I find it interesting that the western silver is supposed, according to the article, to have been “obtained through raids or ransom” but the eastern silver is supposed to demonstrate trade, and that the mixture of the two symbolizes “the fusion of cultures.” The Rus were raiding around the Caspian at the time, including Muslim territory, so it would be interesting to know how the archaeologists ruled out raiding as a source of the eastern silver.

History, like archeology and paleontology, often take a set of facts or evidentiary items and weave a plausible narrative around it. The narrative can be neutral but also can be stereotyped (in archelogy unknowns are assigned religious significance) or they can be influenced by contemporaneous thought --that is, the narrative is allowed to be influenced by the currents of the day. It may take a century or so for those narratives to be dispelled through the passage of time when such influence wanes.

Could it be that if the silver was still in coinage form it demonstrates trade. If the silver was formed into new objects it would imply raided silver. I'm assuming they use isotopes to figure out the origin of the silver.

Yeah it seems a bizarre claim, especially when we have references to Viking raids in Morocco and Seville as well!

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Viking_raid_on_Seville

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nekor