Vondrovec 2008a Libre

BUFM 50, Vondrovec, Numismatic Evidence of the Alchon Huns reconsidered, 25 - 56
Klaus Vondrovec
Numismatic Evidence of the Alchon Huns reconsidered
1
This article aims to sum up the impact of a newly
published copper scroll inscription
2
on the monetary
history of the Alchon Huns.
3
The latter belong to the
Iranian Huns who in contrast to the Huns in Europe
migrated into Central Asia and came into contact
with the Sasanian Empire and the Guptas in India.
Both the system and the chronology of the coinage of
the Iranian Huns have been elucidated, but only in
rather crude outlines. Linking numismatic evidence
either to literary sources or to absolute chronological
dates has proved difficult and is greatly dependent
on further archaeological finds.
Although the new copper scroll is held in a private
collection and no information relating to its find-spot
can be provided, it contains a location in itself and can
also be tentatively dated. The most interesting aspect
for our purpose is that it mentions four royal person-
ages whose names are also known from coins.
Furthermore, the inscription suggests that these four
lords or kings lived and ruled at least partly at the
same time. Therefore the focus of this article will be
on 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 the
four names, most of which are silver drachms, will be
included.
Monetary History
In 1967 Robert Gbl published Dokumente zur
Geschichte der Iranischen Hunnen in Baktrien und
Indien,
4
which still constitutes the standard reference
work for the coins of the Huns and their successors.
Basing his investigations entirely on their coinage,
Gbl identified four major entities of the Iranian
Huns which he referred to as families of coin types:
Kidarites, Alchon, Nezak
5
, and Hephthalites. He also
included the Western Turks; while they are of differ-
ent origin from the Huns, their coinage abides almost
seamlessly from that of various Hunnic states and
therefore cannot be separated from the latter. In con-
tradistinction to the European Huns he created the
term Iranian Huns
6
, based on the fact that the Huns
in Central Asia generally adopted the languages and
cultural habits of the Iranian world, sophisticated
coin production being one of the latter.
Despite the lack of available archaeological data as
well as almost any other written sources, Gbl 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 unknown
coins or better preserved specimens have also come
to light in the meantime, adding a substantial amount
of new information to our knowledge.
7
New coins
often appear in auction catalogues. These can at least
be used for the purpose of further reconstructing the
overall minting system but unfortunately no informa-
tion regarding find-spots or related material is avail-
able. Consequently museums and private collections
play an important role in scientific research on
Central Asia, particularly as the authorities in pres-
ent-day Uzbekistan, Tajikistan, Afghanistan, and
Pakistan, countries which cover the territories once
inhabited by the Iranian Huns, do not have sufficient
resources to ensure the preservation of their cultural
heritage to a greater extent.
Although Gbl was well aware that Hunnic clans nei-
ther corresponded to modern states nor should be
considered as ethnic groups, he imagined these
type-families to have been waves of Invaders.
8
The coinage of the Iranian Huns derives either from
the adaptation of well-established coin types with
legends of their own, produced by recutting original
coin dies, or initially introduces a unique and former-
ly unparalleled design. Although their coinage dis-
plays several aspects of their own identity it offers
few 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 are
located in the area of present-day Mongolia, which
means that neither the languages and scripts used on
25
their coins nor the monetary system of the Sasanian
Empire if not the use of coins as such belonged to
their original cultural background. Nevertheless,
regardless of how the Huns migrated into Central
Asia or seized power in Afghanistan or Gandhara,
both their history and their coinage is often intercon-
nected and thus suggests parallel lordships or some
kind of hierarchical relationship between different
kingdoms.
Reconsidering the literary evidence
In a recent article tienne de la Vaissire proposed an
interesting view of the process of Hun migration into
Central Asia.
9
From an analysis of Chinese literary
sources he has come to the conclusion that probably
[...] all the nomadic kingdoms that flourished in
Bactria between the middle of the fourth century and
the middle of the sixth century can trace their origin
back to a single episode of massive migration in the
second half of the fourth century (circa 350370), and
not to a whole set of successive migrations.
This would dramatically change our current
understanding of the political setting of the entire
region. As a consequence the arrangement of the
coinage of the Iranian Huns would have to be
reviewed. As a matter of fact, literary sources do not
correspond with the system established by numisma-
tists; absolute dates differ considerably, and more-
over the names of the political entities vary.
10
Ancient
historic records are scarce and not always accurate,
especially when it comes to reports on enemies like
the Huns. Chinese sources may be authentic but they
assign their own names and transliterations to foreign
tribes, while other sources were compiled only cen-
turies after the reported events had taken place and
are therefore not apt to help settle scholarly dis-
putes.
11
Coins are unchanged and therefore authentic
objects that were produced by and under the control
of an authority. Nevertheless, it should be borne in
mind that coin-design often froze certain features in
order to maintain a well-established appearance and
thus achieve common acceptance. The lack of more
securely ascertained find-spots and archaeological
contexts imposes great limits on the actual potential
of numismatics, especially when it comes to connect-
ing a framework of coin-types to absolute dates or
ascertained locations.
A new copper scroll inscription from the
time of the Alchon Huns
In 2006, a remarkable copper scroll inscription from
the Schyen Collection (No. 2241) was published.
12
A
thin metal plate that was acquired in rolled up form
as a scroll bears a Brahmi inscription. Although some
fragments of the plate are missing, it must have meas-
ured 58 by 26 cm and was inscribed with 54 lines. It
has proved possible to recover almost the full con-
tents of the scroll, revealing that it had been inscribed
to mark the consecration of a stupa, a Buddhist sanc-
tuary. The scroll mentions no less than thirteen
donors: royal personages [...] people who may not
have been personally involved in the donation
13
(lines 3239), although the name of the main donor is
not preserved. However, his title (Tlagnika-
Devaputra hi) reveals the location (place of origin)
where the scroll was inscribed. This can be identified
as modern Taloquan, some 60 km east of Qunduz in
northern Afghanistan.
The inscription is dated to Year 68 of an era which is
not initially clear. Taking palaeographic considera-
tions into account, Gudrun Melzer has assumed this
period to be the Laukika era, thus tentatively dating
the inscription to 492/493 CE. I have reproduced a
translation of the part of the inscription that gives the
names plus the Sanskrit titles in brackets. All four
royal personages, Khingila, Toramana, Mehama, and
Javukha, are known from coins to have been rulers of
the 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 lordship
in 492/493 CE. Furthermore, Mehama seems to have
been the lord who ruled directly over the area of
Talaghan/Taloquan in northern Afghanistan.
Gudrun Melzer notes that the differentiation
between rja and hi might have something to do
with the geographical regions.
14
The Coinage of the Alchon
The very first coins attributed to the Alchon Huns
15
feature the legend alchonno and were struck from oth-
erwise unaltered Sasanian coin dies.
16
As yet, they
bear no personal names or any characteristic features
other than small symbols or tamghas, and are thus
referred to as Anonymous Clan Rulers.
17
Extant
examples 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 hi Khgla (mahhi)
9 the god-king Toramna (devarja)
10 the mistress of the great monastery Ss
11 the great hi Mehama (mahahi)
12 Sdavkha
13 the great king (mahrja) Javkha,
the son of Sdavkha
during the reign of Mehama
Table 1. Copper scroll inscription, lines 813.
The end of the production of Sasanian drachms in the
easternmost part of the empire during the reign of
Shapur III (383388)
18
represents a major cornerstone
on which the numismatic date for the start of the
independent coinage of the Alchon rests. The mint in
question that was seized by the Huns is generally
considered to be Kabul.
19
Although there is little
doubt 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 more
suitable. Nikolaus Schindel has in fact divided this
putative 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 king
wearing 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 shape
which is the result of bandaging during childhood.
21
This seems to have been a sign of royalty and
replaced the Sasanian crown as a sign of lordship.
The small hoard of Shah-ji-ki-Dheri,
22
a Buddhist site
in the eastern part of modern Peshawar, contains
exclusively drachms of the anonymous Alchon types
NumH 4043. They feature different versions of the
Bactrian legend alchonno, and some of them an addi-
tional Brahmi aksara. It is possible that these types as
well as Khingilas consecutive issues were no longer
struck at Kabul but in Gandhara.
