vondrovec 2008a libre

BUFM 50, Vondrovec, Numismatic Evidence of the Alchon Huns reconsidered, 25 - 56

Klaus Vondrovec

Numismatic Evidence of the Alchon Huns reconsidered1

This article aims to sum up the impact of a newlypublished copper scroll inscription2 on the monetaryhistory of the Alchon Huns.3 The latter belong to theIranian Huns who – in contrast to the Huns in Europe– migrated into Central Asia and came into contactwith the Sasanian Empire and the Guptas in India.Both the system and the chronology of the coinage ofthe Iranian Huns have been elucidated, but only inrather crude outlines. Linking numismatic evidenceeither to literary sources or to absolute chronologicaldates has proved difficult and is greatly dependenton further archaeological finds.

Although the new copper scroll is held in a privatecollection and no information relating to its find-spotcan be provided, it contains a location in itself and canalso be tentatively dated. The most interesting aspectfor our purpose is that it mentions four royal person-ages whose names are also known from coins.Furthermore, the inscription suggests that these fourlords or kings lived and ruled at least partly at thesame time. Therefore the focus of this article will beon coin types with a view to revealing the numismat-ic background in more detail in order to facilitate fur-ther research. Primarily only those coins bearing thefour names, most of which are silver drachms, will beincluded.

Monetary History

In 1967 Robert Göbl published Dokumente zurGeschichte der Iranischen Hunnen in Baktrien undIndien,4 which still constitutes the standard referencework for the coins of the Huns and their successors.Basing his investigations entirely on their coinage,Göbl identified four major entities of the IranianHuns which he referred to as “families of coin types”:Kidarites, Alchon, Nezak5, and Hephthalites. He alsoincluded the Western Turks; while they are of differ-ent origin from the Huns, their coinage abides almostseamlessly from that of various Hunnic states andtherefore cannot be separated from the latter. In con-tradistinction to the European Huns he created the

term “Iranian Huns6”, based on the fact that the Hunsin Central Asia generally adopted the languages andcultural habits of the Iranian world, sophisticatedcoin production being one of the latter.

Despite the lack of available archaeological data aswell as almost any other written sources, Göbl man-aged to create ‘history from money’, so to speak.Since 1967 a great deal of new evidence has been pub-lished, including wall-paintings, silver bowls and the‘Bactrian Documents’. Many previously unknowncoins or better preserved specimens have also cometo light in the meantime, adding a substantial amountof new information to our knowledge.7 New coinsoften appear in auction catalogues. These can at leastbe used for the purpose of further reconstructing theoverall minting system but unfortunately no informa-tion regarding find-spots or related material is avail-able. Consequently museums and private collectionsplay an important role in scientific research onCentral Asia, particularly as the authorities in pres-ent-day Uzbekistan, Tajikistan, Afghanistan, andPakistan, countries which cover the territories onceinhabited by the Iranian Huns, do not have sufficientresources to ensure the preservation of their culturalheritage to a greater extent.

Although Göbl was well aware that Hunnic clans nei-ther corresponded to modern states nor should beconsidered as ethnic groups, he imagined these“type-families” to have been “waves of Invaders”.8

The coinage of the Iranian Huns derives either fromthe adaptation of well-established coin types withlegends of their own, produced by recutting originalcoin dies, or initially introduces a unique and former-ly unparalleled design. Although their coinage dis-plays several aspects of their own identity it offersfew clues as to how the Huns entered the cultural cos-mos of Central Asia and Northwest India. The home-lands of the various clans or tribes of the Huns arelocated in the area of present-day Mongolia, whichmeans that neither the languages and scripts used on

25


their coins nor the monetary system of the SasanianEmpire – if not the use of coins as such – belonged totheir original cultural background. Nevertheless,regardless of how the Huns migrated into CentralAsia or seized power in Afghanistan or Gandhara,both their history and their coinage is often intercon-nected and thus suggests parallel lordships or somekind of hierarchical relationship between differentkingdoms.

Reconsidering the literary evidence

In a recent article Étienne de la Vaissière proposed aninteresting view of the process of Hun migration intoCentral Asia.9 From an analysis of Chinese literarysources he has come to the conclusion that ‘probably[...] all the nomadic kingdoms that flourished inBactria between the middle of the fourth century andthe middle of the sixth century can trace their originback to a single episode of massive migration in thesecond half of the fourth century (circa 350–370), andnot to a whole set of successive migrations.’

This would dramatically change our currentunderstanding of the political setting of the entireregion. As a consequence the arrangement of thecoinage of the Iranian Huns would have to bereviewed. As a matter of fact, literary sources do notcorrespond with the system established by numisma-tists; absolute dates differ considerably, and more-over the names of the political entities vary.10 Ancienthistoric records are scarce and not always accurate,especially when it comes to reports on enemies likethe Huns. Chinese sources may be authentic but theyassign their own names and transliterations to foreigntribes, while other sources were compiled only cen-turies after the reported events had taken place andare therefore not apt to help settle scholarly dis-putes.11

Coins are unchanged and therefore authenticobjects that were produced by and under the controlof an authority. Nevertheless, it should be borne inmind that coin-design often froze certain features inorder to maintain a well-established appearance andthus achieve common acceptance. The lack of moresecurely ascertained find-spots and archaeologicalcontexts imposes great limits on the actual potentialof numismatics, especially when it comes to connect-ing a framework of coin-types to absolute dates orascertained locations.

A new copper scroll inscription from thetime of the Alchon Huns

In 2006, a remarkable copper scroll inscription fromthe Schøyen Collection (No. 2241) was published.12 Athin metal plate that was acquired in rolled up formas a scroll bears a Brahmi inscription. Although somefragments of the plate are missing, it must have meas-ured 58 by 26 cm and was inscribed with 54 lines. Ithas proved possible to recover almost the full con-

tents of the scroll, revealing that it had been inscribedto mark the consecration of a stupa, a Buddhist sanc-tuary. The scroll mentions no less than thirteendonors: ‘royal personages [...] people who may nothave been personally involved in the donation’13

(lines 32–39), although the name of the main donor isnot preserved. However, his title (Tālagānika-Devaputra �āhi) reveals the location (place of origin)where the scroll was inscribed. This can be identifiedas modern Taloquan, some 60 km east of Qunduz innorthern Afghanistan.

The inscription is dated to Year 68 of an era which isnot initially clear. Taking palaeographic considera-tions into account, Gudrun Melzer has assumed thisperiod to be the Laukika era, thus tentatively datingthe inscription to 492/493 CE. I have reproduced atranslation of the part of the inscription that gives thenames plus the Sanskrit titles in brackets. All fourroyal personages, Khingila, Toramana, Mehama, andJavukha, are known from coins to have been rulers ofthe Alchon Huns, and all of them issued a consider-able number of coin types. The fact that they are men-tioned together might suggest contemporary lordshipin 492/493 CE. Furthermore, Mehama seems to havebeen the lord who ruled directly over the area ofTalaghan/Taloquan in northern Afghanistan.Gudrun Melzer notes that ‘the differentiationbetween –rāja and –�āhi might have something to dowith the geographical regions‘.14

The Coinage of the Alchon

The very first coins attributed to the Alchon Huns15

feature the legend alchonno and were struck from oth-erwise unaltered Sasanian coin dies.16 As yet, theybear no personal names or any characteristic featuresother than small symbols or tamghas, and are thusreferred to as “Anonymous Clan Rulers”.17 Extantexamples include drachms (NumH 36A, 36, 36B, 33,and 39) as well as small copper coins (NumH 34, 35,37, and 38).

26

8 the great �āhi Khī�gīla (mahā�āhi)

9 the god-king Toramāna (devarāja)

10 the mistress of the great monastery Sāsā

11 the great �āhi Mehama (mahā�ahi)

12 Sādavīkha

13 the great king (mahārāja) Javūkha, the son of Sādavīkha during the reign of Mehama

Table 1. Copper scroll inscription, lines 8–13.


The end of the production of Sasanian drachms in theeasternmost part of the empire during the reign ofShapur III (383–388)18 represents a major cornerstoneon which the numismatic date for the start of theindependent coinage of the Alchon rests. The mint inquestion that was seized by the Huns is generallyconsidered to be “Kabul”.19 Although there is littledoubt about location of the mint being in the far east-ern part of the empire there is as yet no absolute cer-tainty, so that a more neutral term might be moresuitable. Nikolaus Schindel has in fact divided thisputative mint of Kabul into several stylistically sepa-rate groups and named them Mint IX to Mint XII.20

In the next phase the bust of the Sasanian kingwearing a characteristic crown is replaced by a por-trait of an Alchon ruler, but there is as yet no person-al name. His head is bare and has a peculiar shapewhich is the result of bandaging during childhood.21

This seems to have been a sign of royalty andreplaced the Sasanian crown as a sign of lordship.The small hoard of Shah-ji-ki-Dheri,22 a Buddhist sitein the eastern part of modern Peshawar, containsexclusively drachms of the anonymous Alchon typesNumH 40–43. They feature different versions of theBactrian legend alchonno, and some of them an addi-tional Brahmi aksara. It is possible that these types aswell as Khingila´s consecutive issues were no longerstruck at “Kabul” but in Gandhara.

