2), 762/63, 763/64
Mad?nat al-Sal?m, 766/67 (3), 767/68 (2), 769/70 (2), 770 (3), 770/71 (4),
771/72 (5), 772/73 (8), 773/74 (10), 775/76, 776/77, 777/7s (2), 778/79 (2)
al-Muhammad?yah, 763/64, 765/66 (2), 766/67
No mint given, 2
6. From Tauz, Tauz raion, Azerbaidzh?n SSR, in October 1933, the Sector of
Precious Metals in Baku obtained a small hoard of 'Abb?sid dirhams. The earliest
coin was struck in 748/49 and the most recent in 786/87.
[E. A. Pakhomov, MKAiK, II, No 388: 22; Kh. A. Mushegian, DOD: 39-40.]
I. * Abb?sid (10)
al-Basra, 748/49, 755/56
Mad?nat al-Sal?m, 767/68, 771/72, 772/73, 774/75, 780/81
al-Muhammad?yah, 768/69
al-H?run?yah, 786/87
Mad?nat Zaranj, 782/83
7. From Agdam, Agdam raion, Azerbaidzh?n SSR, in December 1934, a hoard
of 60 silver coins reached the Sector of Precious Metals. The earliest coin dated
to 595 and the most recent to 803/04. Part of the coins from this hoard reached
the Azerbaidzh?n State Museum in Baku.
[E. A. Pakhomov, MKAiK, II, N? 391: 23; Kh. A. Mushegian, DOD: 40, 155,
No 6.]
I. Sasanian (2)
Khusraw II: NAX, 595; NAR, 614.
II. 'Abb?sid Governors of Tabarist?n (5)
'Umar b. al-'Al?, 777, 779 (2)
Sa'?d b. Da'laj, year distorted
Anonymous, 781
III. Umayyad (2)
W?sit, 713/14, 728/29
IV. Idrisid (1)
'Ali b. Ab? Talib, Tudgha, 790/91
V. Aghlabid (1)
Ibrahim I, Ifr?q?yah, 802
VI. "Abb?sid (48 or 49)*
Arr?n, 802, 803/04
Arm?n?yah, 768/69
Ifr?q?yah, 780/81, 785/86 (2), 786/87, 787/88, 790/91
Bad'a or Tudgha, no date
al-Basra, 755/56, 761/62
Mad?nat Jayy, 778/79
Mad?nat Zaranj, 782/83
al-'Abb?s?yah, 777/78 (2), 778/79 (2), 780/81 (3), 782/83, 783/84, 776/77
785-86, 786/87 (2), 787/88 (3), 789/90, 786/87-795/96
Kirm?n, 785/86
al-K?fah, 756/57
al-Muhammad?yah, 782/83, 784/85, 788/89, 789/90, 796/97 (2), 801/02
Pakhomov said the hoard contained 60 coins but he only enumerated 59.
14
This content downloaded from 203.130.107.115 on Wed, 16 Aug 2017 11:24:30 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
454 THOMAS S. NOONAN
This content downloaded from 203.130.107.115 on Wed, 16 Aug 2017 11:24:30 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
WHEN AND HOW DIRHAMS REACHED RUSSIA 455
9. In the city of Agdam, Agdam raion, Azerbaidzh?n SSR, in April 1935, a hoard
of 79 silver coins was found. The earliest coin was struck under Khusraw II in
626; the most recent dirham dated to 804/05.
[E. A. Pakhomov, MKAiK, III, N? 823: 37-38; Kh. A. Mushegian, DOD : 40-41,
155, No 7.]