The first personal name to appear on Alchon coins
is that of Khingila, although coins without a proper
name continue to be struck throughout the entire
Alchon period. It has been the generally-accepted
hypothesis that he was followed by Toramana,
Mihirakula, and Narana/Narendra. The absolute dat-
ing and succession of the Alchon kings was partly
based on the work published by Sir Aurel Stein
23
and
was further adjusted by Robert Gbl to fill the overall
time-span from the mid-fifth to the late sixth century.
However, several other names than those mentioned
on 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 either
a part of the word alchonno written in Bactrian script
in their legends, a distinct symbol known as the
Alchon tamgha
24
(S1) or a limited number of other
symbols. However, it is their style that links them.
The better parts of their coinage are drachms of good
quality, although the silver content declines towards
the end of this type family. There are also a number of
small copper issues; a majority of them corresponds
very closely to the drachm types. The same design
and style or various symbols that link coin types
together indicate that they were struck as an entire
minting programme or issue (in German: Emission)
consisting of both silver and smaller copper denomi-
nations for change. The copper scroll inscription
finally provides sufficient proof to demolish the sim-
ple Khingila Toramana Mihirakula model of suc-
cession. In the light of the article by tienne de la
Vaissire some very different models for the political
structure both north and south of the Hindukush, in
Bactria and Gandhara, can be developed.
Khingila
Khingila is the Brahmi version of the earliest person-
al name to be found on Alchon coins. The earliest
type, NumH 44, is closely related to the anonymous
issues NumH 4043. Just like types 39 and 44 they
have a small crescent in the upper left field. Although
NumH 4043 do not bear the name of Khingila it is
likely they were issued by this king.
Types with a headdress are clearly later than those
with a bare head, because this odd-shaped head was
initially introduced as a substitute for the Sasanian
crown as a token of kingship. It is also undeniable
evidence that Khingila is ageing on his images on
coins.
NumH 44, 59A, and 66 are the earliest issues bear-
ing the name of Khingila. Their only terminus post
quem is the shape of the ribbons attached to the neck-
lace which correspond to those of the Sasanian king
Yazdgerd I (399420). There must have been some
delay, so a tentative dating of the early types would
place them at ca. 420440 CE or possibly even a little
later.
25
Types 44, 66, and 66A are bilingual, combining the
Bactrian alchonno with a Brahmi Khingila. On types
59A and 61 Khingilas name is written in Bactrian as
. A recently published seal bears the legend
,
26
which is a different variant of that name.
The seal shows a seated, cross-legged male figure
holding a flower a motif that is also known from the
Hephthalite 287A coin-type
27
as well as from a silver
bowl in the Hermitage.
28
The question of the
Hephthalite identity
29
of the Alchon Huns or
Hephthalite overlordship over a branch of them at
some time at the late fifth/early sixth century will be
discussed in more detail below, especially in the light
of la Vaissire 2007. The design of coins does not nec-
essarily relate to paintings, silver bowls, or even seals,
but Alchon and Hephthalites might have adopted the
motif of a seated prince from the same iconographic
pool.
Type 57 also has a bareheaded bust, but differs in
terms of style. There is only one specimen known of
the yet unpublished type 132A. No close stylistic
analogies should be drawn between copper issues
and drachms, but this reading of the name justifies
further attribution of otherwise unepigraphic copper
series to drachms.
On NumH 61, 66A, and 318 Khingila is wearing a
diadem or a ring-shaped crown to which crescents
are attached. The unpublished type 318 shows that
the use of all-Bactrian or Bactrian-Brahmi legends
does not provide any decisive clues as to dating.
Type 81 is the latest type bearing Khingilas name.
Although the composition of the diadem or cap with
a 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 also
type 79, inscribed rja lakhna udayditya, see below.
Taking into account the stylistic relation of these
types, the altered appearance of the portraits and the
inscription, NumH 81, 316, 82, and 79 were issued at
the very end of the fifth century or possibly even
later.
Robert Gbl wondered whether there might have
been two kings by the name of Khingila
30
but eventu-
ally decided against the idea. He found it more
appropriate to attribute all those types without a
proper name as well as those with a very different
name to the supreme king Khingila. At that stage it
was unclear whether some of them were titles or per-
sonal names, so his approach represented a sound
hypothesis for the time being. Since then the number
of published coins has multiplied, enabling better
readings of legends, but it is in fact this copper scroll
inscription that has now provided a strong incentive
to rethink the arrangement and attribution of those
coins. However, a fully revised typology and
arrangement would go beyond the scope of this arti-
cle. Nevertheless both the anonymous types 4043
were struck not long after 440 CE, as was Khingilas
type 44. If Khingila was still alive when the copper
scroll was inscribed in 492/493 CE he must have been
very old, which might have been the reason why he is
mentioned first.
31
It is however possible that there
was another king of the same name, who might have
issued type 81.
Toramana
So far no silver drachms bearing this name are
known, yet Robert Gbl attributed several drachm
types without or with a different name to this king.
32
It is curious that he is mentioned on the copper scroll
and in written sources, but for present purposes he
will have to be excluded.
It can generally be observed and is therefore
regarded as a law in numismatics that coin design is
created for the highest denominations. Only from
there do legends, new iconographic elements and
style make their way down to lower values, although
the production of copper coins always seems to be
subjected to less strict control. Copper issues of the
Iranian 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 a
royal person. Types 4950 differ only in the details of
their legends and were thus probably minted within
a very short period of time. Type 51 is of exactly the
same composition, but the headdress, the nose of the
king, and also the ribbons are stylistically different
and indicate a later production date.
Types 117 and 118 show a horseman on the obverse,
probably the king; this type is also struck with the
Bactrian legend , see below. The reverse fea-
tures a fire altar. It is odd that these two issues are not
only smaller in diameter but also different in style,
yet NumH 117 has the same club symbol as the por-
trait types 4951 of Javukha.
The design of the horseman was adopted from
(gold) dinars of the Gupta Empire. It was issued by
Chandragupta II (380414) and Kumaragupta I (ca.
414450).
33
The Alchon horseman type is executed in
exactly the same manner; the posture of the horse is
virtually the same. There is also a version of the
Gupta Lion Slayer type on dinars, a denomination
otherwise not issued by the Huns.
34
The rider unmis-
takeably has the same peculiar-shaped head as the
Alchon; it bears the name Prakditya but was attrib-
uted by Robert Gbl to Toramana.
35
To sum up: in the
light of typological and numismatic evidence,
Javukha and also (see below) had close eco-
nomic contact with the Guptas, probably in
Gandhara.
Type 82, like NumH 4951, shows a portrait of a
king with a peculiar-shaped head. Stylistically this is
the latest issue with the name of Javukha and corre-
sponds with type 81 of Khingila and type 79 of
Lakhana Udayaditya.
36
(Zabocho)
Although not mentioned on the copper scroll, this
ruler has to be included because it has been suggest-
ed that the Bactrian is the same name as the
Brahmi Javukha.
37
Taking the numismatic evidence
into consideration it is not necessarily true that those
coins bearing the legend were issued by the
same person known as Javukha. All coin types with
the legend seem to belong to a very distinct
group with the same style of die-engraving. Their
diameter is also considerably smaller than those of
the portrait types by Javukha. Their weight seems to
be the same, at an average of roughly 3.5 grams.
issued a considerable number of drachms
featuring a profile bust and displaying an assortment
of symbols in the right field in front of the face. In the
very same style he also struck the horseman type
which 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 have a big
wheel or a chakra on the reverse while those of
Javukha show a fire altar. However, there are also a
considerable number of coin types with a portrait that
show different or no personal names at all, possessing
a small diameter and closely resembling this style.
Mehama
This ruler is mentioned twice on the copper scroll
inscription. Line 39 in the time of Mehamas reign
suggests that the Taloquan area was part of his realm,
28
but this does not give any indication that coins were
struck at this place or even in that area.