The first personal name to appear on Alchon coinsis that of Khingila, although coins without a propername continue to be struck throughout the entireAlchon period. It has been the generally-acceptedhypothesis that he was followed by Toramana,Mihirakula, and Narana/Narendra. The absolute dat-ing and succession of the Alchon kings was partlybased on the work published by Sir Aurel Stein23 andwas further adjusted by Robert Göbl to fill the overalltime-span from the mid-fifth to the late sixth century.However, several other names than those mentionedon the copper scroll occur on Alchon coins.

Their coinage forms a group of more than 150 dif-ferent types which are related to one another primari-ly in terms of typological criteria. They display eithera part of the word alchonno written in Bactrian scriptin their legends, a distinct symbol known as theAlchon tamgha24 (S1) or a limited number of othersymbols. However, it is their style that links them.The better parts of their coinage are drachms of goodquality, although the silver content declines towardsthe end of this type family. There are also a number ofsmall copper issues; a majority of them correspondsvery closely to the drachm types. The same designand style or various symbols that link coin typestogether indicate that they were struck as an entireminting programme or issue (in German: Emission)consisting of both silver and smaller copper denomi-nations for change. The copper scroll inscriptionfinally provides sufficient proof to demolish the sim-ple Khingila – Toramana – Mihirakula model of suc-cession. In the light of the article by Étienne de la

Vaissière some very different models for the politicalstructure both north and south of the Hindukush, inBactria and Gandhara, can be developed.

Khingila

Khingila is the Brahmi version of the earliest person-al name to be found on Alchon coins. The earliesttype, NumH 44, is closely related to the anonymousissues NumH 40–43. Just like types 39 and 44 theyhave a small crescent in the upper left field. AlthoughNumH 40–43 do not bear the name of Khingila it islikely they were issued by this king.

Types with a headdress are clearly later than thosewith a bare head, because this odd-shaped head wasinitially introduced as a substitute for the Sasaniancrown as a token of kingship. It is also undeniableevidence that Khingila is ageing on his images oncoins.

NumH 44, 59A, and 66 are the earliest issues bear-ing the name of Khingila. Their only terminus postquem is the shape of the ribbons attached to the neck-lace which correspond to those of the Sasanian kingYazdgerd I (399–420). There must have been somedelay, so a tentative dating of the early types wouldplace them at ca. 420–440 CE or possibly even a littlelater.25

Types 44, 66, and 66A are bilingual, combining theBactrian alchonno with a Brahmi Khingila. On types59A and 61 Khingila´s name is written in Bactrian asχιγγιλο. A recently published seal bears the legendεÞκιγγιλο,26 which is a different variant of that name.The seal shows a seated, cross-legged male figureholding a flower – a motif that is also known from theHephthalite 287A coin-type27 as well as from a silverbowl in the Hermitage.28 The question of theHephthalite identity29 of the Alchon Huns orHephthalite overlordship over a branch of them atsome time at the late fifth/early sixth century will bediscussed in more detail below, especially in the lightof la Vaissière 2007. The design of coins does not nec-essarily relate to paintings, silver bowls, or even seals,but Alchon and Hephthalites might have adopted themotif of a seated prince from the same iconographicpool.

Type 57 also has a bareheaded bust, but differs interms of style. There is only one specimen known ofthe yet unpublished type 132A. No close stylisticanalogies should be drawn between copper issuesand drachms, but this reading of the name justifiesfurther attribution of otherwise unepigraphic copperseries to drachms.

On NumH 61, 66A, and 318 Khingila is wearing adiadem or a ring-shaped crown to which crescentsare attached. The unpublished type 318 shows thatthe use of all-Bactrian or Bactrian-Brahmi legendsdoes not provide any decisive clues as to dating.

Type 81 is the latest type bearing Khingila’s name.Although the composition of the diadem or cap witha crescent as well as the ribbons are similar to type

27


318, the style is very different and could be called‘indianized’. It resembles type 82 of Javukha and alsotype 79, inscribed rāja lakhāna – udayāditya, see below.Taking into account the stylistic relation of thesetypes, the altered appearance of the portraits and theinscription, NumH 81, 316, 82, and 79 were issued atthe very end of the fifth century or possibly evenlater.

Robert Göbl wondered whether there might havebeen two kings by the name of Khingila30 but eventu-ally decided against the idea. He found it moreappropriate to attribute all those types without aproper name as well as those with a very differentname to the supreme king Khingila. At that stage itwas unclear whether some of them were titles or per-sonal names, so his approach represented a soundhypothesis for the time being. Since then the numberof published coins has multiplied, enabling betterreadings of legends, but it is in fact this copper scrollinscription that has now provided a strong incentiveto rethink the arrangement and attribution of thosecoins. However, a fully revised typology andarrangement would go beyond the scope of this arti-cle. Nevertheless both the anonymous types 40–43were struck not long after 440 CE, as was Khingila´stype 44. If Khingila was still alive when the copperscroll was inscribed in 492/493 CE he must have beenvery old, which might have been the reason why he ismentioned first.31 It is however possible that therewas another king of the same name, who might haveissued type 81.

Toramana

So far no silver drachms bearing this name areknown, yet Robert Göbl attributed several drachmtypes without or with a different name to this king.32

It is curious that he is mentioned on the copper scrolland in written sources, but for present purposes hewill have to be excluded.

It can generally be observed – and is thereforeregarded as a law in numismatics – that coin design iscreated for the highest denominations. Only fromthere do legends, new iconographic elements andstyle make their way down to lower values, althoughthe production of copper coins always seems to besubjected to less strict control. Copper issues of theIranian Huns can also often be traced back to match-ing drachms, but not the other way round.

Javukha

The copper scroll finally proves that Javukha is aroyal person. Types 49–50 differ only in the details oftheir legends and were thus probably minted withina very short period of time. Type 51 is of exactly thesame composition, but the headdress, the nose of theking, and also the ribbons are stylistically differentand indicate a later production date. Types 117 and 118 show a horseman on the obverse,

probably the king; this type is also struck with theBactrian legend ζαβοχο, see below. The reverse fea-tures a fire altar. It is odd that these two issues are notonly smaller in diameter but also different in style,yet NumH 117 has the same club symbol as the por-trait types 49–51 of Javukha.

The design of the horseman was adopted from(gold) dinars of the Gupta Empire. It was issued byChandragupta II (380–414) and Kumaragupta I (ca.414–450).33 The Alchon horseman type is executed inexactly the same manner; the posture of the horse isvirtually the same. There is also a version of theGupta Lion Slayer type on dinars, a denominationotherwise not issued by the Huns.34 The rider unmis-takeably has the same peculiar-shaped head as theAlchon; it bears the name Prakāśāditya but was attrib-uted by Robert Göbl to Toramana.35 To sum up: in thelight of typological and numismatic evidence,Javukha and also ζαβοχο (see below) had close eco-nomic contact with the Guptas, probably inGandhara.

Type 82, like NumH 49–51, shows a portrait of aking with a peculiar-shaped head. Stylistically this isthe latest issue with the name of Javukha and corre-sponds with type 81 of Khingila and type 79 ofLakhana Udayaditya.36

ζαβοχο (Zabocho)

Although not mentioned on the copper scroll, thisruler has to be included because it has been suggest-ed that the Bactrian ζαβοχο is the same name as theBrahmi Javukha.37 Taking the numismatic evidenceinto consideration it is not necessarily true that thosecoins bearing the legend ζαβοχο were issued by thesame person known as Javukha. All coin types withthe ζαβοχο legend seem to belong to a very distinctgroup with the same style of die-engraving. Theirdiameter is also considerably smaller than those ofthe portrait types by Javukha. Their weight seems tobe the same, at an average of roughly 3.5 grams.

ζαβοχο issued a considerable number of drachmsfeaturing a profile bust and displaying an assortmentof symbols in the right field in front of the face. In thevery same style he also struck the horseman typewhich was minted exclusively by him and Javukha;they all have a small diameter. This again would cor-roborate the theory that it is indeed the same person,but all horseman type-coins of ζαβοχο have a bigwheel or a chakra on the reverse while those ofJavukha show a fire altar. However, there are also aconsiderable number of coin types with a portrait thatshow different or no personal names at all, possessinga small diameter and closely resembling this style.

Mehama

This ruler is mentioned twice on the copper scrollinscription. Line 39 “in the time of Mehama´s reign”suggests that the Taloquan area was part of his realm,

28


but this does not give any indication that coins werestruck at this place or even in that area.

The Brahmi version of Mehama is known fromcoin types 71, 73, 74, and the yet unpublished type316. A Bactrian version of this name, meiamo(μηαμοι), is attested in the Bactrian Documents sever-al times38 and it is also known from seals. Coin types62 and 63 display μηο, although mostly not clearlylegible, probably a short version of this name.

Types 62 and 63 (Bactrian) as well as 71 and 74(Brahmi) were executed in the same style, in particu-lar as regards the shape of the head. According tonumismatic methodology it is likely they were notonly struck at the same place but also that the coindies were manufactured by the same person. Thus itis almost certain that the coins with Brahmi Mehamaand those with Bactrian μηο not only feature the samename but were issued by the same person.

Type 73 is somewhat different to the rest. The readingof the obverse legend is tentative but there is also aclub39 with two ribbons in the right field which canalso be observed on types 49–51 and 117 of Javukha.

