Did the Vikings trade with China? : on a controversial passage in Ibn 
Khordāhbeh’s Book of itineraries and kingdoms
Romgard, Jan
http://kulturarvsdata.se/raa/fornvannen/html/2016_229 
Fornvännen 2016(111):4 s. 229-242
Ingår i samla.raa.se
Eastern Scandinavian trade during the Viking
Period in the 9th to 11th centuries coincided with
a time when economic exchange on the Silk Road
appears to have declined. Yet, this particular era
in Central Asian history saw the creation of far-
reaching trading networks between the Samanids,
Byzantium, the central Caliphate, the Khazars,
the Volga Bulgars and the Rus from the north.
Written sources like The Book of Itineraries and
Kingdoms and finds of Samanid coin hoards in
Sweden and of Baltic amber in China indicate
that these networks also had contact with eco-
nomies further to the east of the Pamir Moun-
tains. This gainsays a general belief that trade on
the Silk Roads at this time had almost ceased.
One reason for this common view is that trade
was interrupted, or at least minimised, following
the withdrawal of Chinese influence from Cent-
ral Asia from the mid-8th century on. After being
defeated by the Arabs at the battle of Talas in 751,
the An Lushan rebellion, and the expansion of
the Tibetans towards Gansu, Imperial China had
to direct most of its attention towards internal
rather than external affairs. On the other hand, as
often occurred during times of instability on the
land routes from Central Asia, trade on the open
sea route to China around India intensified
(Chaudhuri 1985; 2005, p. 172). Nevertheless,
trade across the land routes with China did con-
tinue, although now mostly under the control of
the rising power of the Uighurs, who became rich
and powerful to the extent that they were able to
Fornvännen 111 (2016)
Did the Vikings trade with China? 
On a controversial passage in Ibn Khordāhbeh’s Book of
Itineraries and Kingdoms
By Jan Romgard 
Romgard, J., 2016. Did the Vikings trade with China? On a controversial passage
in Ibn Khordādhbeh’s Book of Itineraries and Kingdoms. Fornvännen 111. Stock-
holm.
This paper discusses a 9th century Arabic source, Ibn Khordādhbeh’s Kitāb al-
Masālik wa l-Mamālik, The Book of Itineraries and Kingdoms, in which it is claimed
that the Rus travelled to China. I look into previous interpretations of the text and
present new studies of the two oldest extant copies of the original source. Several
translators from the late 19th century on have claimed that this passage is mis-
placed. I argue that they have adapted their interpretations to fit their preconcep-
tions rather than follow what is actually written in the original source. The text
does state that the Rus traded with China. Whether Ibn Khordādhbeh’s belief in
the extent of Rus’ eastern trade journeys was correct or not is another matter. But
I point out that Ibn Khordādhbeh in his time may have had logical reasons for his
statement. I also explain that “China” probably refers to Eastern Central Asian
regions populated by Turkic-speaking peoples, who in their turn had direct trading
contacts with Tang and later Liao Dynasty China. 
Jan Romgard, Dept of Asian, Middle Eastern and Turkish Studies, Stockholm University, 
SE–106 91 Stockholm
jan.romgard@su.se
Art. Romgard 229-242_Layout 1  2016-11-21  10:24  Sida 229
build an empire stretching far eastward from the
Tianshan Mountains to Manchuria, establishing
their centre in what is now Mongolia.
In this paper I will discuss a 9th century sour-
ce relating to this eastward trade: two passages in
Ibn Khordādhbeh’s Kitāb al-Masālik wa l-Mamā-
lik, that is, The Book of Itineraries and Kingdoms. It
is mentioned in the book that Jewish traders,
called Radhanites, traded with the Uighurs and
China, and that the Rus (i.e. Scandinavians in
Russia) went to the Caspian Sea and Baghdad.
Few historians and archaeologists today, however,
know that the most commonly quoted transla-
tion of this text is controversial. An alternative
interpretation would imply that the Rus played a
more important role in the eastern trade on the
Silk Road than has generally been believed.
As this less known controversy concerns an
era in history from which written sources are
scarce, it seems worthwhile to take a closer look
at Ibn Khordādhbeh’s account, compare the var-
ious interpretations of it, and discuss the implica-
tions that they would have for our understanding
of 9th century eastern trade. I aim to clarify what
is actually said in the passages in question, to
look into the various interpretations made, and
to suggest possible explanations as to why Ibn
Khordādhbeh might have written what he did
and whether he really could have been referring
to the Rus or not.
Transliterations and transcriptions of Arabic
texts have varied greatly from source to source in
the last 150 years. I have as far as possible fol-
lowed the most established versions, and when
quoting, used the same as given in the original
source.
A controversial passage
The controversial section in The Book of Itineraries
and Kingdoms consists of three pages (for the most
quoted print and translation, see Bibliotheca Geo-
graphorum Arabicorum VI 1889; reprint 1967, Ara-
bic pp. 153–155, French pp. 114–116) where Ibn
Khordādhbeh describes the routes taken by two
different groups of traders: a Jewish group called
the Radhanites and a group called the Rus, today
mostly referred to as Vikings or Varangians. (For
a balanced and modern view on the issue of Scan-
dinavian influence in Early Medieval Russia, see
Jansson 1997.) The accounts of the two groups are
of equal length, about one page each. First, under
a headline about the Radhanites (“Itinéraire des
marchands juifs, dits ar-Râdhânyya” according
to de Goeje’s translation), the author describes
the languages they speak, the various goods they
trade in, and their travels from France to Con-
stantinople and Baghdad, Sind, India and China.
Then follows a passage about the Rus, under the
headline “Itinéraire des marchands russes”. Here
Ibn Khordādhbeh explains the goods and trade
routes taken by the Rus, for instance how they go
ashore wherever they like on the Caspian Sea,
and sometimes bring their goods from the Caspi-
an to Baghdad by camel. These two passages are
followed by the controversial section, a descrip-
tion of land routes: 
These different journeys can also be made by
land. The merchants that start from Spain or
France go to Sous al-Akza (Morocco), and
then to Tangiers, whence they march to
Kairuwan and the capital of Egypt. Thence
they go to al-Ramla, visit Damascus, al-
Kufa, Bagdad, and Basrah, cross Ahwaz,
Fars, Kirman, Sind, Hind, and arrive at 
China. Sometimes they likewise take the
route behind Rome, and, passing through
the country of the Slavs, arrive at Khamlij,
the capital of the Khazars. They embark on
the Jorjan Sea, arrive at Balkh, betake them-
selves from there across the Oxus, and con-
tinue their journey toward the Yourts of the
Toghozghor, and from there to China. 
(transl. J. Jacobs 1919, p. 196)
The question is, however: to whom is Ibn Khor-
dādhbeh referring in the quoted passage? The
Rus or the Radhanites? If we did not have any
previous knowledge or assumptions about the
extent of Rus travels, would we not imagine that
the text was about the Rus? After all, it is placed
under the headline about the itineraries of the
Rus, and Ibn Khordādhbeh has already in the
previous section described the Radhanite traders
and their routes to China, which in fact seem to
include both travels by land and by sea.1
Or does this passage actually refer to the Ra-
dhanites? Is its placement under the headline about
230 Jan Romgard
Fornvännen 111 (2016)
Art. Romgard 229-242_Layout 1  2016-12-05  10:10  Sida 230
Rus itineraries a mistake? Should it have been
somewhere else, or should it not have been there
at all? 