The Brahmi version of Mehama is known from
coin types 71, 73, 74, and the yet unpublished type
316. A Bactrian version of this name, meiamo
(), is attested in the Bactrian Documents sever-
al times
38
and it is also known from seals. Coin types
62 and 63 display , although mostly not clearly
legible, 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 to
numismatic methodology it is likely they were not
only struck at the same place but also that the coin
dies were manufactured by the same person. Thus it
is almost certain that the coins with Brahmi Mehama
and those with Bactrian not only feature the same
name but were issued by the same person.
Type 73 is somewhat different to the rest. The reading
of the obverse legend is tentative but there is also a
club
39
with two ribbons in the right field which can
also be observed on types 4951 and 117 of Javukha.
The literary evidence of Mehama/ gives
quite accurate evidence for an absolute dating.
Nicholas Sims-Williams has published several dated
documents which mention a person called Mehama.
Two of them are dated to the year 239 and 242/252 of
the Sasanian era, 461/462 and 465/475 CE.
40
However, there are also documents dated to the 8th
century attesting this name. A Bactrian version is also
known from two seals in the Aman ur Rahman
Collection.
41
The copper scroll inscription has been
dated by Gudrun Melzer to 492/493 CE,
42
so if the
Mehama mentioned in these documents is the same
person, the chronological range of his rule und thus
his coinage would be ca.
461493 CE. Other issues
closely related to Meha -
mas could also be tenta-
tively dated to this peri-
od. Here again there is
one other type, NumH
316, which does not
entirely fit in with the rest
of the ensemble for stylis-
tic reasons. It corresponds
with the latest issues of
Khingila (NumH 81),
Javukha (NumH 82) and
Lakhana Udayaditya
(NumH 79).
Political and geographical structure of the
Alchon Empire
La Vaissire 2007 proposed that the migration of all
the Iranian Huns into Bactria was a joint event that
took place in the late fourth century. However, the
question of how and when the Huns invaded
Gandhara is still unresolved. It has long been
observed that the Iranian Huns shared a large part of
the cultural background in Gandhara; the entire phe-
nomenon of Gandhara is in fact a mixture of various
elements.
Considering the crossing of the Hindu Kush, it has
been pointed out that the Anonymous Clan Rulers
minted in Kabul (NumH 3339), using Sasanian
coin dies at first. Sasanian drachms continued to be
struck there until the reign of Shapur III (383388),
when this mint was obviously captured by the
Alchon Huns. A few coin finds such as the hoard of
Shah-ji-ki-Dheri and the use of Brahmi script on coins
suggest that the Alchon Huns moved into Gandhara
43
during the following decades but possibly even more
rapidly, and that the anonymous issues NumH 4043
were already struck there. Now was there a swift mil-
itary campaign that took place in several stages, or
rather a peaceful immigration in the modern sense of
the word? Indian sources clearly favour the theory of
Huns as ferocious enemies, which indicates a major
clash with the Gupta Empire. Even if there never was
a forceful invasion of the area north of the Hindu
Kush, what happened in ancient Gandhara?
Establishing accurate borders for Gandhara is not
an easy task. The core area must have covered the
Peshawar Valley up to the Khyber Pass, or, in more
practical terms, the fertile plains along the Kabul and
upper Indus rivers. Only a part of the Iranian Huns
invaded Gandhara and probably also areas further
29
Map 1. Central Asia.
200 100 300 400
Kilometer
50 0
Shah-ji-ki Dheri
Ghazni
Hadda
Taxila
.
Kabul
Begram
Balch
Taloquan
east, possibly after the middle of the fifth century.
Tracking down various cultural entities is not an easy
task; numismatics on its own can only do part of this
work.
It has been revealed that the horseman type, as
invented by the Guptas, was struck exclusively by
Javukha and . Later Alchon coinage such as
that of Mihirakula somehow develops into what is
vaguely referred to as indianized style. The use of
scripts and languages yields only a very few clues, for
no strict geographic borderline seems to exist
between the use of Bactrian and Brahmi, which is
now also attested from Taloquan in Northern
Afghanistan. However, coin finds indicate the pres-
ence of both Alchon and Kidarites south of the Hindu
Kush.
Coin finds
Very little new evidence of ascertained coin finds
from the period of the Iranian Huns has turned up
over the past few decades.
44
The situation as regards
coin distribution has remained more or less the same
since the 1960s, meaning that no pattern of circulation
can be established.
It should be stated that coins can easily travel long
distances; for example a considerable number of
Byzantine solidi have been found in tombs in
Northern China.
45
Thus, coin finds do not necessarily
indicate the presence of their issuers. Furthermore, all
of the Alchon drachms were basically interchange-
able with their Sasanian counterparts, although there
is a greater deviation in weight and diameter.
No finds of coins bearing the names of Mehama or
Toramana are known; all of the Khingila and Javukha
finds were discovered south of the Hindu Kush, in
the area between Setq Abad (near Begram) and
Taxila,
46
and the hoard of Shah-ji-ki-Dheri indicates
the influence of the early Alchon Huns in Gandhara.
It is evident that the realm(s) of the Alchon Huns
covered the area of Peshawar and Taxila, but the cop-
per scroll inscription now implies that their influence
also extended north as far as Taloquan. No finds of
Alchon coins north of the Hindu Kush have been
reported so far, but this cannot yet be regarded as an
absolute 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 allow
thorough insight into monetary circulation.
Nevertheless, a certain number of coins of the
Kidarite type family have been found in the area of
Taxila.
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 the
Hephthalites. Thus the question arises of whether the
Alchon Huns or possibly a branch of them came
under the overlordship of the Hephthalites? It is also
possible they belonged to the same tribe,
47
and Frantz
Grenet has gone so far as to propose Hephthalite
identity for the Huna rulers Toramana and
Mihirakula.
48
In 474 CE, Peroz suffered a devastating defeat and
was taken prisoner by the Hephthalites.
49
He was
freed for a ransom of 30 mule-loads of silver drachms
and had to leave his eldest son, Kawad, as a hostage.
In 484 CE, Peroz was again at war with the
Hephthalites during the course of which he was
killed in battle. Thus after this event, the Hephthalites
were probably in control of the entire area north of
the Hindu Kush. The Bactrian Documents indicate
the presence of a new political power, that of the
Hephthalites from year 260295 of the Sasanian era,
483/484 - 518/519 CE.
50
The Hephthalites presumably used the third crown of
Peroz on their coins because they were given a huge
supply of money and consequently started imitating
this type.
51
However, it is almost certain that Peroz
took 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 third
crown would have been minted. It is also plausible
that he was forced to agree to some kind of subsidiary
payments for a time after his release.
Peroz third crown is the only major coin type of
the Hephthalites which is equipped with additional
symbols, only at a later stage. Although it is not
always legible on NumH 288 and 289, oo (Balch in
northern Afghanistan) is quoted as the mint.
NumH 287A shows a half-length portrait of a
prince holding a cup. This motif is known from a sil-
ver bowl and was also used on a seal bearing the
name /Khingila. No other numismatic rela-
tions have been revealed as yet. Within the historical
context, their entire coinage is to be placed between
474 and 560/561 CE.
The Sasanian king Khusro I (531579) ultimately
defeated the Hephthalites in 560/561 CE
52
with the
help of the Western Turks who had just made their
first appearance in the history of the Iranian world.
Their coinage (which cannot be described within the
scope of this article) represents a continuation of the
Alchon-Nezak types.
The Guptas
We know that in the 450s the Gupta empire was
defeated by Huns and consequently crumbled, so by
that time a branch of the Iranian Huns had seized
control over Gandhara. It is most likely that the war
against the Guptas provided the nucleus for the
Huns ferocious reputation in Indian literary sources.
30
Around the 520s, the Greek explorer Kosmas Indiko -
pleustes reported that Mihirakula, king of the White
Huns, had invaded India with 2,000 elephants,
53
although it is more likely that they learned how to use
these animals in battle from the Gupta army. In 528
CE, an alliance of Indians landed a devastating defeat
on the Huns of Mihirakula, which must have ulti-
mately led to the withdrawal of the Huns from
India/Gandhara over the next few decades. The coins
bearing his name show that he was a descendant of
the Alchon Huns.