1. Sasanian (3)
Khusraw II, 626 (2), 627
II. Umayyad Governors (2)
'Abdallah b. al-Zubair, year unclear (died 692/93)
'Amir-i-viruishnakan [?], year unclear
III. 'Abb?sid Governors of Tabarist?n (1)
Anonymous, 783
IV. Umayyad (6)
V. 'Abb?sid (65?)*
VI. Idrisid (1)
Idr?s I, Wal?la, 790/91
Mad?nat al-Sal?m, 767/68, 769/70, 770, 772/73 (3), 773/74 (2), 774/75, 775/76, 776/77
(3), 798/99
al-Muhammad?yah, 765/66, 766/67, 767/68, 783/84, 788/89 (2), 796/97, 797/98, 801/
02, 802, 804/05
Arr?n, 802/03 (3), 803/04 (3), 804/05 (3)
al-Basra, 750/51, 761/62, 763/64, 764/65 (2), 778/79, 797/98
Arm?n?yah, 766/67, 801/02, 802 (2), 803/04
al-H?run?yah, 785/86, 786/87 (3), 787/88
W?sit, 710/11, 7I3/I4, 738/39, 739/40, 743/44
Mad?nat Jayy, 778/79 (5)
al-K?fah, 749/50 (2), 764/65
Ifr?q?yah, 782/83, 793/94
Mad?nat Balkh, 798/99
Sijist?n, 708/09
Tabarist?n, 763/64
al-Rayy, 763/64
al-'Abb?siyah, 787/88
This content downloaded from 203.130.107.115 on Wed, 16 Aug 2017 11:24:30 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
456 THOMAS S. NOONAN
12. Near a village on the Petrovskoe (now Svetlograd) grain sovkhoz, Petrovskoe
raion, Stavropol' krai, in August 1956, a bulldozer uncovered a small hoard of
silver coins of which a local museum official collected 34. These coins were sent
to the State Historical Museum in Moscow and identified by S. A. Ianina. The
hoard is now preserved in the Stavropol' Museum (No. 12937). The earliest coin
was struck in 686/87 and the most recent in 804/05. Pakhomov believed the
hoard was buried in the first-quarter of the ninth century.
[E. A. Pakhomov, MKAiK, VIII, No 1965: 28-29; V. V. Kropotkin, "Sas. mon.",
No 3: 78.]
I. Umayyad Governors of Iran (1)
al-Hajj?j b. Y?suf, 686/87*
This content downloaded from 203.130.107.115 on Wed, 16 Aug 2017 11:24:30 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
WHEN AND HOW DIRHAMS REACHED RUSSIA 457
II. Ispahbads of Tabarist?n (1)
Khursh?d, Tpurstan, 766 (posthumous)
III. Umayyad (1)
W?sit, 705
IV. 'Abb?sid (31)
al-Mans?r: al-K?fah, 753/54; al-Muhammad?yah, 765/66, 771/72 (2); Mad?nat
al-Sal?m, 772/73 (2)
al-Mahd?: Isbah?n, 782/83; Ifr?q?yah, 781/82, 785/86; al-'Abb?s?yah, 780/81;
Mad?nat al-Sal?m, 777/78, 778/79
ar-Rash?d: Ifr?q?yah, 791/92, 786/87-795/96, 802; Bad'a, 792/93; al-'Abb?
s?yah, 787/88 (2), 790/91, 791/92?, 792/93?, 786/87-795/96, 798/99; al
Mub?raka, 796/97; al-Muhammad?yah, 789/90, 797/98, 802, 804/05;
Mad?nat al-Sal?m, 795/96, 797/98; mint not clear, 799/800
14. A hoard (?) of 32 (?) coins was found somewhere in Georgia during 1924.
[I. L. Dzhalaganiia, TKMG, No 36: 16.]
I. Sasanian? (2)
Khusraw II, 625, 628
II. Umayyad Governors? (1)
680-692
III. Tabarist?n? (4)
740-75i, 759/60, 773/74, 780/81
IV. Umayyad? (12)
710/11, 699/700, 729/30, 711/12, 733/34, 738/39, 739/40, 740/41 (2), 74J/42
(2), 745/46
V. 'Abb?sid? (13)
as-Saff?h (750-754): 752/53, 752/53, 749/50 (2)
al-Mans?r (754"775): 757/58, 759/6o (2), 760/61 (2), 762/63, 763/64, 764/65,
765/66
15. Near the village of Sepnekeran, Lenkoran raion, Azerbaidzh?n SSR, in the
spring of 1961, a hoard apparently composed of several kilograms of silver coins
was found. While most of the coins disappeared, 20 were collected from kolkhoz
niki and the field of the find-spot. Two coins from the hoard had earlier been sent
to the Institute of History of the Azerbaidzh?n SSR. The earliest coin dated to
707/08 and the most recent to 787/88.
