Academic literature on the topic 'Coins, Serbian'

From the Ottoman conquest in 1459 to the monetary reform launched in 1868 Serbia was under the full monetary suzerainty of the Ottoman Empire and did not have the right to mint her own coinage. The first half of the nineteenth century, however, saw the first signs of monetary autonomy. When in 1815 the Porte granted Serbian authorities the right to collect taxes, currency exchange rate lists began to be issued in Serbia determining the kind and price of foreign currencies acceptable for tax payment. When, in accordance with the hatti-sherifs of 1830 and 1833, Serbia's vassal taxes to the Ottoman Empire were united into a single monetary tribute to be paid annually in gold currencies, a dual accounting monetary unit was introduced as protection from Ottoman debased silver currency. A true monetary autonomy, however, was only achieved with the monetary reform carried out between 1868 and 1880, when a limping gold standard in accordance with the standards of the Latin Monetary Union was introduced de iure. After more than four centuries of using only foreign currencies in circulation, the minting of silver coins was reestablished in Serbia and a Serbian gold coin was minted for the first time. While adopting the minting standards of the Latin Monetary Union Serbia had never become a member.

The paper explores the phenomenon of secondary usage of Roman coins (2nd to 4th century) in medieval necropolises (10th to 15th century) in the territory of Serbia. The research is focused upon the graves in which the coins are used as ornaments on the costume of the deceased, most frequently reshaped as pendants. This type of secondary usage is only registered in female graves. The paper aims to suggest the interpretation of this phenomenon via the analysis of value and importance of secondarily used coins in the formation of family treasures, defined in important and critical moments of the social life. The possibility is explored of the graves in which female individuals were buried with parts of their dowry. The construction of meaning of these objects is analysed through their exchange in the customs linked to marriage and, finally, funerary practices. Since the Roman coins are scarce and exclusively made of bronze, it may be concluded that the definition of their value and importance is based upon the symbolic and representational levels. The starting point of the paper is the concept of the social biography of objects, in order to further investigate the link between the Serbian medieval social structure and evaluation of the coins in rural communities of the Central Balkans.

The paper provides a review of the activities of the Ministry of Finance and the National Bank of Yugoslavia in the period from 1931 to 1941, during which the 50-dinar banknote was prepared, printed and, after almost ten years of waiting, put into circulation for a short amount of time. The preparations for the production of the 50-dinar banknote, which bears the date 1 December 1931, began at the beginning of the same year. The banknote was made for the event of an emergency situation in the country, when silver coins disappear from circulation, to replace those coins, and to enable unhindered cash circulation. It was released on 8 April 1941, when the Kingdom of Yugoslavia was already at war, in the total amount of 30,792,000 pieces. The National Bank only put a small part of that into circulation, and destroyed a larger part, but the occupying forces also used it for payments in the country. The withdrawal from circulation was carried out by the Serbian National Bank in the occupied Serbia, from 14 to 22 October 1941.