The literary evidence of Mehama/μηαμοι givesquite accurate evidence for an absolute dating.Nicholas Sims-Williams has published several dateddocuments which mention a person called Mehama.Two of them are dated to the year 239 and 242/252 ofthe Sasanian era, 461/462 and 465/475 CE.40

However, there are also documents dated to the 8thcentury attesting this name. A Bactrian version is alsoknown from two seals in the Aman ur RahmanCollection.41 The copper scroll inscription has beendated by Gudrun Melzer to 492/493 CE,42 so if theMehama mentioned in these documents is the sameperson, the chronological range of his rule und thushis coinage would be ca.461–493 CE. Other issuesclosely related to Meha -ma´s could also be tenta-tively dated to this peri-od. Here again there isone other type, NumH316, which does notentirely fit in with the restof the ensemble for stylis-tic reasons. It correspondswith the latest issues ofKhingila (NumH 81),Javukha (NumH 82) andLakhana Udayaditya(NumH 79).

Political and geographical structure of theAlchon Empire

La Vaissière 2007 proposed that the migration of allthe Iranian Huns into Bactria was a joint event thattook place in the late fourth century. However, thequestion of how and when the Huns invadedGandhara is still unresolved. It has long beenobserved that the Iranian Huns shared a large part ofthe cultural background in Gandhara; the entire phe-nomenon of ‘Gandhara’ is in fact a mixture of variouselements.

Considering the crossing of the Hindu Kush, it hasbeen pointed out that the Anonymous Clan Rulersminted in “Kabul” (NumH 33–39), using Sasaniancoin dies at first. Sasanian drachms continued to bestruck there until the reign of Shapur III (383–388),when this mint was obviously captured by theAlchon Huns. A few coin finds such as the hoard ofShah-ji-ki-Dheri and the use of Brahmi script on coinssuggest that the Alchon Huns moved into Gandhara43

during the following decades but possibly even morerapidly, and that the anonymous issues NumH 40–43were already struck there. Now was there a swift mil-itary campaign that took place in several stages, orrather a peaceful immigration in the modern sense ofthe word? Indian sources clearly favour the theory ofHuns as ferocious enemies, which indicates a majorclash with the Gupta Empire. Even if there never wasa forceful invasion of the area north of the HinduKush, what happened in ancient Gandhara?

Establishing accurate borders for Gandhara is notan easy task. The core area must have covered thePeshawar Valley up to the Khyber Pass, or, in morepractical terms, the fertile plains along the Kabul andupper Indus rivers. Only a part of the Iranian Hunsinvaded Gandhara and probably also areas further

29

Map 1. Central Asia. 200100 300 400

Kilometer

500

Shah-ji-ki Dheri

Ghazni

Hadda

Taxila

.

Kabul

Begram

BalchTaloquan


east, possibly after the middle of the fifth century.Tracking down various cultural entities is not an easytask; numismatics on its own can only do part of thiswork.

It has been revealed that the horseman type, asinvented by the Guptas, was struck exclusively byJavukha and ζαβοχο. Later Alchon coinage such asthat of Mihirakula somehow develops into what isvaguely referred to as ‘indianized style’. The use ofscripts and languages yields only a very few clues, forno strict geographic borderline seems to existbetween the use of Bactrian and Brahmi, which isnow also attested from Taloquan in NorthernAfghanistan. However, coin finds indicate the pres-ence of both Alchon and Kidarites south of the HinduKush.

Coin finds

Very little new evidence of ascertained coin findsfrom the period of the Iranian Huns has turned upover the past few decades.44 The situation as regardscoin distribution has remained more or less the samesince the 1960s, meaning that no pattern of circulationcan be established.

It should be stated that coins can easily travel longdistances; for example a considerable number ofByzantine solidi have been found in tombs inNorthern China.45 Thus, coin finds do not necessarilyindicate the presence of their issuers. Furthermore, allof the Alchon drachms were basically interchange-able with their Sasanian counterparts, although thereis a greater deviation in weight and diameter.

No finds of coins bearing the names of Mehama orToramana are known; all of the Khingila and Javukhafinds were discovered south of the Hindu Kush, inthe area between Setq Abad (near Begram) andTaxila,46 and the hoard of Shah-ji-ki-Dheri indicatesthe influence of the early Alchon Huns in Gandhara.

It is evident that the realm(s) of the Alchon Hunscovered the area of Peshawar and Taxila, but the cop-per scroll inscription now implies that their influencealso extended north as far as Taloquan. No finds ofAlchon coins north of the Hindu Kush have beenreported so far, but this cannot yet be regarded as anabsolute conclusion in view of the scarcity of the evi-dence.

To sum up: at the present stage coin finds yield hard-ly any definite clues because they do not yet allowthorough insight into monetary circulation.Nevertheless, a certain number of coins of theKidarite type family have been found in the area ofTaxila.

The Hephthalites

In 492/493 CE, when the stupa referred to in the cop-per scroll inscription was consecrated, the area of

Taloquan would have been under the control of theHephthalites. Thus the question arises of whether theAlchon Huns or possibly a branch of them cameunder the overlordship of the Hephthalites? It is alsopossible they belonged to the same tribe,47 and FrantzGrenet has gone so far as to propose Hephthaliteidentity for the ‘Huna’ rulers Toramana andMihirakula.48

In 474 CE, Peroz suffered a devastating defeat andwas taken prisoner by the Hephthalites.49 He wasfreed for a ransom of 30 mule-loads of silver drachmsand had to leave his eldest son, Kawad, as a hostage.In 484 CE, Peroz was again at war with theHephthalites during the course of which he waskilled in battle. Thus after this event, the Hephthaliteswere probably in control of the entire area north ofthe Hindu Kush. The Bactrian Documents indicate‘the presence of a new political power, that of theHephthalites’ from year 260–295 of the Sasanian era,483/484 - 518/519 CE.50

The Hephthalites presumably used the third crown ofPeroz on their coins because they were given a hugesupply of money and consequently started imitatingthis type.51 However, it is almost certain that Peroztook his third crown because of his defeat in 474 CE.Thus, if the ransom was paid while he was still a pris-oner, no coins with the new and yet unclaimed thirdcrown would have been minted. It is also plausiblethat he was forced to agree to some kind of subsidiarypayments for a time after his release.

Peroz’ third crown is the only major coin type ofthe Hephthalites which is equipped with additionalsymbols, only at a later stage. Although it is notalways legible on NumH 288 and 289, βoχλo (Balch innorthern Afghanistan) is quoted as the mint.

NumH 287A shows a half-length portrait of aprince holding a cup. This motif is known from a sil-ver bowl and was also used on a seal bearing thename εÞκιγγιλο/Khingila. No other numismatic rela-tions have been revealed as yet. Within the historicalcontext, their entire coinage is to be placed between474 and 560/561 CE.

The Sasanian king Khusro I (531–579) ultimatelydefeated the Hephthalites in 560/561 CE52 with thehelp of the Western Turks who had just made theirfirst appearance in the history of the Iranian world.Their coinage (which cannot be described within thescope of this article) represents a continuation of theAlchon-Nezak types.

The Guptas

We know that in the 450s the Gupta empire wasdefeated by ‘Huns’ and consequently crumbled, so bythat time a branch of the Iranian Huns had seizedcontrol over Gandhara. It is most likely that the waragainst the Guptas provided the nucleus for theHuns’ ferocious reputation in Indian literary sources.

30


Around the 520s, the Greek explorer Kosmas Indiko -pleustes reported that Mihirakula, king of the WhiteHuns, had invaded India with 2,000 elephants,53

although it is more likely that they learned how to usethese animals in battle from the Gupta army. In 528CE, an alliance of Indians landed a devastating defeaton the ‘Huns’ of Mihirakula, which must have ulti-mately led to the withdrawal of the Huns fromIndia/Gandhara over the next few decades. The coinsbearing his name show that he was a descendant ofthe Alchon Huns.54

It is undisputed that the adversaries of the Guptaswere Alchon and not Kidarites.55 The few Khingilaand Javukha coin finds, but also those of some otherAlchon rulers, plus the fact that the Gupta horsemantype was struck by Javukha and ζαβοχο and the LionSlayer-type by Prakāśāditya, provide further under-pinning for this theory.

Chronology

The numismatic relations between the persons men-tioned on the copper scroll have been discussedabove but will probably become clear only from theplates. However, this article does not include theentire coinage of the Alchon Huns but only thosetypes bearing the names of one of the persons fromthe inscription, together with some additional typesthat are of immediate interest.

The four kings or royal persons appear to haveruled at least partly simultaneously, though it is notevident what the relations were between Khingila,Toramana, Javukha, and Mehama. Khingila is the ear-liest Alchon ruler to be mentioned on coins; his earlyissues seem to be not much later than those of theAnonymous Clan Rulers. Whether he was just thefirst of a number of rulers to issue coins, or at somestage ruled over various sub-kings of the AlchonHuns, remains undecided without further literaryand archaeological evidence. If a relative chronologyis to be established, the coinage can be separated intoseveral supposedly contemporaneous stages. Sincethis is tantamount to an oversimplification, I haveadded only a part of the coin types featuring a por-trait in the obverse.

Adding absolute data to this scheme is a delicate task.On purely numismatic grounds, NumH 40–43 andalso NumH 44 could have been struck not long after420–440 CE. The copper scroll mentions Khingila,Mehama and Javukha, but it is not clear whether itwas inscribed at the beginning, the end or at somepoint during their reign. For Mehama we couldassume a time-span of ca. 461–493 CE, so 492/493 CEwould in any case seem to be towards the end of hisrule. Consequently, Stage 1 would be dated to the460s and Stage 3 to the 490s.