Radhanite interpretations 
The first two translations of the section (Sprenger
into English 1844, pp. 521–524; Meynard into
French 1865, pp. 512–515) presented the Rus’ and
Radhanites’ trade routes in the order given in the
original source and did not question the land
travels further.2
The arguably most influential translation of
Ibn Khordādhbeh’s text, however, was presented
at the Oriental Congress in Vienna in 1889: the
classical work by Michael Jan de Goeje, published
in the same year as volume VI of the Bibliotheca Geo-
graphorum Arabicorum (BGA). This is still not only
the most used translation of Ibn Khordādhbeh’s
account, but also probably the translation most
scholars have consulted for new interpretations
of the Arabic text. The reasons are that de Goeje
compared extant copies of the treatise prior to
writing his own interpretation, and that his work
was published in full together with the original
text in the BGA series, which has become a major
reference work on Arabic geography.
De Goeje obviously himself believed that the
passage in question, “travels by land”, concerned
the Radhanite traders, because, as clarification, he
adds a footnote: “That is, those of the Jews”. It is
not mentioned there why he held this belief, but
in his preface he says that some passages in The
Book of Itineraries and Kingdoms are placed differ-
ently in the various copies of the work (de Goeje
1889, reprint 1967, p. XVII). He also states that
some passages seem to belong in other places,
although their wording does not differ from that
of other copies. 
The problem, of course, is that Ibn Khordādh-
beh’s original manuscript has been lost. Only three
manuscript copies are available to us: a copy dated
1232 and kept in the Bodleian Library in Oxford,
an undated copy judged to have been compiled
before the 12th century in the Österreichische
Nationalbibliothek in Vienna, and a 19th centu-
ry copy in Paris (Birkeland 1954, p. 10; Golden
1980, vol. 1, p. 115). By comparing various events
mentioned in the copies, de Goeje deduced that
Ibn Khordādhbeh produced two editions of his
work: an early version finished around AD 848–
849 (AH 232) – used by the copyist for the Ox-
ford manuscript – and a later more complete edi-
tion, which was not finished until 885/886 (AH
272) – represented by the Vienna document. De
Goeje claimed that the later copy, which he main-
ly used for his translation, is very close in terms of
time, and therefore content, to the original sec-
ond edition written by Ibn Khordādhbeh.3How-
ever, he contradicted himself, because in that
very version the passage we are interested in was
placed under the “Rus” headline (BGA VI, p.
154/116; MS Vienna Nationalbibliothek 783).
Moreover, that is actually the case in both edi-
tions (MS Huntington 433). Indeed, de Goeje
himself states that the value of Ibn Khordādh-
beh’s testimony on the Rus and the Radhanites is
increased by its existence in both versions (de
Goeje 1889, reprint 1967, p. XX).
De Goeje, after reviewing the text, clearly
decided on an interpretation that seemed likely
to him. His footnote referring the passage to the
Radhanites is probably the reason why so few
scholars have realised that this interpretation is
actually not certain. Most scholars have simply
taken for granted that the passage is about the
Radhanites without giving it a second thought. 
Some, however, have taken a closer look, and
yet believed de Goeje was right. Josef Marquart
(1903, p. 352), for example, said that these “great”
land routes from Spain and France “of course”
refer to the Jewish traders.4 Others, like Joseph
Jacobs (1919, p. 196) in his translation, have tak-
en the seemingly logical step and simply cut out
the passage from the Rus itineraries and pasted it
in under the Radhanite ones. His choice is under-
standable as his book focused upon the Radhani-
tes, and he translated the passage into English after
having read the note in de Goeje’s translation.
Tadeusz Lewicki (1956, p. 118 f) agreed too,
stating that the section in question “undoubtedly”
belongs to the Radhanites’ itineraries. He, further-
more, suggested that the mistake was due not to
Ibn Khordādhbeh, but to the copyist who may
have distorted the original layout.
Omeljan Pritsak (1970, pp. 241–244), the ex-
pert on Medieval Ukrainian history at Harvard,
pointed out that the Radhanites’ and Rus’ itiner-
aries are also mentioned in Ibn al-Faqīh’s Kitāb
231Did the Vikings trade with China?
Fornvännen 111 (2016)
Art. Romgard 229-242_Layout 1  2016-11-21  10:24  Sida 231
al-Buldān or Book of Lands, dated 902/903. Here
the land routes are “omitted”, as was also pointed
out briefly by Lewicki. However, Pritsak did not
question these land journeys. Instead he assigned
them to the Radhanites and suggested that they
and the Rus had become mixed up. He believed that
the two groups had not even been contemporary,
and that the latter replaced the former in the mid-
9th century. The mix-up could have happened,
argued Pritsak, when an official received a report
on the newcomers and incorporated it into the
margin of an older report on the Radhanites, or
on a separate sheet, thus confusing both Ibn
Khordādhbeh and Ibn al-Faqīh. Pritsak believed
that the two authors had used the same original
documents, although Ibn al-Faqīh did so through
a middleman, and therefore they should be seen as
contemporaries.5 Yet, the Book of Lands was com-
posed some 20 or 60 years after Ibn Khordādhbeh’s
treatise (depending on its two possible editions)
and it is well known that Ibn al-Faqīh borrowed
data from other authors (Khalidov 1997, pp. 23–
25). Furthermore, we know that Ibn al-Faqīh had
access to Ibn Khordādhbeh’s work because he
names it as a source for other parts of his book (see,
for instance, BGA V, pp. 203 f).6
Peter B. Golden, following the view that he
claimed “has long been held by Russian Ara-
bists”, explained similarly in 1972 that the mate-
rial about the Rus “is found sandwiched” inside
that on the Radhanites. In a translation of the
first words of the headline he put this interpreta-
tion within brackets: “and as regards their [the
Râdhânîyah] land route” (Golden 1972, p. 64 n).7
In his Khazar studies (1980, vol. 1, p. 109) Golden
went even further and – like Jacobs – simply mov-
ed the passage on the Rus itineraries to the Ra-
dhanite ones without mentioning this step away
from the original source.
Rus interpretations
However, the influential Russian Jewish expert
on Iranian history, Vladimir Minorsky, believed
already in 1937 that the passage in question was
about the Rus. Harris Birkeland (1954, p. 11; see
also Lewicki’s criticism, 1956, p. 118 f) points this
out and refers to a passage where Minorsky is try-
ing to detect the formation of a Rus state in Ara-
bic sources:
The principal Muslim sources refer to the
momentous period of the establishment of
the Northmen among the Slavs and it is
essential to disentangle the data referring to
its successive stages. Our oldest source I.Kh.,
[…] mixes up the Rūs with the Slavs and
traces their commercial activities between
Spain and China. There is no trace in I.Kh.
of a Rūs state. 
(Minorsky 1937, p. 433.)
In other words, Ibn Khordādhbeh might have con-
fused the Rus with the Slavs in one way or another,
but Minorsky did not at all assume that these
“commercial activities between Spain and China”
concerned the Radhanites. He took for granted
that Ibn Khordādhbeh was referring to the Rus.8
Mahammed Hadj-Sadok (1949, pp. 22–25)
also apparently supported the Rus interpreta-
tion. At least he chose to merely translate the text
as it is actually composed without mentioning
any doubts as to whom the passage is about.9
A new interpretation was presented in Mos-
cow in 1967 when Boris N. Zakhoder argued that
the controversial passage referred to both trading
groups. He believed that the section is a résumé
of the two preceding parts, and that the second
trade route to China should therefore be attrib-
uted to both the Radhanite and the Rus (Zak-
hoder 1962–1967, tome II, p. 86).10
In the most recent translation, James Mont-
gomery has taken one step further and explicitly
assigned the whole paragraph on trade with China
to the Rus. He states that the “itinerary has been
incorrectly assimilated by some scholars with the
fabled and oft-disputed Jewish trading federation,
the Radhanites”, and specifically notes that “the
Rus are said to travel as far as to al-Sin”, which he
defines as “Turko-China” (Montgomery 2008,
p. 551).11 Furthermore, when publishing his trans-
lation in 2010 he concluded that he “can see no
evidence to suggest any scribal confusion of Rus
with Radhanite, or any reason to suggest with
Pellat that this is an interpolation or revision by Ibn
Khurradadhbih” (Montgomery 2010, p. 156).12
A closer look at the Radhanite interpretation
The question remains of which interpretation is
correct – that of the Radhanite advocates or that
232 Jan Romgard
Fornvännen 111 (2016)
Art. Romgard 229-242_Layout 1  2016-11-21  10:24  Sida 232
of Minorsky, Hadj-Sadok, Zakhoder and Mont-
gomery? Let us first examine the possible reasons
for the Radhanite interpretations.
If we follow de Goeje’s note and – as did Jacobs
and Golden – simply move the disputed passage
from the Rus to the Radhanite account, it is in-
deed possible to see a pattern. The description of
travels to China thus achieved seems logical. The
first part appears to be about the sea routes around
India to China. The latter seems to be about the
land routes, from northern Africa via Baghdad,
Basra, Sind and India to China, as well as the clas-
sic Silk Road through Central Asia to China. This
interpretation looks both plausible and under-
standable, but there are a few things that speak
against it.
Firstly, if the manuscript used by de Goeje is
indeed so temporally close to the original written
by Ibn Khordādhbeh, it is odd that these “land
routes” were not placed under the headline about
the Radhanites’ itineraries but under the Rus’.
Secondly, the routes described under the Rus
headline, before the disputed section about land
routes, also concern travels by water: 
[They] transport beaver hides, the pelts of
the black fox and swords from the farthest
reaches of the Sakāliba to the Sea of Rūm
[i.e., the Black Sea]. The ruler of Rūm [i.e.,
the Byzantine Empire] takes a tithe of them.
If they wish, they go to the Tnys river [i.e.
Tanais, the Greek name for the River Don],
Yitil [i.e. Itil, the ancient name of the Volga],
or Tin [variously identified as Don or Sever-
sky Donets], the River of the Sakāliba. They
travel to Khamlīdj/Khamlīkh, the city of the
Khazars whose ruler takes a tithe of them.
Then they betake themselves to the Sea of
Djurdjān [Caspian Sea] and they alight on
whichever of its shores they wish. Some-
times, they carry their goods from Djurdjān
by camel to Baghdād. Saklab slaves translate
for them. They claim that they are Chris-
tians and pay the djizya.13
Ibn Khordādhbeh is clearly describing waterways
when he states that the Rus go to the Black Sea,
use rivers like the Don or Volga to get to the capi-
tal of the Khazars, travel by boat on the Caspian
Sea and disembark on any of its shores at will.
Only in the few final words does he describe how
the Rus sometimes bring their goods from the
Caspian to Baghdad by camel. All the rest is about
water travel.
That brings us to the conclusion that Ibn
Khordādhbeh may actually refer to the Rus in the
disputed passage. If he believed that they indeed
undertook these far-reaching itineraries by land,
it would have been quite natural for him, after
the short passage about their journeys to Bagh-
dad, to continue with a further description about
their land travels. 
In fact, the first words in the passage about
these land routes seem to vary depending on the
translators’ own points of view. According to de
Goeje it starts: “Ces divers voyages peuvent se
faire également par terre”, “These different jour-
neys can also be made by land”. According to
Birkeland, (who, however, does not translate the
passage fully) it simply starts: “deres ferdselsveier
til lands”, that is, “their land routes” (Birkeland
1954, p. 11).
To find out what is actually stated in the Ara-
bic text, I have – with the kind help of the Bod-
leian Library and the Österreichische National-
bibliothek – consulted the two oldest manu-
scripts: the undated Vienna copy and the Bod-
leian Library copy dated 1232. In both of these
manuscripts, the passage begins with the words
Fa–’ammāmaslakuhum fīl-barr, which more close-
ly translated means “Concerning their travels by
land.”14 Of course it is always up to the transla-
tor to interpret the text and adapt it to the new
language to make it logical and fluent to read.
But in this particular case, the slight difference
between the original text and the new one in pre-
vious translations may have deviated from the
author’s intentions. Similarly, the translators putt-
ing their own interpretations in brackets or foot-
notes has lead the readers in directions that are
not in line with the original text.
Furthermore, considering the previous ideas
about a mix-up involving the Rus section, it is
important to point out that the Vienna copy bears
signs that lower the credibility of the preceding
Radhanite passage rather than that of the Rus.
An inspection of the manuscript reveals that the
Radhanite passage is visibly different from the
233Did the Vikings trade with China?
Fornvännen 111 (2016)
Art. Romgard 229-242_Layout 1  2016-11-21  10:24  Sida 233
Fig. 1a-b. The two accounts about the Radhanites and
the Rus in the Vienna copy (reading from right to
left). The passage about the Radhanites (right) is
marked red and the one about the Rus (left) is marked
blue. The two trading tribes are described one after
another, in a similar way involving both water- and
land travels. Note the amendment on the page to the
far right. The section about the Radhanites has been
pasted in and is written in a different hand and darker
ink. Reproduced with permission from Österreichi-
sche Nationalbibliothek, Vienna.
surrounding pages. The paper is thicker, written
in a different hand and with darker ink. Further-
more, a clear edge is seen where the section has
been glued onto the original page. Thus, the Ra-
dhanite section has, on some occasion in the manu-
script’s long history, been mended and added,
but not the Rus one, which is written in a similar
hand and on the same paper as other original
parts of the manuscript. De Goeje himself noted
this amendment when reading the document.
However, he mentions this only in a Latin foot-
note next to the Arabic text, not in his French
translation where he instead claims that the Rus’
section has been mixed up. 
The question is thus: what was originally
written on this page before the Radhanite account
was pasted in? During my studies of the manu-
script, I was not able to detect any of the original
writing underneath the glued-on section. Yet, it
should be possible to reveal any remaining text
using technology that does not harm the docu-
ment (discussions are currently under way with
the Österreichische Nationalbibliothek to do so –
if the condition of the manuscript permits). How-
ever, as the Oxford manuscript – although of a later
date – contains a similar section on the Radhanite
journeys, which is placed in the same part of the
book, the glued-on part is most likely simply a re-
writing and mending of the original text. 