While the first two chapters of Doucas's historical work present a meagre outline of world history - a sketch which becomes a little more detailed from 1261 on, when the narration reaches the history of the Turks and their conquests in Asia Minor - the third chapter deals with the well-known battle of Kosovo, which took place in 1389. From that point on, the Byzantine historian gives much important information on Serbia, as well as on the Ottoman advances in the Balkans, and thus embarks upon his central theme - the rise of the Turks and the decline of Byzantium. Doucas considers the battle of Kosovo a key event in the subjugation of the Balkan peoples by the Turks, and he shows that after the battle of Kosovo the Serbs were the first to suffer that fate. At the beginning, Doucas says that after the death of Orhan, the ruler (o archgos) of the Turks, his son and successor Murad conquered the Thracian towns, Adrianople and the whole Thessaly, so that he mastered almost all the lands of the Byzantines, and finally reached the Triballi (Triballous). He devastated many of their towns and villages sending the enslaved population beyond Chersonesus, until Lazar, son of King Stefan of Serbia (Serbias), who ruled (kraley?n) in Serbia at that time decided to oppose him with all the might he could muster. The Serbs were often called Triballi by Byzantine authors. For the fourteenth century writers Pachymeres, Gregoras, Metochites and Kantakouzenos the Serbs were Triballi. However, Pachymeres and Gregoras refer to the rulers of the Triballi as the rulers of Serbia. Fifteenth century writers, primarily Chalcondyles and Critobulos, use only that name. It seems, nevertheless, that Doucas makes a distinction between the Triballi and the Serbs. As it is known, the conquest of the Serbian lands by the Turks began after the battle on the river Marica in 1371. By 1387. the Turks had mastered Serres(1388) Bitola and Stip (1385), Sofia (1385), Nis (1386) and several other towns. Thus parts of Macedonia, Bulgaria and even of Serbia proper were reduced by the Turks by 1387. For Doucas, however, this is the territory inhabited by the Triballi. After the exposition of the events on Kosovo, Doucas inserts an account of the dispute of John Kantakouzenos and the regency on behalf of John V, which had taken place, as it is known, long before 1389. At the beginning of his description of the civil war, Doucas says that by dividing the empire Kantakouzenos made it possible for the Turks to devastate not only all the lands under Roman rule, but also the territories of the Triballi Moesians and Albanians and other western peoples. The author goes on to narrate that Kantakouzenos established friendly relations with the king Stefan Du{an, and reached an agreement with him concerning the fortresses towns and provinces of the unlucky Empire of the Romaioi, so that, instead of giving them over to the Roman lords, he surrendered them to barbarians, the Triballi and the Serbs (Triballoys te kai Serbous). When he speaks later how the Tatars treated the captives after the battle of Angora in 1402, Doucas points out that the Divine Law, honored from times immemorial not only among the Romaioi, but also among the Persians, the Triballi and the Scythians (as he calls Timur's Tatars), permitted only plunder, not the taking of captives or any executions outside the battlefield when the enemy belonged to the same faith. Finally, when he speaks of the conflict between Murad II and Juneid in Asia Minor, Doucas mentions a certain Kelpaxis, a man belonging to the people of the Triballi, who took over from Juneid the rule over Ephesus and Ionia. It seems, therefore, that Doucas, when he speaks of the land of the Triballi he has in mind a broad ethnical territory in the Balkans, which was obviously not settled by the Serbs only or even by the Slavs only. According to him Kelpaxis (Kelpaz?sis) also belonged to the Triballi, although the name can hardly be of Slavonic, i.e. Serbian origin. On the other hand, he is definitely aware of Serbia, a state which had left substantial traces in the works of Byzantine authors, particularly from the time when it usurped (according to the Byzantine view) the Empire. Writing a whole century after Dusan's coronation as emperor, Doucas is not willing, as we shall see later to recognize this usurpation. Although he ascribes to Serbia, in conformity with the Byzantine conception of tazis, a different rank, he considers Serbia and the Serbs, as they are generally called in his work (particularly when he describes the events after the Battle of Kosovo) an important factor in the struggle against the Turks. Therefore he makes a fairly accurate distinction between the Serbs and the other Triballi. In his case, the term may in fact serve as a geographical designation for the territory settled by many peoples, including the Serbs. When he uses specific titles and when he speaks of the degrees of authority conveyed by them in individual territories Doucas is anxious to prove himself a worthy scion of the Romaioi, who considered that they had the exclusive right to the primacy in the Christian hierarchy with the Roman emperor at its top. He makes distinctions of rank between individual rulers. The Emperor in Constantinople