Vondrovec 2008a Libre

Full text

(1)BUFM 50, Vondrovec, Numismatic Evidence of the Alchon Huns reconsidered, 25 - 56. 25. Klaus Vondrovec. Numismatic Evidence of the Alchon Huns reconsidered1. This article aims to sum up the impact of a newly published copper scroll inscription2 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 personages 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 numismatic background in more detail in order to facilitate further research. Primarily only those coins bearing the four names, most of which are silver drachms, will be included.. term “Iranian Huns6”, 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.. Monetary History. Although Göbl was well aware that Hunnic clans neither 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 formerly unparalleled design. Although their coinage displays several aspects of their own identity it offers few clues as to how the Huns entered the cultural cosmos of Central Asia and Northwest India. The homelands 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. In 1967 Robert Göbl 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, Göbl identified four major entities of the Iranian Huns which he referred to as “families of coin types”: Kidarites, Alchon, Nezak5, and Hephthalites. He also included the Western Turks; while they are of different origin from the Huns, their coinage abides almost seamlessly from that of various Hunnic states and therefore cannot be separated from the latter. In contradistinction to the European Huns he created the. Despite the lack of available archaeological data as well as almost any other written sources, Göbl managed to create ‘history from money’, so to speak. Since 1967 a great deal of new evidence has been published, 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 information regarding find-spots or related material is available. Consequently museums and private collections play an important role in scientific research on Central Asia, particularly as the authorities in present-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..

(2) 26. BUFM 50, Vondrovec, Numismatic Evidence of the Alchon Huns reconsidered, 25 - 56. 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 interconnected and thus suggests parallel lordships or some kind of hierarchical relationship between different kingdoms.. Reconsidering the literary evidence In a recent article Étienne de la Vaissière 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 350–370), 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 numismatists; absolute dates differ considerably, and moreover 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 centuries after the reported events had taken place and are therefore not apt to help settle scholarly disputes.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 connecting 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 Schøyen 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 measured 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 sanctuary. The scroll mentions no less than thirteen donors: ‘royal personages [...] people who may not have been personally involved in the donation’13 (lines 32–39), although the name of the main donor is not preserved. However, his title (TālagānikaDevaputra āhi) 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. 8. the great āhi Khīgīla (mahāāhi). 9. the god-king Toramāna (devarāja). 10. the mistress of the great monastery Sāsā. 11. the great āhi Mehama (mahāahi). 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 inscription is dated to Year 68 of an era which is not initially clear. Taking palaeographic considerations 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 considerable number of coin types. The fact that they are mentioned 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 –rāja and –āhi might have something to do with 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 otherwise 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)..

(3) BUFM 50, Vondrovec, Numismatic Evidence of the Alchon Huns reconsidered, 25 - 56 The end of the production of Sasanian drachms in the easternmost part of the empire during the reign of Shapur III (383–388)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 eastern part of the empire there is as yet no absolute certainty, so that a more neutral term might be more suitable. Nikolaus Schindel has in fact divided this putative mint of Kabul into several stylistically separate 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 portrait of an Alchon ruler, but there is as yet no personal 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 40–43. They feature different versions of the Bactrian legend alchonno, and some of them an additional Brahmi aksara. It is possible that these types as well as Khingila´s 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 dating and succession of the Alchon kings was partly based on the work published by Sir Aurel Stein23 and was further adjusted by Robert Göbl 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 different types which are related to one another primarily 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 tamgha24 (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 denominations for change. The copper scroll inscription finally provides sufficient proof to demolish the simple Khingila – Toramana – Mihirakula model of succession. In the light of the article by Étienne de la. 27. Vaissière 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 personal name to be found on Alchon coins. The earliest type, NumH 44, is closely related to the anonymous issues NumH 40–43. Just like types 39 and 44 they have a small crescent in the upper left field. Although NumH 40–43 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 bearing the name of Khingila. Their only terminus post quem is the shape of the ribbons attached to the necklace which correspond to those of the Sasanian king Yazdgerd I (399–420). There must have been some delay, so a tentative dating of the early types would place them at ca. 420–440 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 Khingila´s name is written in Bactrian as χιγγιλο. A recently published seal bears the legend εÞκιγγιλο,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-type27 as well as from a silver bowl in the Hermitage.28 The question of the Hephthalite identity29 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 Vaissière 2007. The design of coins does not necessarily 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 Khingila’s name. Although the composition of the diadem or cap with a crescent as well as the ribbons are similar to type.