To my eye, the types show a more uniform style inStage 2 and particularly in Stage 3. Their style differs

from the earlier issues, so that the whole of Stage 3could also have been produced in the early sixth cen-tury – if there was another king by the name ofKhingila or coins continued to be struck in his nameafter his death.

It can be observed that there are a considerable num-ber of Alchon coin types of a kind of ‘degenerated’style that could almost be described as imitations. Forexample, NumH 140 from Stage 4 obviously belongsto the latest phase of the Alchon coinage, from sometime in the sixth century. Many specimens no longerbear a clearly legible legend. Thus, it is quite possiblethat coins were struck which bore the names of peo-ple other than the king actually in power.

Conclusion

The assigning of the coinage of the Iranian Huns tothe Kidarites, Alchon, Nezak, and Hephthalites (andthe Western Turks who succeeded them) has beenentirely established from their coins and hardly anyother sources. However, numismatic evidence consti-tutes merely a fragment of history as a whole. Theexistence of a hierarchy or concept of cultural entity isin any case necessary to produce a large and consis-tent group of coinage. The copper scroll supplies akind of temporal framework for dating some of thecoin types of the rulers mentioned, but it does not, ofcourse, provide instantaneous solutions to all the out-standing questions in this field. Indeed, it wouldseem to throw up more questions than it answers;nevertheless, this is a necessary price to pay fordemolishing an outdated concept that could haveblocked the path of future research.

The silver drachm is the main denomination of theIranian Huns. When the silver content is good, theyare virtually interchangeable with Sasanian money,but for example the drachms of the Nezak Hunsgradually become debased until they are eventuallyalmost pure copper coins. The most common cointype, a profile bust of the king on the obverse and a

31

stage Anonymous Khingila Mehama Javukha Udayāditya

0 40–43 44, 59A, 66

1 318 71 49, 50

2 61 73 51

3 81 316 82 79

4 140

Table 2. Chronological stages of coin types with personalnames from the copper scroll inscription or related.


fire altar on the reverse, is also of Sasanian origin.There is also some iconographic influx from theGupta Empire with the horseman type issued byJavukha and ζαβοχο.

The Alchon Huns strike coin legends both inBactrian and then Brahmi virtually from the verybeginning; it is, however, likely that this script initial-ly spread from Gandhara. There are close numismat-ic ties between Khingila, Javukha and also Mehamaindicating that they did in fact have a common cultur-al background.

Obviously a branch of the Alchon Huns remained inBactria and thus must have come under the control ofthe Hephthalites, either after their first major victoryover the Sasanians in 474 CE, or after the death of theSasanian king Peroz (459–484) in battle. The copperscroll suggests that Mehama was one of the Alchonkings in Bactria, thus indicating that there was someform of co-existence in any case. This is a majoramplification of the theory that the Alchon as a wholemoved south into Gandhara, whence they were driv-en out in the late sixth century into the Kabul regionwhere they mixed their coin types with those of theNezak kings.56 However, if the migration into Bactriawas a joint event, this is in any case an obsolete con-sideration. Whoever stayed behind shared the samecultural background, which means that no other‘wave of invaders’ came from outside.

The issue here is not whether Khingila was aHephthalite, as suggested by Grenet 2002, but toreveal more about their cultural identity, which wasprobably the same or goes back to the same rootsusing the theory of la Vaissière 2007 as an appealingparadigm.

In conclusion a small remark57 should be made, name-ly about the Alchon Huns and Buddhism. At the veryleast, they not only tolerated Buddhism in Bactria andpossibly also in Gandhara but were also the tutelarylords of the stupa in Taloquan. Certain Buddhist sym-bols on their coins58 deserve more careful attention.However, the theory that the Huns drove Buddhismfrom Gandhara no longer seems valid.59

Annotations1 The original title of the lecture given at the conference Hunnen

zwischen Asien und Europa, held from November 23rd-24th 2007,was ‚Von der Chinesischen Mauer nach Indien – Die IranischenHunnen im Lichte Ihrer Münzprägung’. It has been adapted fora printed version. A paper given by the author at theSymposium on Bactrian Chronology, held in Cambridge from25th – 26th January 2008, also partly dealt with this subject. Thispublication has been authorized by the organizer of the sympo-sium, Prof. Nicholas Sims-Williams.

2 Melzer 2006.3 I am greatly indebted to Prof. Harry Falk and Prof. Nicholas

Sims-Williams for their advice and reading Brahmi and Bactriancoin-legends for me.

4 Göbl 1967. When citing coins of the Iranian Huns the term‘NumH’ (Number of Hun Coinage?) has established itself in the

English speaking world. Göbl´s term ‘Em.’ (German Emission,issue) is not entirely correct, so I will sometimes refer to refer-ence numbers as ‘type’ which is what they are.

5 In 1967 the Pehlevi-legend was read as ‘nspk’. Later it was adapt-ed to ‘nycky’ (= Napki-Malka/Nezak-Šah, Nezak-Kings), seeHarmatta 1969, 408; Frye 1974; Alram 1996, 525. Kuwayama 1998proposed a very different view of the Nezak, but may have mis-understood Göbl 1967.

6 Göbl 1967, vol. I, ix.7 New coin-types have been published in various articles: Göbl

1981, Göbl 1983, Göbl 1987, Göbl 1990, Göbl 1993, Alram 1996,Alram 2000, Alram 2002, Lee/Sims-Williams 2003, Alram 2006.

8 Göbl 1967, vol. I, X.9 La Vaissière 2007.10 Grenet 2002 also summarises this debate.11 The term ‘Hephthalite’ is often applied to Iranian Huns in gen-

eral in modern literature. This has its roots in ancient historio -graphy; for example, in ca. 718 CE the king ‘Tarchan Nezak’ wassometimes referred to as Hephthalite and sometimes as a Turk,Grenet 2002, 215. The Hephthalite Huns however were defeatedby the Sasanian King of Kings Khusro I. (531–579) in ca. 560 CEwith the help of Western Turkish allies. The Hephthalite coinageis a very distinct group (see below). We do not know what theHuns called themselves; Grenet is correct in pointing out certainconsistencies between Kidarites and Hephthalites as well asbetween Hephthalites and Western Turks. The term “WhiteHuns”, as mentioned by Kosmas Indikopleustes, cannot as yetbe firmly assigned to a distinct group or clan of the Huns.

12 Melzer 2006.13 Melzer 2006, 256.14 Melzer 2006, 258; she also points out that the use of titles is dif-

ferent on coins.15 Göbl NumH 28A–31, the so-called ‘Zwischengruppe’, which he

believed to be Imitations of Sasanian drachms minted by theHuns, were attributed to the mint of Merv by Schindel 2004 andshould therefore be removed from the coinage of the Huns.

16 See NumH 36A. According to Davary 1982: 154 and NicholasSims-Williams, the intended word had been alchanno. In cursivescript, there is often no visible difference between the letters ‘o’and ‘a’. Consequently, the Alchon-Huns would be referred to asAlchan-Huns; I have deliberately kept the established termAlchon and also the reading alchonno.

17 Vondrovec 2005.18 Schindel 2004, vol. I, 282–284.19 Göbl 1967 vol. I, 56; Göbl 1984, 55–56; Schindel 2004, vol. I,

237–238.20 Schindel 2004, vol. I, 223–238.21 Deformed skulls were found in Taxila, Marshall 1951, pl. 227-

228, and are also known from European sites.22 Göbl 1967, vol. I, 60; allegedly a roll containing 16 drachms was

found in 1911; the 13 remaining coins are on display in thePeshawar museum. Both the narrow sample of coin types andthe fact that they were wrapped into a roll suggests this ensem-ble was intended for an economic purpose rather than collectedfor a stupa deposit.

23 Stein 1900.24 For example, on types 40–44 in the right field; see plates. 25 Vondrovec 2005, 253; Göbl 1967, vol. I, 61 favours 440 CE.26 In the Saeedi Collection; Callieri 2002; see plates. On the etymol-

ogy of εÞκιγγιλο/ešiŋgil, see Sims-Williams 2002 and laVaissière 2007, 129.

27 Alram 2002.28 Marshak 1986, fig. 16.29 Grenet 2002 strongly favours this hypothesis.

32


30 Göbl 1967, vol. II, 59–66.31 Gudrun Melzer indicated to me that a special formula for

addressing dead people or ancestors is known from otherinscriptions; this would rather suggest Khingila was still aliveand consequently in power.

32 NumH 90, 108–111, 113–116, 146, 146A; a dinar in the manner ofthe Guptas is also attributed to Toramana (Göbl 1990).

33 See Allan 1914.34 There exist skyphate dinars attributed to Kidara (NumH 84, 85);

these succeed Kushano-Sasanian issues.35 Göbl 1990.36 Humbach 1966, 31 proposed that Brahmi raja lakhāna is equiv-

alent with Bactrian [shao] alchonno, which coesxist on NumH80. This does not seem feasible, because other names and titlestoo occur together with alchonno, as rightly stated by Alram1996, 520–521 and Grenet 2002, 206.

37 Davary 1982, 296; Melzer 2006.38 Sims-Williams 2000 (Bactrian Documents I = BD I) and Sims-

Williams 2007 (Bactrian Documents II = BD II).39 S 27, 27A, 38, 39.40 Documents Uu11, 17, 20, 30, V6, 34, 33’f, ea1, ed1, je1, 12, xs1. On

documents ea (year 239) and ed (year 242/252), Mehama isreferred to as ‘King of the people of Kadag, the governor of thefamous [Sasanian] king of kings Peroz’. Document V is dated in507 (= 730/731 CE).