is for him the only emperor of the Romans (basileys t?n R?mai?n). King Sigismund of Hungary is also styled emperor, but as basileys t?n R?man?n, meaning Latin Christians. The last Byzantine emperor Constantine XI Dragas Palaleologus is not recognized as an emperor, and the author calls his rule a despotic rule (despoteia). He has a similar view of the Serbs. Thus he says, erroneously that Lazar was the son of King Stefan of Serbia (yios Stefanoy toy kral? Serbias) and that he ruled Serbia at that time (o tote t?n Serbian kraley?n). Elsewhere, Doucas explains his attitude and says that o t?n Serb?n archgos etolm?sen anadusasthai kratos kai kral?s onomazesthai. Toyto gar to barbaron onoma exell?nizomenon basileys erm?neyetai. Lazar exercises royal power (kraley?n) in Serbia, which is appropriate, for the author thinks erroneously that Lazar was the son and successor of King Stefan Du{an. It is significant that he derives the werb kraley? from the Serbian title 'kralj', i.e. from the title which never existed in the Byzantine Empire. Moreover, there is no mention of this werb in any other Byzantine text. When he narrates how Serbia fell under the Turkish rule in 1439, Doucas says that Despot Djuradj Brankovic seeing his ravaged despotate (despoteian), went to the King of Hungary hoping to get aid from him. There can be no doubt that the term despoteia here refers to the territory ruled by Despot Djuradj Brankovic. Doucas correctly styles the Serbian rulers after 1402 as despots. The space he devotes to Serbia in his work, as well as the manner in which he speaks of it, seems to indicate, however, that he regarded it, together with Hungary as a obstacle of the further Turkish conquests in the Balkans. Doucas's text indicates that Serbia, though incomparably weaker than in the time of Dusan's mighty empire, was in fact the only remaining more or less integral state in the Peninsula. The riches of Serbia and, consequently, of its despots, is stressed in a number of passages. Almost at the very beginning Doucas says that Bayezid seized 'a sufficient quantity of silver talents from the mines of Serbia' after the Battle of Kosovo. When Murad II conducted negotiations with Despot Djuradj for his marriage with the Despot's daughter Mara, Doucas writes, no one could guess how many 'gold and silver talents' he took. Doucas also says that the Despot began to build the Smederevo fortress with Murad's permission. The building of a fortress has never been an easy undertaking and if we bear in mind that Despot Djuradj built the part of the Smederevo fortress called 'Mali Grad' (Small fortress) in two years only, we realize that his economic power was really considerable. When Fadulah, the counselor of Murad II, sought to persuade his lord to occupy Serbia, he stressed the good position of the country, particularly of Smederevo, and the country's abundant sources of silver and gold, which would enable Murad not only to conquer Hungary, but also to advance as far as Italy. After Mehmed II captured Constantinople, the Serbs undertook to pay an annual tribute of 12.000 gold coins, more than the despots of Mistra, the lords of Chios Mitylene or the Emperor of Trebizond. Already in 1454 the Despot's men brought the tribute to Mehmed II and also ransomed their captives. Critobulos's superb description of Serbia is the best testimony that this was not only Doucas's impression: 'Its greatest advantage, in which it surpasses the other countries, is that it produces gold and silver? They are mined everywhere in that region, which has rich veins of both gold and silver, more abundant than those of India. The country of the Triballi was indeed fortunate in this respect from the very beginning and it was proud of its riches and its might. It was a kingdom with numerous flourishing towns and strong and impregnable fortresses. It was also rich in soldiers and armies as well as in good equipment. It had citizens of the noblest rank and it brought up many youths who had the strength of adult men. It was admired and famous, but it was also envied, so that is was not only loved of many, but also disliked by many people who sought to harm It'. It is no wonder that George Sphrantzes once complains that Christians failed to send aid to Constantinople and that he singles out for particular blame that 'miserable despot, who did not realize that once the head is removed, the limbs, too disappear'. It may be said, therefore, that Doucas regarded Serbia as one of the few remaining allies of at least some ability to stem the Turkish advances, and that this opinion was primarily based on its economic resources. Serbia was clearly distinguished as a state structure, as opposed to most of the remaining parts of the Peninsula, inhabited by peoples which Doucas does not seem to differentiate precisely. According to him, the authority over a particular territory issued from the ruler's title, the title of despot, which was first in importance after the imperial title, also determined the rank of Serbia in the Byzantine theory of hierarchy of states. Doucas's testimony also shows that this theory not only endured until the collapse of the Empire, but that it also persisted even in the consciousness of the people who survived its fall.