(4) 28. BUFM 50, Vondrovec, Numismatic Evidence of the Alchon Huns reconsidered, 25 - 56. 318, the style is very different and could be called ‘indianized’. It resembles type 82 of Javukha and also type 79, inscribed rāja lakhāna – udayāditya, 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 Göbl wondered whether there might have been two kings by the name of Khingila30 but eventually 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 personal 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 article. Nevertheless both the anonymous types 40–43 were struck not long after 440 CE, as was Khingila´s 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 Göbl 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 matching drachms, but not the other way round.. Javukha The copper scroll finally proves that Javukha is a royal person. Types 49–50 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 ζαβοχο, see below. The reverse features 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 portrait types 49–51 of Javukha. The design of the horseman was adopted from (gold) dinars of the Gupta Empire. It was issued by Chandragupta II (380–414) and Kumaragupta I (ca. 414–450).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 unmistakeably has the same peculiar-shaped head as the Alchon; it bears the name Prakāśāditya but was attributed by Robert Göbl to Toramana.35 To sum up: in the light of typological and numismatic evidence, Javukha and also ζαβοχο (see below) had close economic contact with the Guptas, probably in Gandhara. Type 82, like NumH 49–51, shows a portrait of a king with a peculiar-shaped head. Stylistically this is the latest issue with the name of Javukha and corresponds with type 81 of Khingila and type 79 of Lakhana Udayaditya.36. ζαβοχο (Zabocho) Although not mentioned on the copper scroll, this ruler has to be included because it has been suggested that the Bactrian ζαβοχο 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 ζαβοχο were issued by the same person known as Javukha. All coin types with the ζαβοχο 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. ζαβοχο 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 corroborate the theory that it is indeed the same person, but all horseman type-coins of ζαβοχο 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 Mehama´s reign” suggests that the Taloquan area was part of his realm,.

(5) 29. BUFM 50, Vondrovec, Numismatic Evidence of the Alchon Huns reconsidered, 25 - 56 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 (μηαμοι), is attested in the Bactrian Documents several times38 and it is also known from seals. Coin types 62 and 63 display μηο, 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 particular 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 μηο 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 club39 with two ribbons in the right field which can also be observed on types 49–51 and 117 of Javukha. The literary evidence of Mehama/μηαμοι 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. 461–493 CE. Other issues closely related to Mehama´s could also be tentatively dated to this period. Here again there is Balch one other type, NumH 316, which does not entirely fit in with the rest of the ensemble for stylistic reasons. It corresponds Begram 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 Vaissière 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 phenomenon 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 33–39), using Sasanian coin dies at first. Sasanian drachms continued to be struck there until the reign of Shapur III (383–388), 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 Gandhara43 during the following decades but possibly even more rapidly, and that the anonymous issues NumH 40–43 were already struck there. Now was there a swift military 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. Taloquan. Hadda Taxila. Kabul. Shah-ji-ki Dheri. Ghazni. Map 1. Central Asia.. 0. 50. 100. 200. 300. Kilometer 400.

(6) 30. BUFM 50, Vondrovec, Numismatic Evidence of the Alchon Huns reconsidered, 25 - 56. 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 ζαβοχο. 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 presence 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 interchangeable 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 copper 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 evidence. To sum up: at the present stage coin finds yield hardly 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 copper 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 260–295 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 prisoner, 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, βoχλo (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 silver bowl and was also used on a seal bearing the name εÞκιγγιλο/Khingila. No other numismatic relations 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 (531–579) ultimately defeated the Hephthalites in 560/561 CE52 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..