54
It is undisputed that the adversaries of the Guptas
were Alchon and not Kidarites.
55
The few Khingila
and Javukha coin finds, but also those of some other
Alchon rulers, plus the fact that the Gupta horseman
type was struck by Javukha and and the Lion
Slayer-type by Prakditya, provide further under-
pinning for this theory.
Chronology
The numismatic relations between the persons men-
tioned on the copper scroll have been discussed
above but will probably become clear only from the
plates. However, this article does not include the
entire coinage of the Alchon Huns but only those
types bearing the names of one of the persons from
the inscription, together with some additional types
that are of immediate interest.
The four kings or royal persons appear to have
ruled at least partly simultaneously, though it is not
evident what the relations were between Khingila,
Toramana, Javukha, and Mehama. Khingila is the ear-
liest Alchon ruler to be mentioned on coins; his early
issues seem to be not much later than those of the
Anonymous Clan Rulers. Whether he was just the
first of a number of rulers to issue coins, or at some
stage ruled over various sub-kings of the Alchon
Huns, remains undecided without further literary
and archaeological evidence. If a relative chronology
is to be established, the coinage can be separated into
several supposedly contemporaneous stages. Since
this is tantamount to an oversimplification, I have
added 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 4043 and
also NumH 44 could have been struck not long after
420440 CE. The copper scroll mentions Khingila,
Mehama and Javukha, but it is not clear whether it
was inscribed at the beginning, the end or at some
point during their reign. For Mehama we could
assume a time-span of ca. 461493 CE, so 492/493 CE
would in any case seem to be towards the end of his
rule. Consequently, Stage 1 would be dated to the
460s and Stage 3 to the 490s.
To my eye, the types show a more uniform style in
Stage 2 and particularly in Stage 3. Their style differs
from the earlier issues, so that the whole of Stage 3
could also have been produced in the early sixth cen-
tury if there was another king by the name of
Khingila or coins continued to be struck in his name
after 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. For
example, NumH 140 from Stage 4 obviously belongs
to the latest phase of the Alchon coinage, from some
time in the sixth century. Many specimens no longer
bear a clearly legible legend. Thus, it is quite possible
that 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 to
the Kidarites, Alchon, Nezak, and Hephthalites (and
the Western Turks who succeeded them) has been
entirely established from their coins and hardly any
other sources. However, numismatic evidence consti-
tutes merely a fragment of history as a whole. The
existence of a hierarchy or concept of cultural entity is
in any case necessary to produce a large and consis-
tent group of coinage. The copper scroll supplies a
kind of temporal framework for dating some of the
coin types of the rulers mentioned, but it does not, of
course, provide instantaneous solutions to all the out-
standing questions in this field. Indeed, it would
seem to throw up more questions than it answers;
nevertheless, this is a necessary price to pay for
demolishing an outdated concept that could have
blocked the path of future research.
The silver drachm is the main denomination of the
Iranian Huns. When the silver content is good, they
are virtually interchangeable with Sasanian money,
but for example the drachms of the Nezak Huns
gradually become debased until they are eventually
almost pure copper coins. The most common coin
type, a profile bust of the king on the obverse and a
31
stage Anonymous Khingila Mehama Javukha Udayditya
0 4043 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 personal
names from the copper scroll inscription or related.
fire altar on the reverse, is also of Sasanian origin.
There is also some iconographic influx from the
Gupta Empire with the horseman type issued by
Javukha and .
The Alchon Huns strike coin legends both in
Bactrian and then Brahmi virtually from the very
beginning; it is, however, likely that this script initial-
ly spread from Gandhara. There are close numismat-
ic ties between Khingila, Javukha and also Mehama
indicating that they did in fact have a common cultur-
al background.
Obviously a branch of the Alchon Huns remained in
Bactria and thus must have come under the control of
the Hephthalites, either after their first major victory
over the Sasanians in 474 CE, or after the death of the
Sasanian king Peroz (459484) in battle. The copper
scroll suggests that Mehama was one of the Alchon
kings in Bactria, thus indicating that there was some
form of co-existence in any case. This is a major
amplification of the theory that the Alchon as a whole
moved south into Gandhara, whence they were driv-
en out in the late sixth century into the Kabul region
where they mixed their coin types with those of the
Nezak kings.
56
However, if the migration into Bactria
was a joint event, this is in any case an obsolete con-
sideration. Whoever stayed behind shared the same
cultural background, which means that no other
wave of invaders came from outside.
The issue here is not whether Khingila was a
Hephthalite, as suggested by Grenet 2002, but to
reveal more about their cultural identity, which was
probably the same or goes back to the same roots
using the theory of la Vaissire 2007 as an appealing
paradigm.
In conclusion a small remark
57
should be made, name-
ly about the Alchon Huns and Buddhism. At the very
least, they not only tolerated Buddhism in Bactria and
possibly also in Gandhara but were also the tutelary
lords of the stupa in Taloquan. Certain Buddhist sym-
bols on their coins
58
deserve more careful attention.
However, the theory that the Huns drove Buddhism
from Gandhara no longer seems valid.
59
Annotations
1
The original title of the lecture given at the conference Hunnen
zwischen Asien und Europa, held from November 23
rd
-24
th
2007,
was Von der Chinesischen Mauer nach Indien Die Iranischen
Hunnen im Lichte Ihrer Mnzprgung. It has been adapted for
a printed version. A paper given by the author at the
Symposium on Bactrian Chronology, held in Cambridge from
25
th
26
th
January 2008, also partly dealt with this subject. This
publication 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 Bactrian
coin-legends for me.
4
Gbl 1967. When citing coins of the Iranian Huns the term
NumH (Number of Hun Coinage?) has established itself in the
English speaking world. Gbls 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-ah, Nezak-Kings), see
Harmatta 1969, 408; Frye 1974; Alram 1996, 525. Kuwayama 1998
proposed a very different view of the Nezak, but may have mis-
understood Gbl 1967.
6
Gbl 1967, vol. I, ix.
7
New coin-types have been published in various articles: Gbl
1981, Gbl 1983, Gbl 1987, Gbl 1990, Gbl 1993, Alram 1996,
Alram 2000, Alram 2002, Lee/Sims-Williams 2003, Alram 2006.
8
Gbl 1967, vol. I, X.
9
La Vaissire 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 was
sometimes referred to as Hephthalite and sometimes as a Turk,
Grenet 2002, 215. The Hephthalite Huns however were defeated
by the Sasanian King of Kings Khusro I. (531579) in ca. 560 CE
with the help of Western Turkish allies. The Hephthalite coinage
is a very distinct group (see below). We do not know what the
Huns called themselves; Grenet is correct in pointing out certain
consistencies between Kidarites and Hephthalites as well as
between Hephthalites and Western Turks. The term White
Huns, as mentioned by Kosmas Indikopleustes, cannot as yet
be 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
Gbl NumH 28A31, the so-called Zwischengruppe, which he
believed to be Imitations of Sasanian drachms minted by the
Huns, were attributed to the mint of Merv by Schindel 2004 and
should therefore be removed from the coinage of the Huns.
16
See NumH 36A. According to Davary 1982: 154 and Nicholas
Sims-Williams, the intended word had been alchanno. In cursive
script, there is often no visible difference between the letters o
and a. Consequently, the Alchon-Huns would be referred to as
Alchan-Huns; I have deliberately kept the established term
Alchon and also the reading alchonno.
17
Vondrovec 2005.
18
Schindel 2004, vol. I, 282284.
19
Gbl 1967 vol. I, 56; Gbl 1984, 5556; Schindel 2004, vol. I,
237238.
20
21
Deformed skulls were found in Taxila, Marshall 1951, pl. 227-
228, and are also known from European sites.
22
Gbl 1967, vol. I, 60; allegedly a roll containing 16 drachms was
found in 1911; the 13 remaining coins are on display in the
Peshawar museum. Both the narrow sample of coin types and
the fact that they were wrapped into a roll suggests this ensem-
ble was intended for an economic purpose rather than collected
for a stupa deposit.
23
Stein 1900.
24
For example, on types 4044 in the right field; see plates.
25
Vondrovec 2005, 253; Gbl 1967, vol. I, 61 favours 440 CE.
26
In the Saeedi Collection; Callieri 2002; see plates. On the etymol-
ogy of /eigil, see Sims-Williams 2002 and la
Vaissire 2007, 129.
27
Alram 2002.
28
Marshak 1986, fig. 16.
29
Grenet 2002 strongly favours this hypothesis.
32
30
Gbl 1967, vol. II, 5966.
31
Gudrun Melzer indicated to me that a special formula for
addressing dead people or ancestors is known from other
inscriptions; this would rather suggest Khingila was still alive
and consequently in power.
32
NumH 90, 108111, 113116, 146, 146A; a dinar in the manner of
the Guptas is also attributed to Toramana (Gbl 1990).
33
See Allan 1914.
34
There exist skyphate dinars attributed to Kidara (NumH 84, 85);
these succeed Kushano-Sasanian issues.
35
Gbl 1990.
36
Humbach 1966, 31 proposed that Brahmi raja lakhna is equiv-
alent with Bactrian [shao] alchonno, which coesxist on NumH
80. This does not seem feasible, because other names and titles
too occur together with alchonno, as rightly stated by Alram
1996, 520521 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, 33f, ea1, ed1, je1, 12, xs1. On
documents ea (year 239) and ed (year 242/252), Mehama is
referred to as King of the people of Kadag, the governor of the
famous [Sasanian] king of kings Peroz. Document V is dated in
507 (= 730/731 CE).
41
No. Hc011 and Hc012; a publication by Judith Lerner is forth-
coming.
42
Melzer 2006, 263264.
43
Gbl 1967, vol. I, 6061.
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 8283, 9495; not all coins mentioned in those two plates
have ascertained find spots.
45
Alram 2001.
46
The following information refers exclusively to published coins.
Gbl 1967 indicates both the direct source of information and the
reference number (NumH).
Khingila:
Hadda: Gbl 1967, 57.14 (Wilson 1841); Gbl 1967, 61.2 and 61.3
(all in the British Museum)
Taxila: Gbl 1967, 57.13 (Marshall 1951) (all in the British
Museum)
Setq-Abad (near Begram): Gbl 1967, 61.5 (Kabul Museum)
Javukha:
Taxila: Gbl 1967, 49.69; Gbl 1967, 50.8 and 50.9 (all Marshall
1951)
:
Setq Abad: Gbl 101.3 (Kabul Museum)
Kidarites:
Swat Valley (north-east of Peshawar): Gbl 1967, 11.11 and 11.12,
Gbl 1967, 12.1, Gbl 1967, 18.2, 18.5 and 18.6 (Italian excavation
= Gbl 1976)
Hadda: Gbl 1967, 11.8 (British Museum)
Bannu Valley (south-west of Peshawar): Gbl 1967, 16.2 and
Gbl 1967, 25.3 (all in the British Museum)
There are also four specimens of NumH 11 in the catalogue of
the Peshawar Museum, see Ali (ed.) 2004; they were found in
Jamal Garhi near Mardan, which is slightly north-east of
Peshawar.
47
Alram 2008 (forthcoming).
48
Grenet has proposed that the Kidarites were followed by the
Hephthalites and dated them to ca. 430477 and ca. 477560 CE.
He has not counted the Alchon Huns as a political power but
argued that Toramana and Mihirakula were in fact Hephthalites;
Grenet 2002, 211.
49
50
Sims-Williams 1999, 255; Sims-Williams 2000 (=BDI) documents
I, I i, and j.
51
Gbl 1967, vol. I, 107.
52
Schippmann 1990, 5759.
53
Kosmas, book XI, Edition by McGrindle 1897, 370371.
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 of
Sasanian crowns on their coins and there are no typological links
between them and those of the Alchon Huns. The Kidarites also
used Brahmi script, referring to themselves as Kidara Kushana
Shah, Kidara, King of the Kushans. Some were found in Hadda
and the Swat Valley, and it is likely that they were produced in
Gandhara.
56
Alram 1996.
57
Melzer 2006, 257.
58
The Tamgha S 33 (NumH 62, 63, Gbl 1967 E 4) and S 33var
(NumH 96A) is in fact a vajra which is also known from
Buddhist iconography; the feet on NumH 140 strongly resemble
rock reliefs of the Buddhas feet.
59
Kuwayama 1989 proposed that it was in fact the Western Turks
who were responsible for the decline of Buddhism in Gandhara.
Literature
Allan 1914: J. Allan, Catalogue of the Coins of the
Gupta Dynasties and of aaka, 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 Zur
Geschichte der Iranischen Hunnen in Mittelasien, in:
Atti dei Convegni Lincei 127 (Rome 1996), 517-554.
Alram 2000: M. Alram, A hoard of copper drachms
from the Kpia-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 the
Khalaj?, in: JIAAA 1 (Turnhout 2006), 133-139.
Alram 2008: M. Alram, New Hephthalite Coins
along the Silk Road (Shanghai 2008 forthcoming).
Alram/Klimburg-Salter 1999 (ed.): M. Alram/D.
Klimburg-Salter, Coins, Art, and Chronology, Essays
on the pre-Islamic History of the Indo-Iranian
Borderland (Vienna 1999).
33
BUFM 50, Vondrovec, Numismatic Evidence of the Alchon Huns reconsidered, 25 - 56 34
Alram/Blet-Lemarquand/Skjrv 2007: M. Alram/
M. Blet-Lemarquand/P.O. Skjrv, Shapur, King of
Kings 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 Wrterbuch,
Ein Wrterbuch auf Grund der Inschriften, Hand -
schrif ten, Mnzen und Siegelsteine (Heidelberg
1982).
Errington 2000: E. Errington, Numismatic evidence
for dating the Buddhist remains of Gandhra, in:
SRAA 6 (Kamakura 2000), 191-216.
Errington/Curtis 2007: E. Errington/V. Curtis, From
Persepolis 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 Eastern
Numismatics, Iconography and History. Studies in
Honour of George C. Miles (Beirut 1974), 115-122.
Gbl 1967: R. Gbl, Dokumente zur Geschichte der
Iranischen Hunnen in Baktrien und Indien, 4 vols.
(Wiesbaden 1967).
Gbl 1976: R. Gbl, A Catalogue of Coins from
Butkara I (Swat, Pakistan) (Rome 1976).
Gbl 1981: R. Gbl, Iranisch-Hunnische Mnzen, in:
Iranica Antiqua XVI (Leuven 1981), 173-182.
Gbl 1983: R. Gbl, Supplementa Orientalia I, in:
LNV II (Vienna 1983), 97-112.
Gbl 1984: R. Gbl, System und Chronologie
Mnzprgung des Kuanreiches (Vienna 1984).
Gbl 1987: R. Gbl, Supplementa Orientalia II, in:
LNV III (Vienna 1987), 203-216.
Gbl 1990: R. Gbl, Das Antlitz des Fremden: Der
Hunnenknig Prakasaditya in der Mnzprgung der
Guptadynastie, in: Anzeiger der phil.-hist. Klasse
der sterreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften
126 = Verffentlichungen der Numismatischen
Kommission 25 (Vienna 1990), 131-140.
Gbl 1993: R. Gbl, Supplementa Orientalia III, in:
Numismatica e Antichit Classiche XXII (Lugano
1993), 229-242.
Grenet 2002: F. Grenet, Regional interaction in
Central Asia and Northwest India in the Kidarite
and Hephthalite periods, in: Indo-Iranian Languages
and Peoples, Proceedings of the British Academy
116 (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 -
denkmler Teil I (Wiesbaden 1966).