The medieval settlement on the Rudnik Mountain was established, most probably, in the final decades of the 13th century. Soon it evolved into one of the best known mining and commercial centres in the Serbian state and reached its peak during the 14th and in the first half of the 15th century. The importance of Rudnik in the medieval period is confirmed by numerous material traces in the field. The most important discoveries in the course of archaeological investigations carried out since 2009 have been encountered in the area called Drenje, not far from the centre of the town of Rudnik (figs. 1, 2).Three churches (two Orthodox and one Roman Catholic), as well as many profane structures dated to the time of a thriving medieval Rudnik have so far been discovered. It indicates that in that area are the remains of the main settlement and the medieval market place of Rudnik, known from written sources. Among other structures at the site of Drenje, in the garden of S. Markovi}, the remains of rather a large building consisting, according to present data, of at least two rooms, have been investigated during the past three years (fig. 3). Important for dating the structure is a coin of the Hungarian king Sigismund of Luxembourg (1387-1437), discovered on the floor. Traces of an earlier phase of life were encountered under the structure (fig. 5). Coins have been found in two earlier pits. In the soil inside pit 11 a coin of the Hungarian king Charles Robert (1308-1342) was found, while in the top level of pit 2 a coin attributed to Prince Lazar (around 1370-1389) was found. Also from pit 2 came a, so far, unique archaeological find in our territory. It has been explained as a seal-die used for producing seals (fig, 7, 8). The representation in the central field and the contents of the inscription bear witness to the fact that the seal-die belonged to Prince Lazar. A helmet with bull horns engraved on the front side is understood to be the coat of arms of Prince Lazar, also used by his successors. The central field is surrounded by two concentric circles and between them is a circular inscription (fig. 9): + SI ? HARB GDNA KNEZA LAZARA SVE SRBSKE ZEMLE Translation of the inscription: + this is the grace of Lord Prince Lazar of the whole Serbian lands A seal stamped using the seal-die from Rudnik has not yet been found. The content of the inscription on the Rudnik sealdie is also quite unusual and unique. The word har? is translated to mean grace, a word that has not been recorded on any other stamp to date. On the other hand, the word grace has a distinct meaning in Serbian charters, denoting the legal activity of specific contents by which the ruler awarded nobles, the Church, market-towns, etc. The ruler?s grace as a legal act of distinct content must have been apparent and public and, as evidence of this grace, there would have been a distinct document. The very word grace is used in the documents as the name for a legal public document by which rulers ?created grace?, ?made grace? or allowed something by their grace. Taking this into account, it could be concluded that any seal stamped with the Rudnik sealdie as a means of notarisation of the document confirmed that the document represented the ruler?s grace in the sense of a valid legal public document. Considering the shape and size of the seal-die, it could be ascribed to the seal-die group for which it is characteristic that the seal was obtained not by impressing the seal-die in wax but by pressing the wax onto the seal-die, disregarding whether it was an applied or hanging seal. Supporting this assumption is the existence of small notches in the bottom corners of the Rudnik seal-die that were most probably used for connecting to the top part, making possible a better stamping of the seal, possibly even allowing the seal to have representations on both sides. The seal-die is dated from the time of Lazar?s rule over Rudnik, between 1373 and 1389. Mentioned in the inscription is the rule of Prince Lazar over all Serbian lands, suggesting that the date of the seal-die could be fixed in the final decade of Lazar?s life. It was most probably buried in 1390, during the time of King Sigismund?s attack on Serbia. One of the most important theatres of war in that campaign was the Rudnik region.