(7) 31. BUFM 50, Vondrovec, Numismatic Evidence of the Alchon Huns reconsidered, 25 - 56 Around the 520s, the Greek explorer Kosmas Indikopleustes 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 ultimately 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 ζαβοχο and the Lion Slayer-type by Prakāśāditya, provide further underpinning for this theory.. Chronology The numismatic relations between the persons mentioned 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 earliest 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 portrait in the obverse. Adding absolute data to this scheme is a delicate task. On purely numismatic grounds, NumH 40–43 and also NumH 44 could have been struck not long after 420–440 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. 461–493 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 century – if there was another king by the name of Khingila or coins continued to be struck in his name after his death. stage Anonymous. 0. 40–43. Khingila. Mehama Javukha Udayāditya. 44, 59A, 66. 1. 318. 71. 49, 50. 2. 61. 73. 51. 3. 81. 316. 82. 4. 79. 140. Table 2. Chronological stages of coin types with personal names from the copper scroll inscription or related. It can be observed that there are a considerable number 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 people 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 constitutes 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 consistent 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 outstanding 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.

(8) 32. BUFM 50, Vondrovec, Numismatic Evidence of the Alchon Huns reconsidered, 25 - 56. 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 ζαβοχο. The Alchon Huns strike coin legends both in Bactrian and then Brahmi virtually from the very beginning; it is, however, likely that this script initially spread from Gandhara. There are close numismatic ties between Khingila, Javukha and also Mehama indicating that they did in fact have a common cultural 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 (459–484) 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 driven 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 consideration. 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 Vaissière 2007 as an appealing paradigm. In conclusion a small remark57 should be made, namely 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 symbols on their coins58 deserve more careful attention. However, the theory that the Huns drove Buddhism from Gandhara no longer seems valid.59. Annotations. English speaking world. Göbl´s term ‘Em.’ (German Emission, issue) is not entirely correct, so I will sometimes refer to reference numbers as ‘type’ which is what they are. 5 In 1967 the Pehlevi-legend was read as ‘nspk’. Later it was adapted to ‘nycky’ (= Napki-Malka/Nezak-Šah, Nezak-Kings), see Harmatta 1969, 408; Frye 1974; Alram 1996, 525. Kuwayama 1998 proposed a very different view of the Nezak, but may have misunderstood 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 general in modern literature. This has its roots in ancient historiography; 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. (531–579) 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 different on coins. 15 Göbl NumH 28A–31, 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, 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. 227228, 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 the Peshawar museum. Both the narrow sample of coin types and the fact that they were wrapped into a roll suggests this ensemble was intended for an economic purpose rather than collected for a stupa deposit.. 1 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 Iranischen Hunnen im Lichte Ihrer Münzprägung’. It has been adapted for a printed version. A paper given by the author at the Symposium on Bactrian Chronology, held in Cambridge from 25th – 26th January 2008, also partly dealt with this subject. This publication has been authorized by the organizer of the symposium, Prof. Nicholas Sims-Williams. 2 Melzer 2006.. 23 Stein 1900.. 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 Göbl 1967. When citing coins of the Iranian Huns the term. 27 Alram 2002.. ‘NumH’ (Number of Hun Coinage?) has established itself in the. 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 etymology of εÞκιγγιλο/ešiŋgil, see Sims-Williams 2002 and la Vaissière 2007, 129. 28 Marshak 1986, fig. 16. 29 Grenet 2002 strongly favours this hypothesis..

(9) BUFM 50, Vondrovec, Numismatic Evidence of the Alchon Huns reconsidered, 25 - 56. 33. 30 Göbl 1967, vol. II, 59–66.. 49 Schindel 2004, vol. I, 415.. 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, 108–111, 113–116, 146, 146A; a dinar in the manner of. 50 Sims-Williams 1999, 255; Sims-Williams 2000 (=BDI) documents. the Guptas is also attributed to Toramana (Göbl 1990).. 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.. 33 See Allan 1914.. 54 Smith 1924/1957.. 34 There exist skyphate dinars attributed to Kidara (NumH 84, 85);. 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.. these succeed Kushano-Sasanian issues. 35 Göbl 1990. 36 Humbach 1966, 31 proposed that Brahmi raja lakhāna is equivalent 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, 520–521 and Grenet 2002, 206. 37 Davary 1982, 296; Melzer 2006. 38 Sims-Williams 2000 (Bactrian Documents I = BD I) and SimsWilliams 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 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 forthcoming. 42 Melzer 2006, 263–264. 43 Göbl 1967, vol. I, 60–61. 44 The vast number of coin finds can be identified in older collections by remarks on their acquisition, see Errington/Curtis 2007, esp. fig 82–83, 94–95; not all coins mentioned in those two plates have 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 the reference 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 British Museum) 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 Marshall 1951) 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 and Göbl 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. 430–477 and ca. 477–560 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.. 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 from Buddhist iconography; the feet on NumH 140 strongly resemble rock reliefs of the Buddha´s 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 Śaśaka, King of Gau a (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 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 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)..