41 No. Hc011 and Hc012; a publication by Judith Lerner is forth-coming.

42 Melzer 2006, 263–264.43 Göbl 1967, vol. I, 60–61.44 The vast number of coin finds can be identified in older collec-

tions by remarks on their acquisition, see Errington/Curtis 2007,esp. fig 82–83, 94–95; not all coins mentioned in those two plateshave ascertained find spots.

45 Alram 2001.46 The following information refers exclusively to published coins.

Göbl 1967 indicates both the direct source of information and thereference number (NumH).Khingila: Hadda: Göbl 1967, 57.14 (Wilson 1841); Göbl 1967, 61.2 and 61.3(all in the British Museum)Taxila: Göbl 1967, 57.13 (Marshall 1951) (all in the BritishMuseum)Setq-Abad (near Begram): Göbl 1967, 61.5 (Kabul Museum)Javukha:Taxila: Göbl 1967, 49.6–9; Göbl 1967, 50.8 and 50.9 (all Marshall1951)ζαβοχο:Setq Abad: Göbl 101.3 (Kabul Museum)Kidarites:Swat Valley (north-east of Peshawar): Göbl 1967, 11.11 and 11.12,Göbl 1967, 12.1, Göbl 1967, 18.2, 18.5 and 18.6 (Italian excavation= Göbl 1976)Hadda: Göbl 1967, 11.8 (British Museum)Bannu Valley (south-west of Peshawar): Göbl 1967, 16.2 andGöbl 1967, 25.3 (all in the British Museum)There are also four specimens of NumH 11 in the catalogue ofthe Peshawar Museum, see Ali (ed.) 2004; they were found inJamal Garhi near Mardan, which is slightly north-east ofPeshawar.

47 Alram 2008 (forthcoming).48 Grenet has proposed that the Kidarites were followed by the

Hephthalites and dated them to ca. 430–477 and ca. 477–560 CE.He has not counted the Alchon Huns as a political power butargued that Toramana and Mihirakula were in fact Hephthalites;Grenet 2002, 211.

49 Schindel 2004, vol. I, 415.50 Sims-Williams 1999, 255; Sims-Williams 2000 (=BDI) documents

I, I i, and j.51 Göbl 1967, vol. I, 107.52 Schippmann 1990, 57–59.53 Kosmas, book XI, Edition by McGrindle 1897, 370–371.54 Smith 1924/1957.55 It is not possible to deal with the distinction between Kidarites

and Alchon Huns in detail. The Kidarites used only elements ofSasanian crowns on their coins and there are no typological linksbetween them and those of the Alchon Huns. The Kidarites alsoused Brahmi script, referring to themselves as Kidara KushanaShah, Kidara, King of the Kushans. Some were found in Haddaand the Swat Valley, and it is likely that they were produced inGandhara.

56 Alram 1996.57 Melzer 2006, 257.58 The Tamgha S 33 (NumH 62, 63, Göbl 1967 E 4) and S 33var

(NumH 96A) is in fact a vajra which is also known fromBuddhist iconography; the feet on NumH 140 strongly resemblerock reliefs of the Buddha´s feet.

59 Kuwayama 1989 proposed that it was in fact the Western Turkswho were responsible for the decline of Buddhism in Gandhara.

Literature

Allan 1914: J. Allan, Catalogue of the Coins of theGupta Dynasties and of Śaśa�ka, King of Gaua(London 1914).

Ali 2004: I. Ali (ed.), Catalogue of Coins, No. 1(Kushan Period), Frontier Archaeology vol. II(Peshawar 2004).

Alram 1996: M. Alram, Alchon und Nezak – ZurGeschichte der Iranischen Hunnen in Mittelasien, in:Atti dei Convegni Lincei 127 (Rome 1996), 517-554.

Alram 2000: M. Alram, A hoard of copper drachmsfrom the Kāpiśa-Kabul region, in: SRAA 6(Kamakura 2000), 129-150.

Alram 2001: M. Alram, Coins and the Silk Road, in:A. Julian/J. Lerner (ed.), Monks and Merchants(New York 2001), 271-291.

Alram 2002: M. Alram, A Rare Hunnish Coin Type,in: SRAA 8 (Kamakura 2002), 149-153.

Alram 2004: M. Alram, Hunnic Coinage, in:Encyclopaedia Iranica (ed. E. Yarshater) Vol. XII,Fasc. 6 (New York 2004), 570-575.

Alram 2006: M. Alram, A New Coin Type of theKhalaj?, in: JIAAA 1 (Turnhout 2006), 133-139.

Alram 2008: M. Alram, New Hephthalite Coinsalong the Silk Road (Shanghai 2008 forthcoming).

Alram/Klimburg-Salter 1999 (ed.): M. Alram/D.Klimburg-Salter, Coins, Art, and Chronology, Essayson the pre-Islamic History of the Indo-IranianBorderland (Vienna 1999).

33


Alram/Blet-Lemarquand/Skjærvø 2007: M. Alram/M. Blet-Lemarquand/P.O. Skjærvø, Shapur, King ofKings of Iranians and non-Iranians, in: Res Orien-tales XVII (Paris 2007), 11-40.

Callieri 2002: P. Callieri, The Bactrian seal of Khin -gila, in: SRAA 8 (Kamakura 2002), 121-142.

Davary 1982: G. Davary, Baktrisch - Ein Wörterbuch,Ein Wörterbuch auf Grund der Inschriften, Hand -schrif ten, Münzen und Siegelsteine (Heidelberg1982).

Errington 2000: E. Errington, Numismatic evidencefor dating the Buddhist remains of Gandhāra, in:SRAA 6 (Kamakura 2000), 191-216.

Errington/Curtis 2007: E. Errington/V. Curtis, FromPersepolis to the Punjab. Exploring ancient Iran,Afghanistan and Pakistan (London 2007).

Frye 1974: R. Frye, Napki Malka and the Kushano-Sasanians, in: D. Kouymjian (ed.), Near EasternNumismatics, Iconography and History. Studies inHonour of George C. Miles (Beirut 1974), 115-122.

Göbl 1967: R. Göbl, Dokumente zur Geschichte derIranischen Hunnen in Baktrien und Indien, 4 vols.(Wiesbaden 1967).

Göbl 1976: R. Göbl, A Catalogue of Coins fromButkara I (Swat, Pakistan) (Rome 1976).

Göbl 1981: R. Göbl, Iranisch-Hunnische Münzen, in:Iranica Antiqua XVI (Leuven 1981), 173-182.

Göbl 1983: R. Göbl, Supplementa Orientalia I, in:LNV II (Vienna 1983), 97-112.

Göbl 1984: R. Göbl, System und ChronologieMünzprägung des Kušanreiches (Vienna 1984).

Göbl 1987: R. Göbl, Supplementa Orientalia II, in:LNV III (Vienna 1987), 203-216.

Göbl 1990: R. Göbl, Das Antlitz des Fremden: DerHunnenkönig Prakasaditya in der Münzprägung derGuptadynastie, in: Anzeiger der phil.-hist. Klasseder Österreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften126 = Veröffentlichungen der NumismatischenKommission 25 (Vienna 1990), 131-140.

Göbl 1993: R. Göbl, Supplementa Orientalia III, in:Numismatica e Antichità Classiche XXII (Lugano1993), 229-242.

Grenet 2002: F. Grenet, Regional interaction inCentral Asia and Northwest India in the Kidariteand Hephthalite periods, in: Indo-Iranian Languagesand Peoples, Proceedings of the British Academy116 (London 2002), 203-224.

Harmatta 1969: L. Harmatta, Late Bactrian Inscrip-tions, in: Acta Antiqua Academiae Scientiarum Hun-garicae 17 (Budapest 1969), 297-432.

Humbach 1966: H. Humbach, Baktrische Sprach -denkmäler Teil I (Wiesbaden 1966).

Kuwayama 1989: Sh. Kuwayama, The Hephthalitesin Tokharistan and Northwest India, in: Zinbun 24(Kyoto 1989), 89-134.

Kuwayama 1997: Sh. Kuwayama, The Main Stūpa ofShāh-Jī-Kī Dherī (Kyoto 1997).

Kuwayama 1998: Sh. Kuwayama, Not Hephthalitebut Kapisian Khingal: Identity of the Napki Coins,in: Amal Kumar Jha – Sanjay Garg (ed.), Ex Moneta:Essays on Numismatics, History and Archaeology inhonour of Dr. David W. MacDowall (New Delhi1998), 331-349.

la Vaissière 2007: É. de la Vaissière, Is there a“Nationality of the Hephtalites”?, in: BAI 17 (Bloom -field Hills 2007) 119-132.

Lee/Sims-Williams 2003: J. Lee/N. Sims-Williams,The antiquities and inscription of Tang-i-Safedak, in:SRAA 9 (Kamakura 2003), 159-184.

McGrindle 1987: J. McGrindle, Topographia Christi -ana (New York 1897, Reprint 1967).

Marshak 1986: B. Marshak, Silberschätze desOrients. Metallkunst des 3.-13. Jahrhunderts undihre Kontinuität (Leipzig 1986).

Marshall 1951: Sir J. Marshall, Taxila (Cambridge1951).

Melzer 2006: G. Melzer, A Copper Scroll Inscriptionfrom the Time of the Alchon Huns, in collaborationwith Lore Sander, in: Buddhist Manuscripts III (Oslo2006), 251-314.