The preserved presentations of the Byzantine basileis of the XIII, XIV and XV centuries show that the creators of the late Byzantine monarchical portraits adhered to certain traditional rules when selecting the personages from the ruling house, which they were to portray. Defining which figures were to be depicted in the portrayal of power depended to a large extent on the changing circumstances and events in the imperial house. However, at the same time this was also based on a significantly more profound conception that rested on principles that had evolved in the course of a long history. The understanding of who could personify power was refracted through the prism of ideology and reflected in carefully shaped iconographic matrices. The omission of the images of certain members of the ruler's house, just as much as their inclusion, carried a certain meaning, as did the hierarchical arrangement of those who were portrayed. Generally speaking, this depended on the degree of their kinship with the sovereign, their sex, titles or dignities, and the connection of the members of the dynasty with the emperor's particular marriage. Therefore, one can rather clearly distinguish certain constants, if not rules, according to which some figures were omitted and others included, and, the specific changes that occurred from the end of the Middle Byzantine period till the fall of the Empire. The development of a unique kind of feudalism played a particular role in the specific characteristics in determining who was to appear in the monarchical portraits of the Palaiologan epoch in Byzantium and the states in its neighbourhood. As the preserved portrait ensembles and known written testimonies indicate, we find the images of the rulers' daughters did not feature in presentations of the 'emperors of the Romans' from the Late Byzantine period. In the Palaiologan epoch, they did not participate in the governing of the state nor were they taken into consideration in plans for succession to the throne. In the earlier period of Byzantine history, slightly different circumstances and views prevailed. That is why, owing to some specific circumstances, the emperor's daughters were sometimes depicted in the portraits of the imperial family. However, from the time of the Komnenoi when the medieval dynastic awareness finally asserted itself in Byzantium, the images of the emperor's female progeny practically vanished from the pictures of those who wielded supreme authority. The custom of omitting the figures of the emperors' daughters from the presentations of the ruling houses was also accepted and rather strictly obeyed for a long time in the portraiture of the neighbouring Orthodox Christian countries. In Serbia, this was disregarded only till just before the state collapsed, while in Bulgaria, exceptions to this rule were observed a little earlier. This was the result of accepting the ideological and iconographic models that were distinctive for the nobility, at the height of the feudal period. The images of daughters-in-law had always been omitted even more consistently than in the case of the figures of daughters in the monarchical presentations of the Byzantine and other Orthodox Christian rulers. As a rule, they were not depicted close to the image of the sovereign, even when they were the wives of the proclaimed and even crowned co-rulers, and successors to the throne. It is very probable that this custom survived into the Palaiologan era even though there are some signs that in Byzantium, this rule may have been disregarded in some cases. The figures of sovereigns' wives and sons had a significantly different status from the images of daughters and daughters-in-law. As a rule, they played an essential and customary role in the monarchical presentation because the rulers' wives and male successors had a stake in authority, in its transfer and succession. Still, it often happened that even wives and sons were omitted from such a presentation - all or some of them. The principle of presenting the individual portraits of emperors was inaugurated in early Byzantium and later, was continually applied even when depicting rulers who were married and had numerous offspring. Different factors could have influenced the decision to depict the monarch alone, even trivial factors. Nonetheless, when insisting on the individual image of the emperor, the ideology upon which this image was based was crucial. The separate portrait of the supreme ruler best explained the iconic essence of monarchical power as a reflection of the King of Heaven and brought to the forefront the exclusivity of the emperor's mimetic collusion with the divine source of power. That is why such a presentation was able to represent the idea and the authority of all earthly majesty through the image of one anointed man. The introduction in the monarchical portrait of the ruler's sons, who were not crowned or proclaimed co-emperors, is a very interesting phenomenon that was characteristic of monumental and miniature painting in the