[A. V. Ragimov, "Klad kuficheskikh monet iz Lenkoranskogo raiona," Izvestiia
Akademii nauk Azerbaidzhanskoi SSR, Seriia istorii, filosofii i prava, 4 (1966): 55
62.]
I. Umayyad (3)
al-Wal?d I: Wasit, 707/08, 713/14; Man?dhir, 713/14
This content downloaded from 203.130.107.115 on Wed, 16 Aug 2017 11:24:30 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
458 THOMAS S. NOONAN
IL 'Abb?sid (19)
al-Mans?r: al-K?fah, 759/60, 761/62; al-Basra, 763; al-Muhammad?yah, 765/
66 (2), 766/67; Mad?nat al-Sal?m, 772/73, 773/74 (3)
al-Mahd?: Mad?nat al-Sal?m, 774/75, 776/77, 777/78, 781/82; W?sit, 779/80;
Arm?n?yah, 784/85; al-Muhammad?yah, 784/85
al-H?d?: Mad?nat al-Sal?m, 786/87
ar-Rash?d: Sijist?n, 787/88
APPENDIX II
This content downloaded from 203.130.107.115 on Wed, 16 Aug 2017 11:24:30 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
WHEN AND HOW DIRHAMS REACHED RUSSIA 459
9. Mtskheta, Mtskhetskii raion, Georgia, 1902. Nine silver Byzantine coins
of Heraclius, 613-641, were found.
[V. V. Kropotkin, KVM, No 425a: 44.]
10. Tbilisi, Georgia, 1904. Byzantine coins of Heraclius, 613-641, were found
in a hoard of 700-800 coins along with Sasanian drachms, 579-628.
[V. V. Kropotkin, KVM, No 454: 45.]
11. Chibati, Lanchkhutskii raion, Georgia, 1958. A hoard of no less than
2 000 gold Byzantine coins was found of which 124 struck in Constantinople were
identified: 1 Tiberius, 578-582; 1 Maurice, 582-602; 106 Phocas, 602-610; 14 Hera
clius, 610-641; 2 undetermined.
[V. V. Kropotkin, KVM, No 475: 46.]
12. Sukko, Anapskii raion, Krasnodar krai, 1955. A hoard of 14 gold Byzantine
coins was found of which 5 were identified: 3 Constans II> 641-668, and 2 Constan
tine IV, 668-685.
[V. V. Kropotkin, "Novye nakhodki vizantiiskikh monet na territorii SSSR,"
Vizantiiskii vremennik, 26 (1965), No. 7 (26): 168.]
APPENDIX III
1. Near Staraia Ladoga, the former St. Petersburg province, along the shores of
the Volkhov River, in 1892, a hoard of 31 'Abb?sid dirhams was found. The earliest
dirham dates to 749/50 and the most recent to 786/87.
[A. K. Markov, comp., Topografiia kladov vostochnykh monet (sasanidskikh i
kuficheskikh) (hereafter TKsas. kufi) (St. Petersburg: 1910): 140, N? 24.]
al-Jaz?ra, 749/50
al-K?fah, 749/50
al-Basra, 754/55, 759/6o, 764/65, 773/74, 783/84 (2)
Mad?nat al-Sal?m, 767/68, 770, 770/71, 771/72, 773/74, 774/75 (2), 776/77, 778/79
(2), 780/81, ixx A.H. (2)
al-'Abb?s?yah, 776/77, 780/81, 786/87
Ifr?q?yah, 785/86, 786/87 (4)
Arm?n?yah, 778/79
al-Muhammad?yah, 783/84
2. Krivianskaia station, 8 versts from Cherkassk, in the Sukhaia Kadamovka
ravine, in the former lands of the Don Cossacks, in April 1894, a hoard of 83 coins
was found in a clay pot. The earliest coin dates to 556 and the most recent to
805/06.
[A. K. Markov, TKsas. kuf. : 137, No 8.]