Kuwayama 1989: Sh. Kuwayama, The Hephthalites
in Tokharistan and Northwest India, in: Zinbun 24
(Kyoto 1989), 89-134.
Kuwayama 1997: Sh. Kuwayama, The Main Stpa of
Shh-J-K Dher (Kyoto 1997).
Kuwayama 1998: Sh. Kuwayama, Not Hephthalite
but Kapisian Khingal: Identity of the Napki Coins,
in: Amal Kumar Jha Sanjay Garg (ed.), Ex Moneta:
Essays on Numismatics, History and Archaeology in
honour of Dr. David W. MacDowall (New Delhi
1998), 331-349.
la Vaissire 2007: . de la Vaissire, 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, Silberschtze des
Orients. Metallkunst des 3.-13. Jahrhunderts und
ihre Kontinuitt (Leipzig 1986).
Marshall 1951: Sir J. Marshall, Taxila (Cambridge
1951).
Melzer 2006: G. Melzer, A Copper Scroll Inscription
from the Time of the Alchon Huns, in collaboration
with Lore Sander, in: Buddhist Manuscripts III (Oslo
2006), 251-314.
Schindel 2004: N. Schindel, Sylloge Nummorum
Sasanidarum Paris Berlin Wien, Band III: Shapur
II. Kawad I./2. Regierung, 2 vols. (Vienna 2004).
Schippmann 1990: K. Schippmann, Grundzge der
Geschichte des Sasanidischen Reiches (Darmstadt
1990).
Smith 1924/1957: V. A. Smith, The Early History of
India. Reprint of the 4th edition of 1924 (Oxford
1957).
Sims-Williams 1999: N. Sims-Williams, From the
Kushan-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, and
Chronology, Essays on the pre-Islamic History of the
Indo-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 Bactrian
inscription 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).
Abbreviations
BAI 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, Kalhaas Rjataragi, A
Chro nicle of the Kings of Kamr, 2 vols (West -
minster 1900, Reprint Delhi 1967).
Vondrovec 2005: K. Vondrovec, Die Anonymen
Clanchefs: Der Beginn der Alchon-Prgung, in: NZ
113/114 = Verffentlichungen des Instituts fr
Numismatik und Geldgeschichte 10 (Vienna 2005),
243-258.
Wilson 1841: H. H. Wilson, Ariana Antiqua, A
Descriptive Account of the Antiquities and Coins of
Afghanistan: with a Memoir on the Buildings called
Topes (London 1841). (non vidi)
Neue Evidenz zur Mnzprgung der Alchon-Hunnen
Die so genannten Iranischen Hunnen sowie ihre westtrkischen Nachfolger treten vom spten 4. Jahrhundert
bis zur arabischen Eroberung im 8. Jahrhundert n. Chr. in Zentralasien, dem heutigen Uzbekistan, Tadjikistan,
Afghanistan und Pakistan in Erscheinung. Im Gegensatz zu ihren europischen Verwandten haben sie eine
umfangreiche Mnzprgung unterhalten, die in Anbetracht nur sprlicher literarischer Hinterlassenschaften
und archologischer Ergebnisse die mit Abstand wichtigste Primrquelle darstellt.
Einzig auf dieser Grundlage konnten bislang vier Hauptgruppen oder Clans unterschieden werden: die
Kidariten, Alchon, Nezak-Knige und Hephthaliten. Die Westtrken wurden ursprnglich als Verbndete
gegen die Hunnen zu Hilfe gerufen, ihre Mnzprgung schliet jedoch direkt an jene der Hunnen an.
Eine krzlich verffentlichte Inschrift nennt nun erstmals vier Knige der Alchon-Hunnen: Khingila, Toramana,
Javukha und Mehama. Diese konnten bislang nur vage miteinander in Verbindung gebracht werden, scheinen
aber Zeitgenossen gewesen zu sein.
Ausgehend davon stellt der in Englisch abgefasste Artikel smtliche Prgungen jener Herrscher zusammen,
ergnzt um etliche neue, bislang unbekannte Mnztypen. Die numismatische Analyse befasst sich mit der modi-
fizierten Abfolgeordnung, welche durch parallele Herrschaften bedingt wird. Anhand des neuesten
Forschungsstandes werden die Impulse beleuchtet, die aus der Zusammenschau mehrerer Quellengattungen fr
die Geschichte der Iranischen Hunnen gewonnen werden knnen.
Nouvelle vidence concernant la frappe des monnaies des Huns Alchons
Les soi-disant Huns Iraniens tout comme leurs successeurs turcs de louest apparaissent du IV
e
sicle avanc
jusqu la conqute arabe du VIII
e
sicle apr. J.-C. en Asie centrale, dans lactuel Ouzbkistan, Tadjikistan,
Afghanistan et Pakistan. Contrairement leurs parents europens, ils ont entretenu une frappe des monnaies
tendue qui, de loin, reprsente la plus importante source primaire, vue la rarit dhritages littraires et de
dcouvertes archologiques.
Cest uniquement sur cette base que quatre principaux groupes, ou clans, avaient pu jusqu maintenant tre dis-
tingus: les Kidarites, les Alchons, les Rois Nezak et les Hephtalites. Les turcs de louest avaient t initialement
appels laide en tant quallis contre les Huns, pourtant, leur frappe des monnaies se rallie directement celle
des Huns.
Une inscription publie rcemment nomme ainsi pour la premire fois quatre rois des Huns Alchons: Khingila,
Toramana, Javukha et Mehama. Jusque-l, il tait seulement possible de les lier vaguement les uns aux autres.
Dornavant, ils semblent avoir t des contemporains.
Larticle en anglais rassemble toutes les frappes de ces souverains, auxquelles se sont joints de nouveaux types
de monnaies jusque-l inconnus. Lanalyse numismatique se consacre lordre chronologique modifi, condi-
tionn par des rgnes parallles. Les recherches les plus rcentes permettent ainsi dclairer des hypothses qui
ont pu tre avances grce la synthse de plusieurs types de source et qui enrichissent la connaissance de lhis-
toire des Huns Iraniens.
Klaus Vondrovec
Kunsthistorisches Museum
Burgring 5
A - 1010 Wien
sterreich
Plates
Eastern Issues of
Shapur II (309379)
Alchon Huns:
Anonymous Clan Ruler
Anonymous Alchon (all types found in Shah-ji-ki-Dheri)
Type 40 41 42 43
Type 36A
SNS III Ib1/3a SNS III Ib1/3a
Khingila
Type 44 54 57
59A
(unpublished)
66
Type 66A
(unpublished)
61 81
132A
(unpublished)
318
(unpublished)
Javukha
Type 49
50 117 51
82
Type 118 140
?
Type 96
96A 97 98 99 100
Type 101 102 103 104 105
106
Mehama
Type 106A 107
Type 135
Type 79
Gupta:
Kumaragupta
Alchon:
Mihirakula
raja lakhna
udayditya
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 Mehama
raja lakhna
udayditya
Type 81 82 316 79
Catalogue
I
Sasanians: Shapur II (309379)
SNS III, Ib1/3a
Drachm
Obverse:
Profile bust of Shapur II right, wearing his individual
crown
Reverse:
Fire altar, two attendants, bust in the flames
Pehlevi: 11
h
(l.o.) mzdysn bgy hpwhly MRKAn
MRKA yr n W nyr n MNW ctry MN yzdn
II
Berlin: 3.96 g, 3
h
, 29.5 mm
Pehlevi: on altar-shaft: rst
SNS III, Ib1/3a
Drachm
Obverse:
Profile bust of Shapur II right, wearing his individ-
ual crown
in right field: Crescent
Reverse:
Pehlevi: 11
h
(l.o.) mzdysn bgy hpwhly MRKAn
MRKA yr n W nyr n MNW ctry MN yzdn
Berlin: 3.56 g, 3
h
, 29 mm
Pehlevi: on altar-shaft: rst
Alchon Huns: Anonymous Clan Ruler
Type 36A
Drachm
Obverse:
Profile bust right, wearing the individual crown of
Shapur II
(= SNS III, obv-type Ib1)
Reverse:
Fire altar, two attendants, bust in the flames wearing
the crown of Shapur II
Bactrian: 1
h
(r.o.)
9
h
(l.o.) remnants of Pehlevi-legend
Jean-Pierre Righetti, no. 41: 3.46 g, 3
h
, 29.8 mm
Pehlevi: on altar-shaft: rst (unclear)
Anonymous Alchon
Type 40
Drachm
Obverse:
Bareheaded profile bust right; a broad double ribbon
is attached to the necklace
in upper left field: Crescent; below unclear symbol
in right field: Tamgha (S 1)
Reverse:
Fire altar, two attendants
Bactrian: 4
h
(r.i.) (retrograde)
Brahmi: lower left field: pha (?) or thai (?) (retrograde)
Aman ur Rahman, no. 416: 2.95 g, 3
h
, 28.6 mm
no legend
Type 41
Drachm
Obverse:
in upper left field: Crescent
Reverse:
Bactrian: 4
h
(r.i.) (retrograde)
Brahmi: in lower left field: thai (?)
London, no. 1894.5.6.254: 3.75 g, 3
h
, 30.7 mm
no legend
Type 42
Drachm
Obverse:
Reverse:
Bactrian: 4
h
(r.i.) (retrograde)
Brahmi: in lower left field: cu
Peshawar, no. 8/2379: ? g, 3
h
, 29.7 mm
no legend
Type 43
Drachm
Obverse:
Bareheaded profile bust right; two ribbons are
attached to the necklace
Reverse:
Bactrian: 1
h
(r.o.) oo
Brahmi: in lower left field: e or i
h
, 28.7 mm
no legend
Khingila
Type 44
Drachm
Obverse:
Bareheaded profile bust right on a vegetal element; a
broad double ribbon is attached to the necklace
Reverse:
Fire altar, two attendants, sometimes an oval object in
the flames
Brahmi: 7
h
(r.o.) khi gi la or khe gi la
Bactrian: 1
h
(r.o.) oo or o (long) or
(short)
Paris, no. 1974.425: 3.60 g, 3
h
, 27.3 mm
no legend
Type 54
AE
Obverse:
Profile bust right; wearing a diadem or a cap; a broad
ribbon is attached to the necklace
Reverse:
Vase
no legend
London, no. 1894.5.7.2006: 0.92 g, 2
h
, 13.6 mm
Brahmi: left and right: khe gi
Type 57
Drachm
Obverse:
Bareheaded profile bust right; two ribbons are
attached to the necklace
in upper left field: Tamgha (S 1)
in lower left field: Rhomb (S 5)
Reverse:
Brahmi: 2
h
(r.o.) khigi (= khingila)
London, no. 1922.4.24.3735: 3.66 g, 2
h
, 24.6 mm
no legend
Type 59A
(unpublished)
Drachm
Obverse:
Bareheaded profile bust left on a vegetal element; a
broad double ribbon is attached to the necklace
Reverse:
Bactrian: 11
h
(r.i.) oo (retrograde) 1
h
(l.i.)
(o) (retrograde)
h
, 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 necklace
in left field: Tamgha (S 3)
in right field: Wheel (S 4)
Reverse:
Brahmi: 11
h
(r.i.) khigi (retrograde)
Bactrian: 1
h
(r.o.)
London, no. 1847.4.21.33: 3.04 g, 3
h
, 31 mm
no legend
Type 66A
(unpublished)
Drachm
Obverse:
Profile bust right on a vegetal element; wearing a
pearl diadem with three rosettes; a broad double rib-
bon is attached to the necklace
in left field: Tamgha (S 1), in right field: Fire altar
Reverse:
Brahmi: 11
h
(l.o.) khigi (retrograde)
Bactrian: 1
h
(r.o.)
NZK: 3.76 g, 3
h
, 29.5 mm
no legend
Type 61
Drachm
Obverse:
diadem with a crescent at the forehead; two ribbons
are hanging from the diadem; fly-whisks are emerg-
ing from the shoulders
Reverse:
Bactrian: 8
h
(r.o.) co (= o) 1
h
ooo
(= oo)
h
, 32.4 mm
no legend
Type 318
(unpublished)
Drachm
Obverse:
diadem with a crescent at the forehead, another cres-
cent at the side; a ribbon is hanging from the diadem
in right field: Rosetta (S 44)
Reverse:
Brahmi: 1
h
(r.o.) khigila 9
h
va-hi
h
, 27.7 mm
no legend
Type 81
Drachm
Obverse:
Profile bust right; wearing a diadem with a crescent
at the forehead, another crescent at the side; two rib-
bons are hanging from the diadem; tips of a crescent
moon are protruding from the shoulders
in right field: Rosetta/Chakra (S 41)
Reverse:
Brahmi: 9
h
(r.o.) deva hi 1
h
khigila
London, ex India Office Collection, no. 2368: 3.28 g, 3
h
,
28.4 mm
no legend
Type 132A
(unpublished)
AE
Obverse:
Profile bust right; details unclear
Reverse:
Rosetta with two ribbons
Brahmi: [..] 9
h
(r.o.) gila
h
, 16.7 mm
no legend
Javukha
Type 49
Drachm
Obverse:
at the forehead; two ribbons are hanging from the
diadem; tips of a crescent moon are protruding from
the shoulders
in left field: Tamgha (S 1); in right field: Club (S 39)
Reverse:
Brahmi: 11
h
(r.o.) saha 1
h
Javukha
(sometimes also abbreviated as jakha)
London, no. 1894.5.6.212: 3.27 g, 3
h
, 29.3 mm
no legend
Type 50
Drachm
Obverse:
the shoulders
Reverse:
Brahmi: 10
h
(r.o.) aha 1
h
javukha
Bern, no. 93.52, ex Coll. Williams: 3.53 g, 3
h
, 29.0 mm
no legend
Type 51
Drachm
Obverse:
the shoulders
Reverse:
Brahmi: 11
h
(r.o.) aha 1
h
jakha
h
, 29.8 mm
no legend
Type 82
Drachm
Obverse:
Profile bust right; wearing a diadem with a crescent at
the forehead; two ribbons are hanging from the dia-
dem
Reverse:
Brahmi: 10
h
(r.o.) jaya 1
h
hi javvla
h
, 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-
dem
Reverse:
Brahmi: 9
h
(r.o.) hi ja 1
h
vkha
London, no. 1894.5.6.208: 3.19 g, 2
h
, 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-
dem
in right field: Rosetta on conch shell (S 26)
Reverse:
Brahmi: 8
h
(r.o.) hi jav[kha] (unclear)
London, no. 1894.5.6.207: 3.43 g, 3
h
, 23.9 mm
no legend
Type 140
Drachm
Obverse:
Profile bust right; wearing a pearl diadem (?) with a
crescent on top, two ribbons are hanging from the
diadem
in right field: Footprints (S 30)
Reverse:
?
Brahmi: 9
h
(r.o.) ahi ja 1
h
vakha
Coll. Conte Quaroni: ? g, ?
h
, 22.4 mm
?
Type 96
Drachm
Obverse:
diadem 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 diadem
in right field: Rosetta on a conch shell (S 12)
Reverse:
Bactrian: 1
h
(r.o.) o (or o) coo oo
London, no. 1894.5.6.1287: 3.24 g, 3
h
, 24.8 mm
no legend
Type 96A
Drachm
Obverse:
diadem with a big crescent on top, a small crescent
both at the front and back; two ribbons are hanging
from the diadem
in right field: Vajra (S 33 var)
Reverse:
Bactrian: 1
h
(r.o.) o (or o) coo oo
h
, 24.1 mm
no legend
Type 97
Drachm
Obverse:
diadem with a big crescent at the front, another cres-
cent at the centre; two ribbons are hanging from the
diadem
in right field: Lotus on a conch shell (S 83)
Reverse:
Bactrian: 1
h
(r.o.) o (or o) coo
oo
Coll. Conte Quaroni: ? g, 3
h
, 22.7 mm
no legend
Type 98
Drachm
Obverse:
from the diadem
in right field: Three flowers on Tamgha S 1 (S 84)
Reverse:
Bactrian: 1
h
(r.o.) [..] 11
h
o
no legend
ANS, no. 1981.134.2: 3.69 g, 9
h
, 23.8 mm
no legend
Type 99
Drachm
Obverse:
from the diadem
in right field: Trident (S 16)
Reverse:
Bactrian: 1
h
(r.o.) [..]
Coll. Warden, no. 21: 3.57 g, 3
h
, 23.4 mm
no legend
Type 100
Drachm
Obverse:
from the diadem
in right field: Trident and conch shell (S 17)
Reverse:
Bactrian: 1
h
(r.o.) []o ..
London, no. OR 0479: 3.23 g, 4
h
, 24.0 mm
no legend
Type 101
Drachm
Obverse:
from the diadem
in right field: Trident in a pot on lotus (S 15)
Reverse:
Bactrian: 1
h
(r.o.) [o ..]
London, no. OR 0478: 3.48 g, 9
h
, 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 and
back; two ribbons are hanging from the diadem
in right field: Trident on lotus (S 15a)
Reverse:
Bactrian: 1
h
(r.o.) [o ..]
London, no. 1922.4.24.3744: 3.30 g, 3
h
, 23.8 mm
no legend
Type 103
Drachm (base silver)
Obverse:
cent in the centre, a small crescent both at the front
and back; two ribbons are hanging from the diadem
in right field: Animal head on a con shell (S 21)
(unclear)
Reverse:
Bactrian: 1
h
(r.o.) ()[o ..] very unclear
London, no. OR 0480: 3.31 g, 3
h
, 23.3 mm
no legend
Type 104
Drachm
Obverse:
cent at the top, a small crescent both at the front and
back; two ribbons are hanging from the diadem
in right field: Flower on a curved stem (S 23)
Reverse:
Unclear (awaiting better specimen, but most likely
)
Bern, no. 68.1263: 3.20 g, 3
h
, 23.3 mm
no legend
Type 105
Drachm
Obverse:
Horseman to right
Reverse:
Wheel on a stand (Dharmachakra ?); left and right a
reclining animal (?)
Bactrian: 9
h
(r.o.) (or ) o coo oo
h
, 23.3 mm
Brahmi: jaya or yaya (on most specimens unclear)
Type 106
Drachm
Obverse:
Horseman to right
Reverse:
Wheel on a stand (Dharmachakra ?); left and right a
reclining animal (?)
Bactrian: 9
h
h
, 22.0 mm
Brahmi: yatadha (on most specimens unclear)
Type 106A
Drachm
Obverse:
Horseman to right
in left field: Tamgha (S 1); in right field Tamgha (S 8)
Reverse:
Wheel on a stand (Dharmachakra ?); on the left a
reclining horse, on the right a reclining goat (?)
Bactrian: 9
h
ANS, no. 1981.134.4: 3.30 g, 12
h
, 22.3 mm
Brahmi: 9
h
(r.o.): yatadhama (unclear)
Type 107
Drachm
Obverse:
Horseman to right
in left field: Tamgha (S 1); in right field: Tamgha (S 14)
Reverse:
Wheel on a stand (Dharmachakra ?); on the left a
reclining horse, on the right a reclining goat (?)
Bactrian: 9
h
London, no. OR 0477: 3.47 g, 12
h
, 23.8 mm
no legend
Gupta: Kumaragupta
Horseman
(Allan 1914, 219225; Horseman Type II)
Dinar
Obverse:
Brahmi: 8
h
(r.o.) Guptakulavyomaa jyatyajego jitama-
hendra
Reverse:
Brahmi: 2
h
(r.o.) Ajitamehendra
King on horseback to right
ANS, no. 1949.66.1, ex Sir John Marshall Coll.: 8.11 g,
11
h
, 19.5 mm
Goddess (Lakshmi ?) seated left, holding lotus, fee-
ding peacock
Mihirakula
Type 135
Drachm
Obverse:
crown or cap with a small crescent at the forehead
in 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: 9
h
(r.o.) jayatu mihirakula
London, ex India Office Collection, no. 2372: 3.51 g, 2
h
,
26.1 mm
no legend
Lakhna Udayditya
Type 79
Drachm
Obverse:
dem
Reverse:
Brahmi: 9
h
(r.o.) raja (or rja) lakhna 1
h
udayditya
h
, 28.0 mm
no legend
Mehama
Type 62
Drachm
Obverse:
the forehead; a crescent with a dash at either shoul-
der; holding a flower (?) in his right hand
in left field: Vajra (S 33)
Reverse:
Fire altar, two attendants; an oval shape in the flames
Bactrian: 1
h
(r.o.) o (unclear)
London, no. 1894.5.6.1165: 3.51 g, 3
h
, 28.9 mm
no legend
Type 63
Drachm
Obverse:
dem; tips of a crescent moon are protruding from the
shoulders
in right field: Vajra (S 33 var)
Reverse:
Bactrian: 1
h
(r.o) o (unclear)
Karachi: ? g, 12
h
, 27.5 mm
no legend
Type 71
Drachm
Obverse:
two small ribbons are hanging from the diadem
in right field: Fire altar (S 36)
Reverse:
Brahmi: 2
h
(l.o.) (retrograde): mepama 10
h
(r.o.) aha
Berlin: 3.32 g, ?
h
, 27.5 mm
no 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 a
big crescent moon are protruding from the shoulders
in right field: Club (S 39)
Reverse:
Brahmi: 10
h
(r.o.) a (sometimes ba, sometimes a
second aksara like ya)
12
h
(r.o.) bapa or paba
(bapa could mean 'father', or probably just a short
version of Mepama)
h
, 29.2 mm
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 are
hanging from the diadem
Reverse:
Brahmi: 1
h
(r.o.) mepama (or papapa?)
London, no. 2369: 3.68 g, 3
h
, 28.3 mm
no legend
Type 316
(unpublished)
Drachm
Obverse:
two ribbons are attached to the necklace
in right field: Fire altar
Reverse:
Brahmi: 10
h
(r.o.) aha mahama (or mahapa)
h
, 30.0 mm
no legend
Hephthalites: Peroz-type
Type 287
Drachm
Obverse:
Sasanian-style bust right with the third crown of
Peroz; rim with four big dots
Reverse:
Bactrian: 1
h
(r.o.)
Paris, no. 1979.143.7, ex Coll. Widemann: 4.07 g, 3
h
,
28.1 mm
Bactrian: 4
h
(r.i.) oo
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 a
crown similar to Wahram V (420438)
Bactrian: 1
h
(r.o.)
sometimes debased or corrupted additional charac-
ters
Vienna, no. GR 3124x: 3.49 g, 3
h
, 28.7 mm
no legend
Hephthalites: Peroz-type
Type 288
Drachm (Base silver)
Obverse:
Reverse:
Bactrian: 1
h
(r.o.)
outside the border of dots 7
h
(r.i.) ooo
Paris, ex Coll. Widemann, no. 41: 3.80 g, 3
h
, 29.3 mm
corrupted letters
Type 289
Drachm
Obverse:
Reverse:
Bactrian: 1
h
(r.o.)
outside the border of dots 7
h
(r.i.) ooo
Bern, no. 93.258, ex Coll. Williams: 2.86 g, 10
h
, 30.6
mm
corrupted letters
For the late stage, Types 81, 82, 316, and 79, see above
56
Impression of a Seal
Callieri 2002, fig. 1a
Bactrian: 1
h
(r.o.)
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 fr Numismatik und
Geldgeschichte Universitt Wien (Austria)
Paris Bibliothque 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)
I
The 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 Gbl 1967.
II
mazdsn bay buhr (pur) hn h rn ud anrn k ihr az yazdn = the Mazdayasnian (divine) majesty, Shapur, King of Kings
of Iranians and non-Iranians, whose lineage is from the gods; Alram/Blet-Lemarquand/Skjrv 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

Vondrovec 2008a Libre

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Vondrovec 2008a Libre

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

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

You might also like