Palaiologan epoch. In the Middle Byzantine period, only those male descendents, who had the status of co-rulers and were crowned, were depicted next to the imperial sovereign. The custom of including uncrowned sons and ruler's sons who had not been initiated in the affairs of state in the presentation of the ruler's house can also be observed from the second half of the XIII to the middle of the XV century in Serbia. It appears that this custom also left traces even in Bulgarian art. On the other hand, the images of the ruler's sons, who had not received the imperial crown, were omitted in the presentations on coins dating from the Palaiologan epoch. Such action was fully in keeping with ancient Byzantine customs in defining the monetary image of authority. An exception could be only one type of coin that many believe to have been produced in the time of Andronikos III, which bore the image of the very young emperor's son, John. Nevertheless, it is more probable that this coin came into being during the regency period, after Andronikos' death in 1341 and the coronation of John V. A little later in the Palaiologan era, however the image of the co-ruler was omitted in the Byzantine monetary image of authority even when he was crowned and bore the title of autokrator. Apparently, the joint presentations of the rulers and co-rulers disappeared completely from Byzantine coins, after the final rupture between John V Palaiologos and John VI Kantakouzenos. In fact, not one of the types of coins bearing the joint images of the ruler and co-ruler has been reliably attributed and classified in this period. Meanwhile, it is important to note that the suppression of the joint presentation of the emperor and co-emperor on Byzantine coins occurred parallel to the unusual appearance of separate co-ruler coins. Separate coins were produced simultaneously by John V and Matthew Kantakouzenos, John V and Andronikos IV, Manuel II and John VII. The production of such coins reflected the complicated political circumstances in the Empire. The situation was affected not only by clashes between the rulers and the co-rulers but also by the periodical assumption of supreme power by the co-rulers, as well as by the later development of Byzantine feudalism. Circumstances characteristic of the later period in Byzantium, which was caught up in a particular process of feudalisation, changed the customs and led to unusual iconographic solutions even in other media. An illustrative example of this is the well-known ivory pixis, which is kept in the Dumbarton Oaks Collection in Washington. Displayed on it, despite the customs of long ago, are the two separate imperial families of John VII, and Manuel II, one beside the other. In iconographic terms, this looks less like a presentation of co-rulership and more like a presentation of almost parallel rules. In the Late Byzantine epoch, another peculiarity is that the image of the augusta is only encountered in exceptional circumstances on coins of the Byzantine Empire. Among the numerous empresses from the Palaiologan dynasty, only Anne of Savoy was depicted on coins and this seems to be just from the moment when she became the regent. Meanwhile, on the presentations of the rulers of the Serbian and Bulgarian states, one can follow the iconographic consequences of the dynastic complications caused by the remarriages of the rulers. The monarchical presentations from the period of the kings Milutin and Stefan Decanski, or the emperor John Alexander, show that it was quite hard to assemble the figures of the new wives of the said rulers and the sons of those same rulers from their earlier marriages, who were heirs to the throne near the figure of the state's sovereign ruler. If one desired to present a clear dynastic situation, those persons ruled each other out. Sometimes, the ruler's son from a previous marriage took precedence, while in another case the emphasis was on the new queen and her offspring.

The aim of this paper is to reconstruct the circulation of coinage through an analysis of finds of hoards of ‘Illyrian coins’ from the territory of Greek Illyria in the period from the 4th to the 1st century BC. To this end, hoards from modern-day Albania, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Croatia, Montenegro, Kosovo, and Serbia, that is the maximum territorial extent of the so-called ‘Illyrian state’, were compiled in a catalogue. This catalogue of hoards of Illyrian coins served as a basis for producing dedicated maps which present data in a cumulative form, as well as sorted by date and place of issue. Distribution of finds in relation to terrain and settlement patterns was studied in order to locate concentrations of coins of given centres in different periods. Additionally, important observations concerned places in which coin hoards are absent or very scarce. The catalogue was also useful for tracing patterns in the composition of the hoards – those consisting of coins most commonly minted together and those dominated by coins of differing provenance.