I. Sasanian (2)
Khusraw I, 556, 561
II. Ispahbads of Tabarist?n (1)
Anonymous, 717
This content downloaded from 203.130.107.115 on Wed, 16 Aug 2017 11:24:30 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
460 THOMAS S. NOONAN
This content downloaded from 203.130.107.115 on Wed, 16 Aug 2017 11:24:30 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
WHEN AND HOW DIRHAMS REACHED RUSSIA 461
Dastaw?, 711/12
Kirm?n, 714/15
Marv, 748/49
VI. Spanish Umayyad (2)
Cordova (i.e., al-Andalus), 771/72
al-Andalus, 777/78
VIL 'Abb?sid (43)
al-'Abb?s?yah, 776/77, 784/85, 787/88 (3)
al-Muhammad?yah, 771/72, 779/80, 785/86, 788/89, 797/98, 798/99, 800/01,
801/02, 806/07
Ifr?q?yah, 783/84, 786/87, 792/93, 795/96
Mad?nat al-Sal?m, 767/68, 770/71, 776/77, 778/79, 788/89, 796/97, 797/98,
803/04
al-K?fah, 762/63 (2)
al-Rayy, 764/65
Jayy, 778/79 (4)
Ifr?q?yah or al-'Abb?s?yah, 782/83-792/93 (6)
Bad'a, 784/85
Balkh, 804/05, 808/09
Ma'din Bajunays, 808/09
VIII. Jdn$*? (1)
Bad'a, 788/89
4. Zavalishino, Kursk province, in June 1927, a peasant found a hoard of
52 coins. The earliest coin dates to 595 and the most recent to 809/10.
[R. R. Fasmer, Z#FM.]
I. Sasanian (2)
Khusraw II, 595, year cut off
IL 'Abb?sid Governors of Tabarist?n (4)
'Umar b. al-'Al?, 775/76, year cut off (2)
Sa'?d b. Da'laj, 777/78
III. Umayyad (3)
D?r?bjird, 709/10
W?sit, 705-716/17, 726/27-727/28
IV. 'Abb?sid (36)
al-Basra, 756/57, 786/87
Mad?nat al-Sal?m, 765/66-770, 771/72, 772/73, 776/77, 779/80, 798/99-799/
800, 800/01
al-'Abb?s?yah, 772/73, 782/83, 783/84, 785/86, 786/87-795/96, year effaced,
year cut off (4)
Tudgha, 776/77-785/86
Ifr?q?yah, 792/93"793/94
Unclear African mint, 787/88, year unclear (3)
al-Muhammad?yah, 771/72, 777/78, 784/85, 802, 805/06
Mad?nat Jayy, 778/79
al-H?run?yah, 785/86
Ma'din al-Sh?sh, 805/06
Mad?nat Bukhara, 809/10
Mint and year cut off
Undetermined, 19X A.H.
V. Governors of Tudgha (2)
Halaf, 791/92
'Amr b. Hamid, 792/93
This content downloaded from 203.130.107.115 on Wed, 16 Aug 2017 11:24:30 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
462 THOMAS S. NOONAN
This content downloaded from 203.130.107.115 on Wed, 16 Aug 2017 11:24:30 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
WHEN AND HOW DIRHAMS REACHED RUSSIA 463
9. Nizhniaia Syrovatka, in the former Khar'kov province, in 1848, a hoard of
206 coins was found in a clay pot. The earliest coin dates to 702/03 and the most
recent to 812/13.
[A. K. Markov, TKsas. kufi : 52, No 301; E. A. Pakhomov, MKAiK, II: No 610:
70.]
I. Sasanian and Tabarist?n (several)
II. Umayyad (10)
702/03-749/50
III. Spanish Umayyad (1)
IV. 'Abb?sid (144)
749/50-812/13
87 were north African dirhams and 9 were from Transcaucasian mints.
V. Idrisid and Governors of Tudgha (21)
[V. L. Ianin, op. cit., Table II, lists 22 Idrisid and 22 Governors of Tudgha
dirhams.]
VI. Aghlabid (1)
10. Ugodichi, in the former Iaroslav' province, in 1914, a hoard of ca. 148 coins
was found of which 127 were preserved. The earliest coin dates to 592 and the
most recent to 812/13.
[R. R. Fasmer, Dva klada kuficheskikh monet (Trudy numizmaticheskoi komis
sii, VI) (Leningrad: 1927).]