Possible explanations for Ibn Khordādhbeh’s
choice of words
Probably the only way to get some proper answers
on the Rus’ travels would be to ask Ibn Khordād-
hbeh himself. This we cannot do, but we can try
to imagine the situation surrounding the author
in the 9th century, from Ibn Khordādhbeh’s own
point of view.
234 Jan Romgard
Fornvännen 111 (2016)
Art. Romgard 229-242_Layout 1  2016-11-21  10:24  Sida 234
The Book of Itineraries and Kingdoms is an offi-
cial book concerning routes and stations and is to
a great extent the result of archival research
(Birkeland 1954, p. 10). Ibn Khordādhbeh him-
self, being Director-general of Posts and Intelli-
gence in Baghdad and Samarra, could pick up
reports and information collected from all over
the Caliphate and from travellers returning from
its periphery (Hadj-Sadok 1949, p. VIII; 1965/
1971, p. 839; Bosworth 1997, p. 37 f). Among the
many reports that attracted Ibn Khordādhbeh’s
attention while he was writing the book (between
the mid-840s and the 880s — the exact time of its
composition and first publication is, as mention-
ed, under dispute) must have been some on the
activities of the Rus. He must have heard about
their trading and raiding along the coasts of the
Caspian Sea, their travels to Baghdad, their appear-
ance on the Spanish coasts and expeditions into
the Mediterranean. As mentioned by al-Yaʿqūbī
and several Arabic sources, Northmen raided
Seville in 843/44 (Yaʿkūbī [al-Yaʿqūbī]; traduit
par Gaston Wiet 1937, p. 218 f).15 In 859–861,
they went further into the Mediterranean Sea
along the coast of northern Africa, and then
crossed the sea to attack coastal cities in France
and Italy. According to Ibn al-Qūtīya (Birkeland
1954, p. 46) and further described by Alexander
Vasiliev (1946, p. 62 f), the Scandinavians even
ventured further to the southeast, attacking
Alexandria.16
Imagine what this flow of reports must have
looked like to Ibn Khordādhbeh. Here were the
same kind of traders, known to us as West-Vikings
and East-Vikings or Varangians, perceived by him
as one and the same group that had been seen
trading and raiding both in the west and in the
east. He most likely concluded that they were the
235Did the Vikings trade with China?
Fornvännen 111 (2016)
Art. Romgard 229-242_Layout 1  2016-11-21  10:24  Sida 235
same people. And that, from time to time in their
travels and raiding, they might have crossed
directly from here to there, from west to east, and
vice versa.
He already knew about the Radhanite Jewish
merchants, who frequented the same areas. He
knew that they reached China on their trading
expeditions, and in so doing passed some of the
places where the Rus had been seen. With this in
mind, when reading The Book of Itineraries and
Kingdoms, we may deduce something new from
the text. The data about the two trading tribes
are given on three pages in de Goeje’s transcript
(fig. 1; from right to left in the Arabic text). The
Radhanites are covered in 17 lines and the Rus in
16 (in the Oxford copy, the first tribe is covered
in 17 lines, the second in 15, while the lengths in
the Vienna copy are 16 and 14 lines respectively;
fig. 2). The two trading tribes are mentioned one
after another in the text, described in a similar way,
and at equal length. This suggests that the author
considered them as being equally important.
In other words, in the view of Ibn Khordādh-
beh, the Radhanites and the Rus must have look-
ed like competitors in the same trade between
east and west. His specific conclusions about the
scope of the Rus’s travels may have been exagger-
ated, but it is quite possible that the disputed pas-
sage does, after all, refer to the Rus.
The second trade route to China, described
by Ibn Khordādhbeh as going “behind Rome”
[Byzantium], passing through the country of the
Slavs to the capital of the Khazars, via the Caspi-
an Sea, Balkh, Transoxiania, and the “Yourts of
the Toghozghor” to China, actually makes a lot
of sense. Byzantium, the capital of the Khazars,
and the Caspian Sea are places that the Rus are
known from other sources to have visited fre-
quently and on a large scale. According to Ibn
Khordādhbeh himself, Rus traders disembarked
on any of the shores of the Caspian Sea at will; an
observation that might indicate that they more
or less controlled the sea routes at this time. This
makes the alternative interpretation of de Goeje
and Marquart, saying that these routes concerned
the Radhanites, less convincing. Strong archaeo-
logical evidence, moreover, supports the possi-
bility of Rus trade further east of the Caspian.
60% of Islamic coins dating from the 9th to 11th
centuries found in Sweden have Samanid origin
(Hovén 1981, pp. 119–128), that is, they are from
the area east of the Caspian Sea, not from the
central Caliphate (nor from Christian Byzantium,
which is the source of only a small number of
coins found in Northern Europe compared to the
huge quantities of Islamic dirhams).17 Of course,
these coins might just as well have been acquired
by trade with the Khazars or Volga Bulgars, but
their origin and number could indicate impor-
tant Rus trade east of the Caspian Sea. Clearly
the Samanid silver coins, coming one way or
another from the east, were essential to the Rus
economy.
Furthermore, archaeological finds in Sweden
show that the Vikings early on borrowed elements
from Central Asian nomads in their clothing, such
as the caftan and the warrior belt. Ornamented
belts of so called “Oriental” type began to appear
in Viking clothing already in the 9th century, and
became increasingly popular over the 10th and
11th centuries (Arne 1914, pp. 226, 228; Jansson
1977, p. 407 f; 1986, pp. 77–108; Hedenstierna
2006, p. 82).18 This influence is presently believed
to have originated mainly from contacts with the
Khazar and Volga Bulgar areas (Jansson 1977, p
408; Eniosova & Murashova 1999; Hedenstierna-
Jonsson & Holmquist Olausson 2006, p. 34). How-
ever, as stated already by T.J. Arne, there are also
important links between the Swedish material
and artefacts found in the areas east of the Caspi-
an Sea. Arne traced certain 10th century bronze
mounts to West Turkestan (especially to Samar-
kand and Bukhara) and his main conclusions
about the origin of the Swedish finds still stand
(Jansson 1977, pp. 389, 408, note 41; 1986, p. 96).
Islamic metalwork of the 9th century (described
as displaying a mix of both Central Asian and
other influences) excavated at the site of Nīshāpūr
in northeastern Iran, moreover, has prototypes and
analogies in the Swedish material (Allan 1982;
Jansson 1986, p. 97; Hedenstierna-Jonsson &
Holmquist Olausson 2006, p. 33 f). This is interest-
ing as Nīshāpūr, which was founded by the Sasa-
nians in the 3rd century, was an important trad-
ing city on the Silk Road in the Samanid era.19
Regarding the nomad link it must be noted that
the kind of warrior belts and horse equipment
that became popular among the Rus elite are
236 Jan Romgard
Fornvännen 111 (2016)
Art. Romgard 229-242_Layout 1  2016-11-21  10:24  Sida 236
found both in pre-Islamic Iran and in the Turkic
areas further to the east in Mongolia. They be-
came widely spread across the Eurasian steppes
during the Turkic expansion and were also used
by Turkic soldiers in the Samanid Empire and in
the following era of the Ghaznavids (Jansson 1977,
pp. 390, 406). If the influence on Viking clothing
came from Turkic groups it could therefore either
have come about through contacts with nomads
north of the Black Sea or east of the Caspian Sea. 
Another strong indication of Northern Euro-
pean involvement in Silk Road trade are recent
analyses of the origin of Medieval trade goods in
China. 10th to 11th century amber artefacts from
Liao Dynasty sites in Inner Mongolia and Manchu-
ria have proved to be Baltic imports (Beck &
Stout 1999a, pp. 167–172; unpublished lab re-
port 1999b; Xu Xiaodong 2007, pp. 38–44; 2009
and personal communication 2016).20 Further-
more, considering the dates of the Samanid coin-
age, it is interesting to note that amber in Chinese
burials starts to appear in greater numbers around
the turn of the 9th century, then increases signif-
icantly in the 10th to 11th centuries before it
abruptly disappears in the 12th century (So 2013,
pp. 86–97). That time span coincides remarkably
well with Rus trading activities in and with Cen-
tral Asia, especially until the turn of the 11th cen-
tury.21
The Toghozghor, the Uighurs and 
Liao Dynasty China
If the Rus really were involved in trade further
east of the Caspian Sea, with whom did they
trade? Ibn Khordādhbeh ends his eastern itine-
rary with the “Yourts of the Toghozghor”, which
is an important clue. Elsewhere he explains that
the Toghozghor were a Turkic people neigh-
bouring China whose ruler had “a golden tent on
top of his palace that could shelter 100 people”
(BGA VI, p. 22). Marquart and others have point-
ed out that Toghozghor was the Arab designation
for the Uighurs, although the term could include
other Turkic groups as well (Marquart 1903, pp.
91, 390; Barthold 1937, p. 13, see especially Mi-
norsky 1937, pp. 263–277). The link to the Uigh-
urs is at this time not unlikely considering their
political position and role in Early Medieval Silk
Road trade. In the 8th and 9th centuries, the ail-
ing Tang China gradually lost influence in Cent-
ral Asia, which allowed the Uighur Empire to rise
to power and wealth due to their control of the
Silk Road trade. This empire collapsed in the 840s
(Drompp 2005), but the Uighurs remained im-
portant as intermediates in the Silk Road trade.
In the mid to late 10th century the Qhara-
khanids (disputed, but possibly also of Uighur
origin) and the Ghaznavids became new impor-
tant Turkic players and maintained intense trad-
ing contacts with China. After the fall of the Tang
Dynasty, the Qidans (Khitans) became these Tur-
kic groups’ primary eastern trading partners (Bos-
worth 2001, pp. 578–583; Biran 2004, pp. 621–
628). The Qidan formed the Liao Dynasty (916–
1125) in northern China, whose rule reached
from Inner Mongolia to Manchuria. The Qidan
elite was strongly influenced by both the Han
Chinese and their western neighbours, and their
graves are particularly rich in amber (Xu 2007;
2009; So 2013). We know from contemporary
sources that this product was imported to China
from the West and that Turkic tribes, especially
the Uighurs, were involved in this trade.22 This
means that we can link the Toghozghor with
trade in at least one Baltic commodity. Whether
the amber reached the Uighurs and the Qidans
through direct trade or through middlemen is
another matter, but it indicates that there may be
some truth in Ibn Khordādhbeh’s reference to
the Rus in this passage after all. 
Apart from the important indications men-
tioned above, there is currently little additional
archaeological evidence for Viking trade in the
regions further to the east of the Caspian Sea, but
that may be because we have not been looking for
it. Considering the Arabic sources, the apparent
contemporary increase of Baltic amber in China,
nomad influence on Viking clothing, and the in-
numerable Transoxanian coin hoards in Scandi-
navia, more research is needed to understand the
Rus’ role in the trading networks of Medieval
Central Asia. Few attempts, if any, have been made
to look for archaeological evidence in eastern
Central Asia for connections to early Rus trade.
It may therefore prove worthwhile to re-examine
existing reports and material in Mongolia and
China to look for further indications.
237Did the Vikings trade with China?
Fornvännen 111 (2016)
Art. Romgard 229-242_Layout 1  2016-11-21  10:24  Sida 237
Conclusion 
I find it quite possible that Ibn Khordā
believed that the Rus travelled to China. He may
have exaggerated their importance, he may have
gone too far in his conclusions about the scope of
their trading activities, but the fact remains:
looking at the text, it is more likely that he was
referring to the Rus' rather than the Radhanites’
travels. Alternatively he may have been referring
to both Radhanite and Rus trade routes in the
passage discussed here. Furthermore, other writ-
ten sources as well as the archaeological material
confirm the importance of Rus trade with Cent-
ral Asia and their presence at many of the loca-
tions mentioned by Ibn Khordādhbeh. That stands
in marked contrast to the Radhanites, on whom
we have very little data.
Yet, let us remember that the previous trans-
lations did not lack a certain logic. It is under-
standable that de Goeje, Marquart, Jacobs, Pritsak
and Golden in their time made the interpreta-
tions they did. Furthermore, the Rus were certain-
ly not the only players involved in long-distance
trade in this era. Excavations in both Eastern
Europe and Central Asia show that the emerging
trading centres of the time became increasingly
multi-ethnic in character, and goods could travel
far through many hands. The long-distance east-
ern expeditions seem to have become more spo-
radic by the 11th century, and the trading net-
works likely changed character along with the
political developments over the period when the
Vikings were active. What this research and the
archaeological material so far indicate, though, is
that we have definite reason to look at this particu-
lar passage in Ibn Khordādhbeh’s text with new
eyes. If the author indeed attributed the “land
travels” to the Rus, we may have to reconsider
our present views about the extent of their east-
ward trade.
dhbeh
Acknowledgements
I wrote a first draft of this paper in 2006 and 2007. How-
ever, before I had an opportunity to publish it, my re-
search put me in other directions. Yet, I have repeatedly
returned to the topic over these years. Over time, I have
received valuable input from several colleagues. First
of all, thanks to Katharina Kaska of the Österreichische
Nationalbibliothek for her valuable help during the
examination of the Vienna copy in April 2016, and to
Colin Wakefield and Colin Harris, Bodleian Library,
for their kind assistance during studies of the Oxford
copy in 2010. Thanks also to Luke Treadwell, Oriental
Institute, Oxford, for sharing his knowledge in 2010 on
recent research into the period; to Ingmar Jansson and
Marja Kaikkonen for fruitful comments during work
on the first drafts of this article in 2006 and 2007, and
finally, to my colleagues Elie Wardini and especially to
Amanda Walldoff, Department of Middle Eastern Stu-
dies, Stockholm University, for advice and help in inter-
preting the Arabic text.
References
Allan, J.W., 1982. Nishapur. Metalwork of the Early Islam-
ic Period. Metropolitan Museum of Art. New York.
Arne, T.J., 1914. La Suède et l’Orient. Études archéologiques
sur les relations de la Suède et de l’Orient pendant l’âge
des Vikings. Archives d’Études Orientales 8. K.W.
Appelberg. Uppsala.
Barthold, V.V., 1937. Preface to Hudūd al-ālam: ’The
Regions of the World’. A Persian Geography; translated
and explained by V. Minorsky. Oxford.
Beck, C.W. & Stout, E.C., 1999a. Amber from Liao-
ning Province and Liao Amber Artifacts. Bunker,
E.C. & White, J.M. (eds). Adornment for the Body
and Soul. Ancient Chinese Ornaments from the Meng-
diexuan Collection. University of Hong Kong.
– 1999b. Provenience Analysis of two Liao Amber
Carvings. Amber Research Laboratory, Vassar Col-
lege, New York. Unpublished report for the Uni-
versity of Hong Kong.
Beck, C.W., 1995. The Provenience Analysis of Amber.
American Journal of Archaeology 99:1. Boston, MA.
Biran, M., 2004. Ilak-khanids. Encyclopaedia IranicaXII:
6. Online edition. Columbia University. New York.
www.iranicaonline.org/articles/ilak-khanids
Birkeland, H., 1954. Nordens historie i middelalderen etter
arabiske kilder. Oversettelse til norsk av de arabiske kil-
der med innledning, forfatterbiografier, bibliografi og
merknader.Det norske videnskaps-akademi. Oslo.
Bosworth, E.C., 1997. Ebn Kordādbeh, Abu’l-Qāsem
ʿObayd-Allāh. Encyclopaedia Iranica VIII:1. Online
edition. Columbia University. New York. www.
iranicaonline.org/articles/ebn-kordadbeh
– 2001. Ghaznavids. Encyclopaedia Iranica X:6. On-
line edition. Columbia University. New York. www.
iranicaonline.org/articles/ghaznavids
Chaudhuri, K.N, 1985, reprinted 2005. Trade and Civil-
isation in the Indian Ocean. An Economic History from
the Rise of Islam to 1750. Cambridge.
De Goeje, M.J, 1889, reprinted 1967. Préface. Bibliotheca
Geographorum Arabicorum VI. Lugduni Batavorum.
Drompp, M.R., 2005. Tang China and the Collapse of the
Uighur Empire. Leiden & Boston.
238 Jan Romgard
Fornvännen 111 (2016)
Art. Romgard 229-242_Layout 1  2016-11-21  10:24  Sida 238
Golden, P.B., 1972. The migrations of the Oǧuz. Archi-
vum Ottomanicum IV. Mouton. Den Haag.
– 1980. Khazar studies: An historico-philological inquiry
into the origins of the Khazars. Budapest.
– 2006 (online 2012). Rūs. Bearman, P. et al. (eds.).
Encyclopaedia of Islam, 2nd ed. Brill. Leiden. dx.doi.
org/10.1163/1573-3912_islam_COM_0942
Hadj-Sadok, M., 1949. Description du Maghreb et de l'Eu-
rope au IIIe-IXe siècle: extraits du «Kitâb al-Masâlik
wa’l-mamâlik», du «Kitâb al-Buldân» et du «Kitâb
al-Alâq an-nafîsa» / Ibn Khurradâdhbih, Ibn al-Faqîh
al-Hamadhânî et Ibn Rustih; texte arabe et traduction
française, avec un avant-propos, des notes et deux index
par Hadj-Sadok Mahammed. Alger.
– 1965. Ibn Khurradādbhbih. Lewis, B. et al. (eds.).
The Encyclopaedia of Islam III. Brill. Leiden.
Hedenstierna-Jonsson, C., 2006. The Birka Warrior.
The Material Culture of a Martial Society. Stockholm
University.
Hedenstierna-Jonsson, C. & Holmquist Olausson, L.,
2006. The Oriental Mounts from Birka’s Garrison. An
Expression of Warrior Rank and Status. KVHAA.
Stockholm.
Hovén, B.E., 1981. On Oriental Coins in Scandinavia.
Blackburn, M.A.S & Metcalf, D.M. (eds). Viking-
age Coinage in the Northern Lands. The Sixth Oxford
Symposium on Coinage and Monetary History, part I.
Oxford.
Ibn al-Faqīh al-Hamadhānī, Aḥmad ibn Muḥammad.
Kitâb al-Boldân (ca 902/903), 1885, 1967 (2nd ed).
Bibliotheca Geographorum Arabicorum V, Compendium
libri Kitâb al- Boldân / auctore Ibn al-Fakîh al-Hama-
dhânî; quod edidit, indicibus et glossario instruxit M.J.
de Goeje. Lugduni Batavorum.
Ibn Khordâdhbeh, ca 840s-880s; 1889, 1967 (2nd ed).
Kitâb al-Masâlik wa’l-Mamâlik. Bibliotheca Geo-
graphorum Arabicorum VI: Kitâb al-Masâlik wa’l-
Mamâlik = Liber viarum et regnorum/auctore Abu ’l-
Kâsim Obaidallah ibn Abdallah ibn Khor-dâdhbeh; et
excerpta e Kitâb al-Kharâdj/auctore Ko- dâma ibn Djafar;
quae cum versione Gallica edidit, indicibus et glossario
instruxit M.J. de Goeje. Lugduni Batavorum.
Jacobs, J., 1919. Jewish Contributions to Civilization. An
estimate. The Jewish Publication Society of Ameri-
ca. Philadelphia.
Jansson, I., 1977. Ett rembeslag av orientalisk typ fun-
net på Island. Vikingatidens orientaliska bälten
och deras eurasiska sammanhang. Tor 17. Uppsala.
– 1986. Gürtel und Gürtelzubehör vom Orienta-
lichen Typ. Arwidsson, G. (ed.). Birka II:2: Syste-
matische Analysen der Gräberfunde. Stockholm.
– 1997. Warfare, trade or colonisation? Some general
remarks on the eastern expansion of the Scandina-
vians in the Viking period. Hansson, P. (ed.). The Ru-
ral Viking in Russia and Sweden. Conference 19-20 Octo-
ber 1996 in the manor of Karlslund; Lectures. Örebro.
Jonsson, K., 2009. Eastern contacts based on the coin
finds. Situne dei. Annual of Sigtuna Research 2009.
Sigtuna.
Khalidov, A.B., 1997. Ebn al-Faqīh, Abū Bakr Ahmad.
Encyclopaedia Iranica VIII:1. Online edition. Co-
lumbia University. New York. www.iranicaonline.
org/articles/ebn-al-faqih
Kovalev, R.K., in press. Circulation of Sāmānid dir-
hams in Viking-Age Northern and Eastern Europe
(Based on the mints of Samarqand and al-Shāsh).
Dirham Hoards and Monetary Circulation in the
Northern Lands in the 10th Century. Papers from the
Oriental Numismatic Workshop Held in Oxford,
1–2 August, 2011.
Laufer, B., 1907. Historical jottings on amber in Asia.
Memoirs of the American Anthropological Association
1:3. Lancaster, PA.
Lewicki, T., 1956. Źródła arabskie do dziejów słowiańszc zyzny
tome 1. Wrocław.
Marquart, J., 1903. Osteuropäische und ostasiatische Streif-
züge. Etnologische und historisch-topographische Studi-
en zur Geschichte des 9. und 10. Jahrhunderts: (ca. 840–
940). Leipzig.
Masse, H., 1973. Abrégé du Livre des pays. Institut fran-
çais de Damas. Damascus. books.openedition. org/
ifpo/6232
De Meynard, C.B., 1865. Le livre des routes et des
provinces, par Ibn-Khordadbeh, publié, traduit et
annote par C. Barbier de Meynard. Journal Asiatique
VI:V. Paris. gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/bpt6k931851
/f5.image.r
Michailidis, M., 2012. Samanid Silver and Trade along
the Fur Route. Medieval Encounters 18. E.J. Brill.
Leiden.
Minorsky, V., 1937. Hudūd al-ʿālam: ’The Regions of the
World’. A Persian Geography; translated and explained
by V. Minorsky. Oxford.
– 1942. Sharaf al-Zamān Ṭāhir Marvazī on China, the
Turks and India: Arabic text (circa A.D. 1120) with an
English translation and commentary by V. Minorsky.
Royal Asiatic Society. London.
Montgomery, J.E., 2005. Serendipity, Resistance, and
Multivalency: Ibn Khurradādhbih and his Kitāb
al-Masālik wa-l-mamālik. Kennedy, P.F. (ed.). On
Fiction and Adab in Medieval Arabic Literature. Wies-
baden.
– 2008. Arabic sources on the Vikings. Brink, S. &
Price, N. (eds). The Viking World. Abingdon.
– 2010. Vikings and Rus in Arabic sources. Sulei-
man, Y. (ed.). Living Islamic history. Studies in honour
of Professor Carole Hillenbrand. Edinburgh.
Noonan, T.S., 1992. Fluctuations in Islamic Trade with
Eastern Europe during the Viking Age. Harvard
Ukrainian Studies16:3/4 (Dec. 1992). Cambridge, Mass.
Pellat, C., 1960 (online 2012). al-Rādhāniyya. Bear-
man, P. et al. (eds.). Encyclopaedia of Islam, 2nd ed.
Brill. Leiden. dx.doi.org/10.1163/1573-3912_islam
_SIM_6168
239Did the Vikings trade with China?
Fornvännen 111 (2016)
Art. Romgard 229-242_Layout 1  2016-12-05  10:03  Sida 239
Pritsak, O., 1970. An Arabic text on the trade route of
the corporation of ar-Rūs in the second half of the
ninth century. Folia OrientaliaXII. Wrocław.
Reinaud, J.T., 1848. Introduction générale à la géogra-
phie des Orientaux. Tome 1 of Géographie d’Aboulfé-
da traduit de l’arabe en français et accompagnée de notes
et d’éclaircissements par M. Reinaud. Paris.
Rybina, E.A., 1994 (1978). Novgorod’s Amber Trade
(Tenth–Fourteenth Centuries). Kaiser, D.H. &
Marker, G. (eds.). Reinterpreting Russian History:
Readings 860–1860s.New York. (The original article
in Russian appeared in Arkheologicheskie ocherki istorii
novgorodskoi torgovli X–XIV vv, Moscow, 1978.)
So, J.F., 2013. Scented trails: Amber as Aromatic in
Medieval China. Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society
23:1. London.
Sprenger, A., 1844. Some original passages on the early
commerce of the Arabs. Journal of the Royal Asiatic
Society of Bengal.Calcutta.
Vasiliev, A.A., 1946. The Russian attack on Constantinople
in 860. Cambridge, Mass.
Xu Xiaodong, 2007. Liao Dai hupo laiyuan de tantao
[Investigating the origin of Liao Dynasty amber].
Beifang Wenwu [Northern Cultural Relics] 91:3.
Harbin.
– 2009. Multicultural characteristics of Liao amber
and the source of raw material: Amber from the
tomb of Princess Chen and her consort. Palavestra,
A. et al. (eds.). Amber in archaeology: proceedings of the
Fifth International Conference on Amber in Archaeology,
Belgrade, 2006. Belgrade.
al-Yaʿqūbī, A. ibn Abī Yaʿqūb, 1937. Les pays / Yaʿkūbī ;
traduit par Gaston Wiet. Institut Français d’archaéo-
logie orientale. Cairo.
Zakhoder, B.N., 1962–67. Kaspijskij svod svedenij o Vos-
točnoj Evrope. Moscow.
Notes
1 “They journey from west to east, from east to
west, partly on land, partly by sea. They transport
from the west eunuchs, female and male slaves,
silk, castor, marten and other furs, and swords.
They take ship in the land of the Franks, on the
Western Sea, and steer for Farama (Pelusium).
There they load their goods on the backs of
camels and go by land to Kolzum (Suez) in five
days’ journey over a distance of twenty-five
parasangs. They embark in the East Sea (Red
Sea), and sail from Kolzum to El-Jar (port of
Medina) and Jeddah (port of Mecca); then they
go to Sind, India, and China. On their return they
carry back musk, aloes, camphor, cinnamon, and
other products of the Eastern countries to
Kolzum, and bring them to Farama, where they
again embark on the Western Sea. Some make sail
for Constantinople to sell their goods to the
Romans; others go to the palace of the king of the
Franks to place their goods. Sometimes these Jew
merchants prefer to carry their goods from the
land of the Franks in the Western Sea, making for
Antioch (at the mouth of the Orontes); thence
they go by land to Al-Jabia (?), where they arrive
after three days’ march. There they embark on the
Euphrates for Bagdad, and then sail down the
Tigris to al-Obolla. From al-Obolla they sail for
Oman, Sind, Hind, and China.” (Jacobs 1919, pp.
194–196).
2 Both Sprenger and Meynard used the then only
known copy of the Arabic text, the MS Hunting-
ton 433 in Oxford. De Meynard states in his work
that his fellow countryman Joseph Toussaint
Reinaud made the first translation of this passage.
However, Reinaud, who like Sprenger, brought
up the section on Rus and Radhanite trade as
examples on distant trade exchanges in Arabic
sources, probably used Sprenger’s English trans-
lation. Reinaud’s was the first into French,
though (de Meynard 1865, 512–513 n; Reinaud
1848, tome 1, pp. LVIII–LIX). 
3 De Goeje writes: “Il m’est impossible de déter-
miner l’intervalle qui sépare ce manuscrit de 
l’autographe, mais je le crois trés court”, BGAVI,
p. XVIII. 
4 Marquart writes that “Es ist selbstverständlich,
dass diese beiden grossen Landwege nur den
jüdischen Kaufleuten aus Spanien und Süd-
Frankreich zugeschrieben werden, wie auch de
Goeje in einer kurzen Note zu seiner Überset-
zung angedeutet hat.”
5 The first translator of the section, Aloys Sprenger,
also believed that Ibn al-Faqīh and Ibn Khordād-
hbeh used the same original source. However,
Sprenger commented that the latter part of the
text was “corrupted” in al-Faqīh’s version and
could “easily be corrected from the passage of Ibn
Khordadbeh” (Sprenger 1844, p. 526 n).
6 The section refers to the Kurds. See also the trans-
lation by Henri Masse in Abrégé du Livre des pays
(1973, p. 15 in the open edition version). 
7 In the latest edition of the Encyclopaedia of Islam
(Brill Online 2006) Golden repeats this view that
the passage on the Rus “interrupts” the notice on
the Radhanites. 
8 I will not complicate things further by involving
the question about the Slavs and the possible for-
mation of a Rus state. In this essay I am only
focusing upon whether or not Ibn Khordādhbeh
himself meant that the disputed passage should
concern the Rus. Interestingly, however, Birke-
land points out that there was never a question of
any Rus state in Ibn Khordādhbeh’s work because
to him they were primarily merchants, like their
contemporaries, the Radhanites (Birkeland 1954,
p. 11). 
240 Jan Romgard
Fornvännen 111 (2016)
Art. Romgard 229-242_Layout 1  2016-11-21  10:24  Sida 240
un dixième. Là ils s’embarquent sur la mer de
Djordjân (la Caspienne) et se dirigent sur tel
point de la côte qu’ils ont en vue. Cette mer a 500
parasanges de diamètre. Quelquefois ils trans-
portent leurs marchandises, à dos de chameau, de
la ville de Djordjân à Bagdad. Ici les eunuques
slaves leur servent d’interprètes. Ils prétendent
être chrétiens et payent là capitation comme tels.”
(BGA VI, pp. 115-116). 
14 An exact literal translation from the Arabic is dif-
ficult to make. Birkeland’s version would also
work. However, “fa–’ammā” in this context is
best translated by using the word “concerning”.
Pers. comm. Elie Wardini and Amanda Walldoff
2016.
15 al-Bakrī and Ibn al-ʿIdhārī also mention the
attack on Seville (see Birkeland 1954, pp. 65, 108 f).
16 Ibn al-Qūtīya mentions Rus’ travels to Alexandria
after a description of the attack on Seville.
17 The exact percentage mentioned by Hovén is
57.2%. However, the figure is actually most likely
about 60% as a number of coins with as yet unde-
termined origin are probably Samanid; pers.
comm. Gert Rispling 2006 and Cecilia von 
Heijne 2016.
18 As already Arne pointed out (1914, pp. 226, 228),
later a local production of these mounts began
also in northern Russia, the East Baltic, Finland
and Sweden (Jansson 1977, p. 398 f, 408).
19 The exchanges between the Samanids, eastern
Europe and Scandinavia are also seen in the 
period’s art. This aspect, and the influence that
the Samanid Empire and its Turkic successors had
on the Early Medieval economies, have to a large
degree been neglected in Western research.
Instead the predominant focus has been on south-
ern/central Iran and the Mediterranean region.
See Michailidis 2012, especially p. 322 f.
20 Beck’s and Stout’s informative studies are – as far
as I know – the only chemical analysis of this kind
done on Liao Dynasty amber. Xu Xiaodong’s
long experience of researching Liao and Song
Dynasty amber, as well as her studies of ancient
Chinese sources confirm that the Baltic Sea is the
most probable source for this commodity in 
China at that time. However, it would be valuable
if new and extended chemical analyses could be
made on amber artefacts found throughout China
to definitely prove this interesting connection
and to help map the spread of Baltic amber. A
comparison should then also be made with mate-
rial from the Dnieper area, which was a known
source of amber in the Viking Period as well (see
Rybina 1978/1994). See also Beck (1995, pp.
125–127) who gives a background to how the 
origins of amber have been studied and under-
stood over the years. 
241Did the Vikings trade with China?
Fornvännen 111 (2016)
9 The Arabic text is also published next to the
French in his book, making it easy to follow up,
check and compare the original with the transla-
tion. In contrast to de Goeje, however, the publi-
cation only consists of extracts from the Ibn
Khordādhbeh text. Importantly though, there
seem to be some differences between the Arabic
text in his book compared to the de Goeje 
volume. 
10 This view was also held by Thomas S. Noonan
who stated that “Since the Rādhāniyyah do not
appear to have been mentioned in later sources, it
is possible that the emergence of the Rūs-Khazar-
Islamic trade starting in the late eighth-early
ninth centuries somehow disrupted and perhaps
even replaced this northern route of the Rādhā-
niyyah” (Noonan 1992, p. 250). 
11 Montgomery’s translation of the passage reads:
“Their Land Route: those on a[n] expedition
emerge from al-Andalus or from Firanja and cross
to al-Sus al Aqsa, then proceed to Tanja, Ifriqiya,
Egypt, al-Ramla, Damascus, Kufa, Baghdad, 
Basra, al-Ahwaz, Fars, Kirman, al-Sind, al-Hind,
and [finally] to al-Sin. Sometimes they take [the
route] behind Rumiyya, in the territory of the
Saqaliba, on to Khamlij, the city of the Khazar,
then by the Sea of Jurjan, to Balkh, Transoxania,
the Wurut (the grazing lands, the Ust-Yurt) of the
Toghuzghuz, and to al-Sin.” (Montgomery 2010,
p. 155) 
12 Montgomery refers to the French Arabist Charles
Pellat’s 1960 article on the Radhanites in the
Encyclopaedia of Islam. Pellat there suggests that
the section on the Rus “is possibly an interpola-
tion owed to a copyist, but it is equally possible
that the author himself has inserted a few lines
regarding these merchants; this would then be
one of those intercalations through association of
ideas which are such a feature of mediaeval Arab
writings […]”. Although convinced that the Ra-
dhanites actually existed, Pellat then gives quite a
good summary of the debate about this group, for
which we have much less information than about
the Rus.
13 This translation into English is from P.B. Golden
(2006). I have omitted or changed some of the
notes given by Golden to make it easier to read.
The version in de Goeje’s translation reads: “Les
Russes, qui appartiennent aux peuples slaves, se
rendent, des régions les plus éloignées de Çaklaba
(le pays des Slaves), vers la mer romaine, et y
vendent des peaux de castor et de renard noir,
ainsi que des épées. Le prince des Romains
prélève un dixième sur leurs marchandises. – Ou
bien, ils descendent le Tanais (Don), le fleuve des
Slaves, et passent par Khamlydj, la capitale des
Khazares, où le souverain du pays prélève sur eux
Art. Romgard 229-242_Layout 1  2016-11-21  10:24  Sida 241
21 The inflow of Samanid silver coins to Scandinavia
shrank dramatically in the mid-10th century. The
reason for this change has been much debated,
but is currently attributed mainly to debased
coinage: the lowered silver content of the coins
would have caused Rus traders to reject them.
This does not necessarily mean that trade came to
a halt – excavations in Sweden show that trading
centres in Gotland and Öland continued to grow
in the 11th century and stayed active into the 12th
century. New trading partners appeared as well,
such as Frisian merchants who became increas-
ingly active in the Baltic region (Jonsson 2009,
pp. 57–66). Political change may also have played
a role, such as possibly an early development of a
Russian state, a view held primarily by Russian
scholars (see, for instance, Kovalev in press.).
However, contacts with both Russia and Byzan-
tium were still lively, and rune stones in Sweden
show that long-distance eastern expeditions con-
tinued well into the 11th century, although they
likely became more sporadic (Jansson 1977, p.
399).
22 Marvazī (c. 1120) states that “Slavonic amber” is
imported “because in China amber is blackish
and there is no demand for it, but there is a
demand for the genuine one for their ornaments”
(Minorsky 1942, p. 16 f). Chinese sources reveal
that especially the Uighurs were involved in
bringing amber to China, but also mention Per-
sian and Arabic envoys that brought tributes
(Laufer 1907, pp. 239–241; Xu Xiaodong 2007;
2009, p. 246). 
242 Jan Romgard
Fornvännen 111 (2016)
Art. Romgard 229-242_Layout 1  2016-11-21  10:24  Sida 242