The life-style and politics of Stefan Radoslav bear the mark of activities that indicated his special attachment to the Byzantine world. These activities were prompted by a combination of ideological ambitions and political reality, but they were not in keeping with the modest achievements of Radoslav's reign. Moreover, most of these activities belong to the time when Radoslav was heir to the throne. There is no doubt that Stefan Nemanjic the Grand Zhupan and subsequently the first crowned king, had exclusive connections with the Byzantine dynasty of the Angeloi, especially with the emperor Alexios III (1195-1203). In that context, the donor's inscription in the basic ring of the dome in the Church of the Mother of God in Studenica (1208), in which his father Stefan Nemanja, is mentioned as (former) 'veleslavni gospodin vse srbske zemlje veli(ki) zupan i svat cara grckog kir Alesija', is quite indicative. This ideological construction would acquire a contour in reality by means of a political marriage with one of the female offspring of Angeloi lineage, which would represent an alternative solution to Stefan's failed marriage with Eudocia, daughter of the emperor Alexios. Instead, several years elapsed in waging war with the Latins, the Bulgarians and the State of Epiros. However, efforts to create firmer, more tangible ties with the Angeloi dynasty from Epiros were not forgotten. Therefore, the Serbian monarch brought his eldest son Radoslav into play, intending to have him act as a link with the Angeloi bloodline. As a result of all this, the final attempt to have Radoslav become the husband of a princess from the Angelos dynasty is not surprising. At the end of 1219 or the beginning of 1220, he married Anna Doukaina, the daughter of the epirotic ruler Theodore I Angelos Doukas Komnenos, which at that point represented a marriage connection of the highest possible level between two ruling houses. Stefan's insistence on Serbia acquiring a stake in the Byzantine succession could not have been expressed more clearly. Radoslav now had a solid position in that succession. On his engagement ring we read: '(This is) the engagement ring of Stefan, a descendant of the house of Doukai, and therefore, Anna, of the family of Komnenoi, receive it into your hands'. This brief text should be connected to the most important part of the inscription from the dome in Studenica. The statement of kinship with the Doukai must be interpreted as a statement of kinship with the Angeloi dynasty, that is, with Alexios III Angelos. In the said circumstances, it confirms the identification of the Byzantine emperor depicted in the Mileseva monastery, opposite to the figures of Stefan the First-Crowned and Radoslav, as Alexios III Angelos. Thus Mileseva highlights the ideological significance of the direct linkage of two members of the house of Nemanjic, both the father Stefan and his son Radoslav, to the Angeloi dynasty. The other 'Byzantinisms' of King Radoslav when he became sole ruler understandably rested upon the described foundation. The coins from his time, which, ostensibly, were produced in the Salonika mint of the Epirotic monarchs, were similar to the coins of the house of Angeloi and were marked with the surname Doukas, which also appears in the well known Greek signature on a document from the end of his reign. In historical terms, all of this becomes even more striking because during the subsequent reigns of the other sons of Stefan the First Crowned - Vladislav and Uros I - they distanced themselves entirely from this policy.

In the course of rescue archaeological investigations at the Viminacium necropolis of Vi{e Grobalja in 1984, one anonymous quadrans of the VIII Apollo group was discovered (cat. 1). It was discovered in trench 63 in the immediate vicinity of a grave with an inhumation (G 343) that, besides two pottery vessels, also yielded as grave offerings one as of Faustina the Elder, minted after her death, in AD 141. Other finds presented here are four specimens of Roman mining coins from the private collection of Petar Fajfri} from [abac (cat. 2-5). All specimens come from the well known site of Duge Njive in the area of the village of Banatsko Polje (Bogati} borough) where, by all appearances, are the remains of a vicus or smaller settlement. Five specimens of mining coins from that site have already been published. Both mining coins and anonymous quadrantes represent, in general, rare types of numismatic finds. Nine anonymous quadrantes are known so far from the territory of Serbia (Table 1) and the provenance is known for three specimens from the region of Guberevac-Babe (Kosmaj), housed in the National Museum in Belgrade. All three belong to the Minerva group with an owl facing to the right represented on the reverse. For two more anonymous quadrantes the place of discovery is known: one specimen comes from Singidunum and belongs to the Mercury group and the other that was found at Viminacium and is the subject of this paper is of the Apollo group. There are four more specimens from unknown sites for which it is assumed that they come from the Upper Moesia territory. Two of them are from the Vajfert collection and two from the Kovacevic collection in the National Museum in Belgrade, There has, however, been a somewhat greater number (38) of Roman mining coins discovered in Serbia (Table 1). We know the finding locations of 25 of them: from the Kosmaj area (Babe, Guberevac and Stojnik), the