I. Sasanian (5)
Khusraw II, 592, 601, 605, 625, unclear
II. Ispahbads of Tabarist?n (2)
Anonymous, 749/5?, 752/53
III. Umayyad (9)
al-Basra, 699/700
Dastaw?, 709/10
al-S?s, 699/700
al-Mub?raka, 737/38
W?sit, 711/12, 730/31 (2), 740/41, 742/43
IV. 'Abb?sid (100)
al-Basra, 750/51, 756/57, 759/6o, 761/62
al-Muhammad?yah, 766/67, 771/72, 777/78, 796/97, 797/98, 798/99, 799/800,
807/08
Mad?nat al-Sal?m, 768/69 (2), 770, 772/73, 773/74, 776/77, 778/79, 781/82
(2), 785/86, 796/97 (3), 797/98 (2), 798/99, 799/800, 804/05 (3)
Ifr?q?yah, 781/82, 785/86 (2), 789/90, 791/92 (2), 792/93, 796/97, 799/800,
unknown year (3)
Tudgha, 771/72
Mad?nat Jayy, 778/79 (4), 786/87
al-'Abb?s?yah, 776/77, 77^/79 (3), 781/82, 782/83, 783/84 (2), 784/85 (2),
unknown year (9), 787/88 (5), 788/89, 790/91 (2)
Unclear African mint (9)
al-H?run?yah, 786/87
Arm?n?yah, 796/97, 808/09
Mad?nat Bukhara, 808/09
Mad?nat Balkh, 802 (2), 804/05
al-Mub?raka, 791/92, 796/97
Ma'din Bajunays, 807/08, 808/09
Ma'din al-Sh?sh, 805/06
Unclear mint (1)
Mad?nat Samarqand, 812/13
This content downloaded from 203.130.107.115 on Wed, 16 Aug 2017 11:24:30 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
464 THOMAS S. NOONAN
V. Idrisid (6)
Idr?s I, Tudgha, 790/91 (2), unknown year
Idr?s II, Tudgha, 794/95, 796/97; Wal?la, 802
VI. Governors of Tudgha (5)
Halaf, Tudgha, 791/92, 792/93 (2), unclear year
*Amr, Tudgha, 792/93
APPENDIX IV
This content downloaded from 203.130.107.115 on Wed, 16 Aug 2017 11:24:30 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
WHEN AND HOW DIRHAMS REACHED RUSSIA 465
5. During the excavations of Afrasiab, ca. 1970, a hoard of 127 dirhams from
the reign of al-Mahd? and 37 dirhams from the reign of al-Am?n was found.
[T. S. Ernazarova, art. cit. : 51-52.]
6. During the archaeological excavations of ancient Pendzhikent, in 1955, a
hoard of 10 'Abb?sid drachms was found which Smirnova dates to the third-quarter
of the eighth century.
[O. I. Smirnova, "Klad abbasidskikh drakhm s Pendzhikentskogo gorodishcha /
Tret'ia chetvert' VIII v.," Epigrafika vostoka, 15 (1963): 58-72.]
These 10 drachms are examples of Bukh?r-Khud?t bilingual (Arabic and Sog
dian) silver coins struck in imitation of Sasanian drachms of Bahram V. Smirnova
attributes 9 of the 10 drachms to the coinage of al-Mahd? as governor of Khur?s?n
and Transoxiana (759-775). The tenth coin is attributed to Abu D?'?d H?lid,
governor of Khur?s?n (755-757).