Schindel 2004: N. Schindel, Sylloge NummorumSasanidarum Paris – Berlin – Wien, Band III: ShapurII. – Kawad I./2. Regierung, 2 vols. (Vienna 2004).

Schippmann 1990: K. Schippmann, Grundzüge derGeschichte des Sasanidischen Reiches (Darmstadt1990).

Smith 1924/1957: V. A. Smith, The Early History ofIndia. Reprint of the 4th edition of 1924 (Oxford1957).

Sims-Williams 1999: N. Sims-Williams, From theKushan-Shahs to the Arabs, New Bactrian docu-ments dated in the era of the Tochi inscriptions, in:M. Alram/D. Klimburg-Salter (ed.), Coins, Art, andChronology, Essays on the pre-Islamic History of theIndo-Iranian Borderland (Vienna 1999), 245-258.

Sims-Williams 2000 (= BD I): N. Sims-Williams,Bactrian documents from Northern Afghanistan I:Legal and Economic Documents (Oxford 2000).

Sims-Williams 2002: N. Sims-Williams, The Bactrianinscription on the seal of Khingila, in: SRAA 8(Kamakura 2002), 143-148.

Sims-Williams 2007 (= BD II): N. Sims-Williams,Bactrian documents from Northern Afghanistan II:Letters and Buddhist texts (London 2007).

BUFM 50, Vondrovec, Numismatic Evidence of the Alchon Huns reconsidered, 25 - 56 35

AbbreviationsBAI Bulletin of the Asia Institute, Bloomfield

Hills.JIAAA Journal of Inner Asian Art and Archaeology,

Turnhout.LNV Litterae Numismaticae Vindobonenses,

Vienna.NZ Numismatische Zeitschrift, Vienna.SRAA Silk Road Art and Archaeology, Kamakura.

The copyright of the coin pictures is with their owners.

Stein 1900: Sir A. Stein, Kalhaa’s Rājatara�giī, AChro nicle of the Kings of Kaśmīr, 2 vols (West -minster 1900, Reprint Delhi 1967).

Vondrovec 2005: K. Vondrovec, Die AnonymenClanchefs: Der Beginn der Alchon-Prägung, in: NZ113/114 = Veröffentlichungen des Instituts fürNumismatik und Geldgeschichte 10 (Vienna 2005),243-258.

Wilson 1841: H. H. Wilson, Ariana Antiqua, ADescriptive Account of the Antiquities and Coins ofAfghanistan: with a Memoir on the Buildings calledTopes (London 1841). (non vidi)

Neue Evidenz zur Münzprägung der Alchon-Hunnen

Die so genannten ‚Iranischen Hunnen’ sowie ihre westtürkischen Nachfolger treten vom späten 4. Jahrhundertbis zur arabischen Eroberung im 8. Jahrhundert n. Chr. in Zentralasien, dem heutigen Uzbekistan, Tadjikistan,Afghanistan und Pakistan in Erscheinung. Im Gegensatz zu ihren europäischen Verwandten haben sie eineumfangreiche Münzprägung unterhalten, die – in Anbetracht nur spärlicher literarischer Hinterlassenschaftenund archäologischer Ergebnisse – die mit Abstand wichtigste Primärquelle darstellt.

Einzig auf dieser Grundlage konnten bislang vier Hauptgruppen oder Clans unterschieden werden: dieKidariten, Alchon, Nezak-Könige und Hephthaliten. Die Westtürken wurden ursprünglich als Verbündetegegen die Hunnen zu Hilfe gerufen, ihre Münzprägung schließt jedoch direkt an jene der Hunnen an.

Eine kürzlich veröffentlichte Inschrift nennt nun erstmals vier Könige der Alchon-Hunnen: Khingila, Toramana,Javukha und Mehama. Diese konnten bislang nur vage miteinander in Verbindung gebracht werden, scheinenaber Zeitgenossen gewesen zu sein.

Ausgehend davon stellt der in Englisch abgefasste Artikel sämtliche Prägungen jener Herrscher zusammen,ergänzt um etliche neue, bislang unbekannte Münztypen. Die numismatische Analyse befasst sich mit der modi-fizierten Abfolgeordnung, welche durch parallele Herrschaften bedingt wird. Anhand des neuestenForschungsstandes werden die Impulse beleuchtet, die aus der Zusammenschau mehrerer Quellengattungen fürdie Geschichte der Iranischen Hunnen gewonnen werden können.

Nouvelle évidence concernant la frappe des monnaies des Huns Alchons

Les soi-disant ‘Huns Iraniens’ tout comme leurs successeurs turcs de l’ouest apparaissent du IVe siècle avancéjusqu’à la conquête arabe du VIIIe siècle apr. J.-C. en Asie centrale, dans l’actuel Ouzbékistan, Tadjikistan,Afghanistan et Pakistan. Contrairement à leurs parents européens, ils ont entretenu une frappe des monnaiesétendue qui, de loin, représente la plus importante source primaire, vue la rarité d’héritages littéraires et dedécouvertes archéologiques.

C’est uniquement sur cette base que quatre principaux groupes, ou clans, avaient pu jusqu’à maintenant être dis-tingués: les Kidarites, les Alchons, les Rois Nezak et les Hephtalites. Les turcs de l’ouest avaient été initialementappelés à l’aide en tant qu’alliés contre les Huns, pourtant, leur frappe des monnaies se rallie directement à celledes Huns.

Une inscription publiée récemment nomme ainsi pour la première fois quatre rois des Huns Alchons: Khingila,Toramana, Javukha et Mehama. Jusque-là, il était seulement possible de les lier vaguement les uns aux autres.Dorénavant, ils semblent avoir été des contemporains.

L’article en anglais rassemble toutes les frappes de ces souverains, auxquelles se sont joints de nouveaux typesde monnaies jusque-là inconnus. L’analyse numismatique se consacre à l’ordre chronologique modifié, condi-tionné par des règnes parallèles. Les recherches les plus récentes permettent ainsi d’éclairer des hypothèses quiont pu être avancées grâce à la synthèse de plusieurs types de source et qui enrichissent la connaissance de l’his-toire des Huns Iraniens.

Klaus VondrovecKunsthistorisches MuseumBurgring 5A - 1010 WienÖsterreich


Plates

Eastern Issues ofShapur II (309–379)

Alchon Huns:Anonymous Clan Ruler

Anonymous Alchon (all types found in Shah-ji-ki-Dheri)

Type 40 41 42 43

Type 36ASNS III Ib1/3a SNS III Ib1/3a


Khingila

Type 44 54 5759A

(unpublished) 66

Type 66A (unpublished)

61 81 132A (unpublished)

318 (unpublished)


Javukha

ζαβοχο

Type 49 50 11751 82

Type 118 140

?

Type 96 96A 97 98 99 100

Type 101 102 103 104 105 106


ζαβοχο

Mehama

Type 106A 107

Type 135 Type 79

Gupta:Kumaragupta

Alchon:Mihirakula

raja lakhāna –udayāditya

Type 62 63 71 73 74

Type 316(unpublished)


Hephthalites

Later Stage

Type 287 287A 288 289

Impression of a Seal(Callieri 2002, fig. 1a)

Khingila Javukha Mehamaraja lakhāna –

udayāditya

Type 81 82 316 79


CatalogueI

Sasanians: Shapur II (309–379)

SNS III, Ib1/3a

Drachm

Obverse:Profile bust of Shapur II right, wearing his individualcrown

Reverse:Fire altar, two attendants, bust in the flames

Pehlevi: 11h (l.o.) mzdysn bgy šhpwhly MRKAnMRKA ’yr ’n W ’nyr ’n MNW ctry MN yzd’nII

Berlin: 3.96 g, 3h, 29.5 mm

Pehlevi: on altar-shaft: r’st

SNS III, Ib1/3a

Drachm

Obverse:Profile bust of Shapur II right, wearing his individ-ual crownin right field: Crescent


Pehlevi: 11h (l.o.) mzdysn bgy šhpwhly MRKAnMRKA ’yr ’n W ’nyr ’n MNW ctry MN yzd’n

Berlin: 3.56 g, 3h, 29 mm

Pehlevi: on altar-shaft: r’st

Alchon Huns: Anonymous Clan Ruler

Type 36A

Drachm

Obverse:Profile bust right, wearing the individual crown ofShapur II(= SNS III, obv-type Ib1)

Reverse:Fire altar, two attendants, bust in the flames wearingthe crown of Shapur II

Bactrian: 1h (r.o.) αλχοννο9h (l.o.) remnants of Pehlevi-legend

Jean-Pierre Righetti, no. 41: 3.46 g, 3h, 29.8 mm

Pehlevi: on altar-shaft: r’st (unclear)


Anonymous Alchon

Type 40

Drachm

Obverse:Bareheaded profile bust right; a broad double ribbonis attached to the necklacein upper left field: Crescent; below unclear symbolin right field: Tamgha (S 1)

Reverse:Fire altar, two attendants

Bactrian: 4h (r.i.) αλχοννο (retrograde)

Brahmi: lower left field: pha (?) or thai (?) (retrograde)Aman ur Rahman, no. 416: 2.95 g, 3h, 28.6 mm

no legend

Type 41

Drachm

Obverse:Bareheaded profile bust right; a broad double ribbonis attached to the necklacein upper left field: Crescentin right field: Tamgha (S 1)


Bactrian: 4h (r.i.) αλχοννο (retrograde)Brahmi: in lower left field: thai (?)

London, no. 1894.5.6.254: 3.75 g, 3h, 30.7 mm

no legend

Type 42

Drachm

Obverse:Bareheaded profile bust right; a broad double ribbonis attached to the necklacein upper left field: Crescentin right field: Tamgha (S 1)


Bactrian: 4h (r.i.) αλχοννο (retrograde)Brahmi: in lower left field: cu

Peshawar, no. 8/2379: ? g, 3h, 29.7 mm

no legend


Type 43

Drachm

Obverse:Bareheaded profile bust right; two ribbons areattached to the necklacein upper left field: Crescentin right field: Tamgha (S 1)


Bactrian: 1h (r.o.) αλχoνoBrahmi: in lower left field: śe or śi


no legend

Khingila

Type 44

Drachm

Obverse:Bareheaded profile bust right on a vegetal element; abroad double ribbon is attached to the necklacein upper left field: Crescentin right field: Tamgha (S 1)

Reverse:Fire altar, two attendants, sometimes an oval object inthe flames

Brahmi: 7h (r.o.) khi gi – la or khe gi – la

Bactrian: 1h (r.o.) αλχoννανo or αλχαννανo (long) orαλχανν (short)

Paris, no. 1974.425: 3.60 g, 3h, 27.3 mm

no legend

Type 54

AE

Obverse:Profile bust right; wearing a diadem or a cap; a broadribbon is attached to the necklace

Reverse:Vase

no legendLondon, no. 1894.5.7.2006: 0.92 g, 2h, 13.6 mm

Brahmi: left and right: khe – ṅgi


Type 57

Drachm

Obverse:Bareheaded profile bust right; two ribbons areattached to the necklacein upper left field: Tamgha (S 1)in lower left field: Rhomb (S 5)


Brahmi: 2h (r.o.) khigi (= khingila)

London, no. 1922.4.24.3735: 3.66 g, 2h, 24.6 mm

no legend


Drachm

Obverse:Bareheaded profile bust left on a vegetal element; abroad double ribbon is attached to the necklacein right field: Tamgha (S 2)


Bactrian: 11h (r.i.) αλχoo (retrograde) – 1h (l.i.)χιγγιλ(o) (retrograde)Aman ur Rahman, no. 452: 3.63 g, 9h, 28.7 mm

no legend

Type 66

Drachm

Obverse:Bareheaded profile bust right on a vegetal element; a broad double ribbon is attached to the necklacein left field: Tamgha (S 3)in right field: Wheel (S 4)


Brahmi: 11h (r.i.) khigi (retrograde)Bactrian: 1h (r.o.) αλχο

London, no. 1847.4.21.33: 3.04 g, 3h, 31 mm

no legend


Drachm

Obverse:Profile bust right on a vegetal element; wearing apearl diadem with three rosettes; a broad double rib-bon is attached to the necklacein left field: Tamgha (S 1), in right field: Fire altar


Brahmi: 11h (l.o.) khigi (retrograde)Bactrian: 1h (r.o.) αλχο

NZK: 3.76 g, 3h, 29.5 mm

no legend


Type 61

Drachm

Obverse:Profile bust right on a vegetal element; wearing adiadem with a crescent at the forehead; two ribbonsare hanging from the diadem; fly-whisks are emerg-ing from the shouldersin right field: Tamgha (S 1)


Bactrian: 8h (r.o.) χιcτιλo (= χιγγιλo) – 1h oχoνo (= αλχoνo)


no legend

Type 318 (unpublished)

Drachm

Obverse:Profile bust right on a vegetal element; wearing adiadem with a crescent at the forehead, another cres-cent at the side; a ribbon is hanging from the diademin right field: Rosetta (S 44)


Brahmi: 1h (r.o.) khi�gila – 9h va-�āhi

Aman ur Rahman, no. 396: 3.16 g, 3h, 27.7 mm

no legend

Type 81

Drachm

Obverse:Profile bust right; wearing a diadem with a crescentat the forehead, another crescent at the side; two rib-bons are hanging from the diadem; tips of a crescentmoon are protruding from the shouldersin left field: Tamgha (S 1)in right field: Rosetta/Chakra (S 41)


Brahmi: 9h (r.o.) deva �āhi – 1h khi�gila

London, ex India Office Collection, no. 2368: 3.28 g, 3h,28.4 mm

no legend

Type 132A(unpublished)

AE

Obverse:Profile bust right; details unclear

Reverse:Rosetta with two ribbons

Brahmi: [..] 9h (r.o.) gila�


no legend


Javukha

Type 49

Drachm

Obverse:Profile bust right; wearing a diadem with a crescentat the forehead; two ribbons are hanging from thediadem; tips of a crescent moon are protruding fromthe shouldersin left field: Tamgha (S 1); in right field: Club (S 39)


Brahmi: 11h (r.o.) saha – 1h Javukha

(sometimes also abbreviated as jakha)

London, no. 1894.5.6.212: 3.27 g, 3h, 29.3 mm

no legend

Type 50

Drachm



Brahmi: 10h (r.o.) �aha – 1h javukha

Bern, no. 93.52, ex Coll. Williams: 3.53 g, 3h, 29.0 mm

no legend

Type 51

Drachm



Brahmi: 11h (r.o.) �aha – 1h jaükha


no legend

Type 82

Drachm

Obverse:Profile bust right; wearing a diadem with a crescent atthe forehead; two ribbons are hanging from the dia-dem


Brahmi: 10h (r.o.) jaya – 1h �āhi javūvla�

Aman ur Rahman, no. 445: 3.44 g, 3h, 26.7 mm no legend


Type 117

Drachm

Obverse:Horseman to right; wearing a diadem with a cres-cent on top; two ribbons are hanging from the dia-demin left field: Tamgha (S 1); in right field: Club (S 27)


Brahmi: 9h (r.o.) �āhi ja – 1h vūkha

London, no. 1894.5.6.208: 3.19 g, 2h, 22.2 mm

no legend

Type 118

Drachm

Obverse:Horseman to right; wearing a diadem with a cres-cent on top; two ribbons are hanging from the dia-demin left field: Tamgha (S 1)in right field: Rosetta on conch shell (S 26)


Brahmi: 8h (r.o.) �āhi javū[kha] (unclear)

London, no. 1894.5.6.207: 3.43 g, 3h, 23.9 mm

no legend

Type 140

Drachm

Obverse:Profile bust right; wearing a pearl diadem (?) with acrescent on top, two ribbons are hanging from thediademin right field: Footprints (S 30)

Reverse:?

Brahmi: 9h (r.o.) śahi ja – 1h vakha

Coll. Conte Quaroni: ? g, ?h, 22.4 mm

?


ζαβοχο

Type 96

Drachm

Obverse:Profile bust right on a vegetal element; wearing adiadem with a big crescent on top (therein a tri-dent?), a small crescent both at the front and back;two ribbons are hanging from the diademin right field: Rosetta on a conch shell (S 12)


Bactrian: 1h (r.o.) ζαβοχο – μυρo (or μιιρo) – coνo Þoo

London, no. 1894.5.6.1287: 3.24 g, 3h, 24.8 mmno legend

Type 96A

Drachm

Obverse:Profile bust right on a vegetal element; wearing adiadem with a big crescent on top, a small crescentboth at the front and back; two ribbons are hangingfrom the diademin right field: Vajra (S 33 var)


Bactrian: 1h (r.o.) ζαβοχο – μυρo (or μιιρo) – coνo Þoo


no legend

Type 97

Drachm

Obverse:Profile bust right on a vegetal element; wearing adiadem with a big crescent at the front, another cres-cent at the centre; two ribbons are hanging from thediademin right field: Lotus on a conch shell (S 83)


Bactrian: 1h (r.o.) ζαβοχο – μυρo (or μιιρo) – coνoÞoo

Coll. Conte Quaroni: ? g, 3h, 22.7 mm

no legend


Type 98

Drachm

Obverse:Profile bust right on a vegetal element; wearing adiadem with a big crescent on top, a small crescentboth at the front and back; two ribbons are hangingfrom the diademin right field: Three flowers on Tamgha S 1 (S 84)


Bactrian: 1h (r.o.) ζαβοχ – [..] – 11h Þαono legend ANS, no. 1981.134.2: 3.69 g, 9h, 23.8 mm

no legend

Type 99

Drachm

Obverse:Profile bust right on a vegetal element; wearing adiadem with a big crescent on top, a small crescentboth at the front and back; two ribbons are hangingfrom the diademin right field: Trident (S 16)


Bactrian: 1h (r.o.) ζαβοχο [..]

Coll. Warden, no. 21: 3.57 g, 3h, 23.4 mm

no legend

Type 100

Drachm

Obverse:Profile bust right on a vegetal element; wearing adiadem with a big crescent on top, a small crescentboth at the front and back; two ribbons are hangingfrom the diademin right field: Trident and conch shell (S 17)


Bactrian: 1h (r.o.) [ζα]βoχ ..

London, no. OR 0479: 3.23 g, 4h, 24.0 mm

no legend

Type 101

Drachm

Obverse:Profile bust right on a vegetal element; wearing adiadem with a big crescent on top, a small crescentboth at the front and back; two ribbons are hangingfrom the diademin right field: Trident in a pot on lotus (S 15)


Bactrian: 1h (r.o.) ζαβ[oχ ..]

London, no. OR 0478: 3.48 g, 9h, 23.7 mm

no legend


Type 102

Drachm

Obverse:Profile bust right; wearing a diadem with a big cres-cent at the top, a small crescent both at the front andback; two ribbons are hanging from the diademin right field: Trident on lotus (S 15a)


Bactrian: 1h (r.o.) ζαβ[oχ ..]

London, no. 1922.4.24.3744: 3.30 g, 3h, 23.8 mm

no legend

Type 103

Drachm (base silver)

Obverse:Profile bust right; wearing a diadem with a big cres-cent in the centre, a small crescent both at the frontand back; two ribbons are hanging from the diademin right field: Animal head on a con shell (S 21)(unclear)


Bactrian: 1h (r.o.) ζ(αβ)[oχ ..] very unclear

London, no. OR 0480: 3.31 g, 3h, 23.3 mm

no legend

Type 104

Drachm

Obverse:Profile bust right; wearing a diadem with a big cres-cent at the top, a small crescent both at the front andback; two ribbons are hanging from the diademin right field: Flower on a curved stem (S 23)


Unclear (awaiting better specimen, but most likelyζαβοχο)

Bern, no. 68.1263: 3.20 g, 3h, 23.3 mm

no legend

Type 105

Drachm

Obverse:Horseman to rightin right field: Tamgha (S 1)

Reverse:Wheel on a stand (Dharmachakra ?); left and right areclining animal (?)

Bactrian: 9h (r.o.) ζαβοχο – μιι(or υ) – ρo – coνo Þoo


Brahmi: jaya or yaya (on most specimens unclear)


Type 106

Drachm

Obverse:Horseman to rightin right field: Tamgha (S 13)

Reverse:Wheel on a stand (Dharmachakra ?); left and right areclining animal (?)



Brahmi: … yatadha… (on most specimens unclear)

Type 106A

Drachm

Obverse:Horseman to rightin left field: Tamgha (S 1); in right field Tamgha (S 8)

Reverse:Wheel on a stand (Dharmachakra ?); on the left areclining horse, on the right a reclining goat (?)


ANS, no. 1981.134.4: 3.30 g, 12h, 22.3 mm

Brahmi: 9h (r.o.): yatadhama (unclear)

Type 107

Drachm

Obverse:Horseman to rightin left field: Tamgha (S 1); in right field: Tamgha (S 14)

Reverse:Wheel on a stand (Dharmachakra ?); on the left areclining horse, on the right a reclining goat (?)

Bactrian: 9h (r.o.) ζαβοχο – μιι(or υ) – ρo – coνo ÞooLondon, no. OR 0477: 3.47 g, 12h, 23.8 mm

no legend

Gupta: Kumaragupta

Horseman(Allan 1914, 219–225; Horseman Type IIα)

Dinar

Obverse:Brahmi: 8h (r.o.) Guptakulavyomaśaśī jyatyajego ´jitama-

hendra�

Reverse:Brahmi: 2h (r.o.) Ajitamehendra�

King on horseback to right

ANS, no. 1949.66.1, ex Sir John Marshall Coll.: 8.11 g,11h, 19.5 mm

Goddess (Lakshmi ?) seated left, holding lotus, fee-ding peacock


Mihirakula

Type 135

Drachm

Obverse:Profile bust right on a vegetal element; wearing acrown or cap with a small crescent at the foreheadin left field: Trident with two ribbons (S 48)in right field: Standard with bull (S 49)

Reverse:Fire altar, two attendants, head in the flames

Brahmi: 9h (r.o.) jayatu mihirakula

London, ex India Office Collection, no. 2372: 3.51 g, 2h,26.1 mm

no legend

Lakhāna Udayāditya

Type 79

Drachm

Obverse:Profile bust right; wearing a diadem with a crescent atthe forehead; two ribbons are hanging from the dia-dem


Brahmi: 9h (r.o.) raja (or rāja) lakhāna – 1h udayāditya

Aman ur Rahman, no. 403: 3.77 g, 3h, 28.0 mmno legend

Mehama

Type 62

Drachm

Obverse:Profile bust right; wearing a diadem with a crescent atthe forehead; a crescent with a dash at either shoul-der; holding a flower (?) in his right handin left field: Vajra (S 33)

Reverse:Fire altar, two attendants; an oval shape in the flames

Bactrian: 1h (r.o.) μηo (unclear)

London, no. 1894.5.6.1165: 3.51 g, 3h, 28.9 mmno legend


Type 63

Drachm

Obverse:Profile bust right; wearing a diadem with a crescent atthe forehead; two ribbons are hanging from the dia-dem; tips of a crescent moon are protruding from theshouldersin left field: Tamgha (S 1)in right field: Vajra (S 33 var)


Bactrian: 1h (r.o) μηo (unclear)

Karachi: ? g, 12h, 27.5 mmno legend

Type 71

Drachm

Obverse:Bareheaded profile bust right on a vegetal element;two small ribbons are hanging from the diademin left field: Tamgha (S 1)in right field: Fire altar (S 36)


Brahmi: 2h (l.o.) (retrograde): mepama – 10h (r.o.) �aha

Berlin: 3.32 g, ?h, 27.5 mmno legend

Type 73

Drachm

Obverse:Profile bust right on a vegetal element; wearing a dia-dem with two crescents with a dash attached to it;two ribbons are hanging from the diadem; tips of abig crescent moon are protruding from the shouldersin left field: Tamgha (S 1)in right field: Club (S 39)


Brahmi: 10h (r.o.) �a (sometimes ba, sometimes asecond aksara like ya)

12h (r.o.) bapa or paba

(bapa could mean 'father', or probably just a shortversion of Mepama)


no legend


Type 74

Drachm

Obverse:Profile bust right on a vegetal element; wearing a dia-dem with a crescent at the forehead; two ribbons arehanging from the diademin right field: Tamgha (S 1)


Brahmi: 1h (r.o.) mepama (or papapa?)

London, no. 2369: 3.68 g, 3h, 28.3 mm

no legend

Type 316(unpublished)

Drachm

Obverse:Bareheaded profile bust right on a vegetal element;two ribbons are attached to the necklacein left field: Tamgha (S 1)in right field: Fire altar


Brahmi: 10h (r.o.) �aha – mahama (or mahapa)


no legend

Hephthalites: Peroz-type

Type 287

Drachm

Obverse:Sasanian-style bust right with the third crown ofPeroz; rim with four big dots


Bactrian: 1h (r.o.) ηβ

Paris, no. 1979.143.7, ex Coll. Widemann: 4.07 g, 3h,28.1 mm

Bactrian: 4h (r.i.) βoχλo


Hephthalite Prince

Type 287A

Drachm

Obverse:Half length portrait of a beardless prince facing left;holding a drinking cup

Reverse:Sasanian-style bust right, sometimes left; wearing acrown similar to Wahram V (420–438)


sometimes debased or corrupted additional charac-ters

Vienna, no. GR 3124x: 3.49 g, 3h, 28.7 mm

no legend

Hephthalites: Peroz-type

Type 288

Drachm (Base silver)

Obverse:Sasanian-style bust right with the third crown ofPeroz; rim with four big dotsin right field: Tamgha (S 59)



outside the border of dots 7h (r.i.) ιooμo

Paris, ex Coll. Widemann, no. 41: 3.80 g, 3h, 29.3 mm

corrupted letters

Type 289

Drachm

Obverse:Sasanian-style bust right with the third crown ofPeroz; rim with four big dotsin right field: Tamgha (S 59)in left field: Tamgha (S 60)



outside the border of dots 7h (r.i.) ιooμo

Bern, no. 93.258, ex Coll. Williams: 2.86 g, 10h, 30.6mm

corrupted letters


For the late stage, Types 81, 82, 316, and 79, see above

56

Impression of a Seal

Callieri 2002, fig. 1a

Bactrian: 1h (r.o.) εÞκιγγιλο

Princely figure seated cross-legged

Saeedi Collection: 22,8 x 19,4mm, 5,9mm thick

Locations:

Aman ur Rahman Aman ur Rahman, Dubai (VAE)

ANS American Numismatic Society, New York (USA)

Berlin Staatliche Museen zu Berlin (Germany)

Bern Bernisches Historisches Museum (Switzerland)

Coll. Conte Quaroni Collection of Conte Quaroni (Italy ?)

Jean-Pierre Righetti Jean-Pierre Righetti (Switzerland)

Karachi National Museum, Karachi (Pakistan)

NZK Numismatic Central Card File, Institut für Numismatik und Geldgeschichte Universität Wien (Austria)

Paris Bibliothèque nationale de France, Paris (France)

Peshawar Peshawar Museum, Peshawar (Pakistan)

Vienna Coin Cabinet, Museum of Fine Arts, Vienna (Austria)

Warden Coll. Collection of William Warden (†) (USA)

IThe catalogue is merely giving a short description of the coins, intending to point out only the crucial features; the Tamghas and Symbols(S 1, etc.) are classified according to Göbl 1967.

IImazdēsn bay šābuhr (šāpur) šāhān šāh ērān ud anērān kē čihr az yazdān = „the Mazdayasnian (divine) majesty, Shapur, King of Kingsof Iranians and non-Iranians, whose „lineage“ is from the gods“; Alram/Blet-Lemarquand/Skjærvø 2007.

Abbreviations:(r.o.) The legend is to be read rightwards (clockwise) and outwards(l.i.) The legend is to be read leftwards (counterclockwise) and inwards