Ibar valley (from the vicinity of Trepca and So~anica), Ritopek, Belgrade and Banovo Polje. We do not know the provenance for the remaining 13 specimens, but it is assumed that they come from the Upper Moesia territory. The anonymous quadrans discovered at the Viminacium necropolis of Vi{e Grobalja belongs, as previously mentioned, to the Apollo group. The only analogous piece known from the territory of Serbia comes from the Kovacevic collection in the National Museum in Belgrade. Most of the known specimens belong to the Minerva group (3), there are two pieces of the Mars group, one of Mercury and one undetermined (Table 1). The anonymous quadrans from Viminacium is the second of its kind discovered along the Upper Moesia section of the Danube limes. The quadrans from Singidunum was found in the zone of the Roman Singidunum harbour and belongs to the Mercury group. Five specimens of mining coins in the Fajfri} collection published earlier belong to the same METAL DELM type with a bust of Diana on the obverse and deer on the reverse. To this group should be added our specimen cat. 2, and as such this type is the best represented group (6) of mining coins from the site of Duge Njive at Banovo Polje. The same group, Metalli Delmatici, also includes cat. 3, which has the head of Mars on the obverse and armour on the reverse. Then there are the two identical quadrantes of the group MetalliAureliani (cat. 4, 5) and their only analogy from the territory of Serbia is the quadrans from the Kosmaj area. The nine specimens of mining coins from the site of Duge Njive at Banovo Polje make up a considerable proportion of the total number of mining coins in Serbia. Their importance is even greater because of the fact that seven METAL DELM specimens are the first of that group for which we know the finding location. Finds of the anonymous quadrans from the Viminacium necropolis of Vi{e Grobalja and the mining coins from Banovo Polje complete the picture of the topography of this kind of numismatic finds. Their publishing is, mainly because of the known provenance, more significant for future investigations.

Amodern Example May Help to Clarify some of the issues to be discussed in this chapter. Formerly one of the six republics forming the Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (SFRY), Bosnia- Hercegovina has since 1995’s Dayton Agreement been an uneasy international protectorate, divided into a Croat-Muslim Federation, and the Serbian ‘Republika Srpska’ (RS). Bosnia’s coinage speaks powerfully about the paradoxes of a state created through a bloody war of identity and ethnic cleansing. These two entities—the Federation and the RS— and three communities—Serbian, Croatian, and Bosnian Muslim—display strong and sometimes aggrieved senses of their own individual identities, and ethnic divisions can arise over the simplest of everyday differences. For example, car registration stickers until recently identified cars as registered either in the Federation or in the RS. The International Community felt compelled to design a coinage in which ethnic differences were avoided. The currency itself is a paradox—known as the ‘Convertible Mark’ (KM), it converts to another currency, the Deutschmark, which no longer exists. But it is in the choice of iconography that the Bosnian KM is most striking; these are some of the least attractive coins ever issued, more akin to subway tokens than to genuine coinage. One side of the 1 KM coin displays the stylized shield motif of Bosnia-Hercegovina, a device approved by the International Community. The other bears the denomination and the words ‘Bosne i Hercegovina’ twice, in one language, and two alphabets, though Serbs, Muslims, and Croats might deny that the Latin script of Catholic Croatia, and the Cyrillic of Orthodox Serbia represent the same language. Aside from this need for linguistic even-handedness, no other motifs are to be found. An iconographic void appears to be the only means of compromise. What does this tell us? First, any minting authority can use coins to send an ideological and iconographical message. Coinages represent both political and economic acts. Second, coinage is in no sense an unmediated or direct guide to the ethnic identities of communities; it represents deliberate political choices made by those in control and may therefore mirror social attitudes of those not in control, attempt to modify them, or ignore them outright.

This chapter discusses the life and work of Bat Ye’or (Gisèle Littman), who is widely seen as the doyenne of “Eurabia”-literature. This comes in different varieties and formulations, but in Bat Ye’or’s rendering refers to an ongoing secretive conspiracy which involves both the European Union and Muslim-majority countries in North Africa and the Middle East, aimed at establishing Muslim control over a future Europe or “Eurabia.” Though Bat Ye’or did not coin the term “Eurabia,” she can be credited with having popularized the concept through quasi-academic titles such as Eurabia: The Euro-Arab Axis and Europe, Globalization and the Coming Universal Caliphate. Through its dissemination on various “counter-jihadist” websites and in the work of the Norwegian counter-jihadist blogger Fjordman, her work inspired the Norwegian terrorist Anders Behring Breivik. She also has long-standing relations with Serbian ultranationalists, the Israeli Far Right, and various radical Right activists in Western Europe and the US.