appendix v
This content downloaded from 203.130.107.115 on Wed, 16 Aug 2017 11:24:30 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
466 THOMAS S. NOONAN
This content downloaded from 203.130.107.115 on Wed, 16 Aug 2017 11:24:30 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
WHEN AND HOW DIRHAMS REACHED RUSSIA 467
al-Rayy, (1+0 + 0=1)
Zaranj, (1 + 0 + 0=1)
Mad?nat Zaranj, (o + 1 + o = 1) 804/05
Samarqand, (1+0 + 0=1)
Mad?nat Samarqand, (0 + 2 + 0 = 2) 810/11, 811/12
al-'Abb?s?yah, (39 + 86 + 19 = 144) between at least 770/71 and 793/94
Qasr al-Sal?m, (1 + 1+0 = 2) at least 783/84
al-K?fah, (4 + 1 + 7 = 12) between at least 754/55 and 817/18
al-Mub?raka, (0 + 2 + 0 = 2) 791/92, 796/97
al-Muhammad?yah, (19 + 23 + 75 = 117) between at least 765/66 and 816/
17
Mad?nat al-Sal?m, (23 + 38 + 181 = 242) between at least 765/66 and 819/
20
Ma'din al-Sh?sh, (1 + o + 1 = 2) at least 805/06
Marv, (0+1 + 1 = 2) 756/57, 801/02
Undetermined, (0 + 0 + 3 = 3) 792/93, 799/800 (2)
III. Idrisid (10 + 6 + 4 = 20)
Tudgha, (8 + 1 + 3 = 12) between at least 790/91 and 798/9
Wujta, (1+0 + 0 = 1) between 791/92 and 804/05
Wal?la, (1+4+1=6) between at least 796/97 and 799/800
Fas, (0 + 0+1 = 1) 805/06
IV. Aghlabid (1 + 1+0 = 2)
Ifr?q?yah, 804/05
'Abdullah I?, mint unclear, ixx A.H.
V. Kharijite Imams of Tudgha (0+1 + 1=2)
Halaf, Tudgha, 809/10, 791/92-792/93
5. Kufah, Iraq, 1971, a hoard of 178 silver coins was found. Th
dates to 611 and the most recent to 808/09.
[Coin Hoards, 2 (1976): 97, N? 369.]
I. Sasanian (3)
Khusraw II, 611, 625, 626
II. Umayyad Governors (1)
Muhammad, 660/61 ?
III. 'Abb?sid Governors of Tabarist?n (3)
'Umar b. al-'Al?, 772
Sa'?d b. Da'laj 777
Anonymous, 787
IV. Umayyad (24)
al-Andalus, 736/37
al-Basra, 700/01
D?r?bjird, 712/13
Dimashq, 3 between 699/700 and 732/23
Nahr-T?r?, 714/15
W?sit, 17 between 711/12 and 748/49 (including one counterfeit
V. 'Abb?sid (140)
Arm?n?yah, 763/64
Ifr?q?yah, 784/85 (2)
al-Basra, 17 between 751/52 and 778/79
Balkh, 800/01
Jayy, 778/79 (3)
R?mhurmuz, 751/52
al-Rayy, 763/64
This content downloaded from 203.130.107.115 on Wed, 16 Aug 2017 11:24:30 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
468 THOMAS S. NOONAN
This content downloaded from 203.130.107.115 on Wed, 16 Aug 2017 11:24:30 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
WHEN AND HOW DIRHAMS REACHED RUSSIA 469
Sijist?n, Surraq, S?q al-Ahw?z, al-Taimara, Ardash?r-Khurra, Arm?
n?yah, Ifr?q?yah, al-K?fah, Acjharb?yj?n, al-B?b, Balkh, al-Andalus,
al-Mub?raka, al-Jaz?ra, as-S?m?yah
IL 'Abb?sid partisans (6)
R?mhurmuz, al-Rayy
III. 'Abb?sid (1968)
Dimashq, Ardash?r-Khurra, al-Basra, Jundai-S?b?r, al-K?fah, Suq al
Ahw?z, al-'Abb?s?yah, Arr?n, Arm?n?yah, Has?m?yah, Ifr?q?yah, Istakhr,
Mad?nat al-Sal?m, al-Muhammad?yah, al-Rayy, Atjharb?yj?n, Mad?nat
Jayy, H?r?n?b?d, Qasr al-Sal?m, Kirm?n, Tudgha, Yamana, Mad?nat
Zaranj, al-H?run?yah, Balkh, Jayy, al-Mub?raka, San'?, Sijist?n, Zaranj
IV. Spanish Umayyad (34)
al-Andalus
V. Idrisid (74)
Tudgha, Tacercere, Wal?la
VI. Governors of Tudgha (73)
Tudgha
VIL Aghlabid (15)
al-'Abb?s?yah, Ifr?q?yah
15
This content downloaded from 203.130.107.115 on Wed, 16 Aug 2017 11:24:30 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms