Catalog
See full images - free registration
Continue with Google - no registration!
or register with email
Why register? Just to keep bots out of our catalog. Your email stays private - we will never share it or send you anything uninvited. We guarantee you that!
Dirham 'Ornamental type' - anepigraphic Bulghar mint
| Issuer | Golden Horde |
|---|---|
| Year | 1280-1310 |
| Type | Standard circulation coin |
| Value | Log in to see details |
| Currency | Log in to see details |
| Composition | Log in to see details |
| Weight | Log in to see details |
| Diameter | Log in to see details |
| Thickness | Log in to see details |
| Shape | Log in to see details |
| Technique | Log in to see details |
| Orientation | Log in to see details |
| Engraver(s) | Log in to see details |
| In circulation to | Log in to see details |
| Reference(s) | Log in to see details |
| Obverse description | Anepigraphic field displaying a schematic ornamental design composed of multiple raised pellets or globules arranged in a loose geometric pattern across the central field. A bold vertical element bisects the lower portion of the design, flanked by additional pellets and abstract decorative motifs. The coin is struck on an irregular flan with uneven margins, consistent with the hammered production technique of the Bulghar mint during this period. No legend or inscription is present on this face, characteristic of the so-called ornamental type dirhams of the Golden Horde. |
|---|---|
| Obverse script | Log in to see details |
| Obverse lettering | Log in to see details |
| Reverse description | Log in to see details |
| Reverse script | Log in to see details |
| Reverse lettering | Log in to see details |
| Edge | Plain |
| Mint | Log in to see details |
| Mintage | Log in to see details |
| Additional information |
The anepigraphic Bulghar dirhams pose a genuine attribution puzzle that occupied scholars for decades. Lacking the mint and ruler inscriptions standard to Golden Horde silver, they were long misclassified or simply set aside in reference collections. Signed catalog consensus now places them at Bulghar — the Volga Bulgarian city that remained a functioning mint center well into the Mongol period — but the deliberate omission of epigraphy has never been satisfactorily explained. A ceremonial or token function has been proposed, though circulation wear on most known examples argues against that.