(10) 34. BUFM 50, Vondrovec, Numismatic Evidence of the Alchon Huns reconsidered, 25 - 56. Alram/Blet-Lemarquand/Skjærvø 2007: M. Alram/ M. Blet-Lemarquand/P.O. Skjærvø, Shapur, King of Kings of Iranians and non-Iranians, in: Res Orientales XVII (Paris 2007), 11-40. Callieri 2002: P. Callieri, The Bactrian seal of Khingila, in: SRAA 8 (Kamakura 2002), 121-142. Davary 1982: G. Davary, Baktrisch - Ein Wörterbuch, Ein Wörterbuch auf Grund der Inschriften, Handschriften, Münzen und Siegelsteine (Heidelberg 1982). Errington 2000: E. Errington, Numismatic evidence for dating the Buddhist remains of Gandhāra, 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 KushanoSasanians, in: D. Kouymjian (ed.), Near Eastern Numismatics, Iconography and History. Studies in Honour of George C. Miles (Beirut 1974), 115-122. Göbl 1967: R. Göbl, Dokumente zur Geschichte der Iranischen Hunnen in Baktrien und Indien, 4 vols. (Wiesbaden 1967). Göbl 1976: R. Göbl, A Catalogue of Coins from Butkara 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 Chronologie Münzprägung 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: Der Hunnenkönig Prakasaditya in der Münzprägung der Guptadynastie, in: Anzeiger der phil.-hist. Klasse der Österreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften 126 = Veröffentlichungen der Numismatischen Kommission 25 (Vienna 1990), 131-140. Göbl 1993: R. Göbl, Supplementa Orientalia III, in: Numismatica e Antichità 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 Inscriptions, in: Acta Antiqua Academiae Scientiarum Hungaricae 17 (Budapest 1969), 297-432. Humbach 1966: H. Humbach, Baktrische Sprachdenkmäler 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 Stūpa of Shāh-Jī-Kī Dherī (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 Vaissière 2007: É. de la Vaissière, Is there a “Nationality of the Hephtalites”?, in: BAI 17 (Bloomfield 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 Christiana (New York 1897, Reprint 1967). Marshak 1986: B. Marshak, Silberschätze des Orients. Metallkunst des 3.-13. Jahrhunderts und ihre Kontinuität (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, Grundzüge 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 documents 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)..

(11) BUFM 50, Vondrovec, Numismatic Evidence of the Alchon Huns reconsidered, 25 - 56 Stein 1900: Sir A. Stein, Kalha a’s Rājataragi ī, A Chronicle of the Kings of Kaśmīr, 2 vols (Westminster 1900, Reprint Delhi 1967). Vondrovec 2005: K. Vondrovec, Die Anonymen Clanchefs: Der Beginn der Alchon-Prägung, in: NZ 113/114 = Veröffentlichungen des Instituts für 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). 35. 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.. Neue Evidenz zur Münzprägung der Alchon-Hunnen Die so genannten ‚Iranischen Hunnen’ sowie ihre westtürkischen Nachfolger treten vom späten 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 europäischen Verwandten haben sie eine umfangreiche Münzprägung unterhalten, die – in Anbetracht nur spärlicher literarischer Hinterlassenschaften und archäologischer Ergebnisse – die mit Abstand wichtigste Primärquelle darstellt. Einzig auf dieser Grundlage konnten bislang vier Hauptgruppen oder Clans unterschieden werden: die Kidariten, Alchon, Nezak-Könige und Hephthaliten. Die Westtürken wurden ursprünglich als Verbündete gegen 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, scheinen aber 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 modifizierten Abfolgeordnung, welche durch parallele Herrschaften bedingt wird. Anhand des neuesten Forschungsstandes werden die Impulse beleuchtet, die aus der Zusammenschau mehrerer Quellengattungen für die 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 avancé jusqu’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 monnaies étendue qui, de loin, représente la plus importante source primaire, vue la rarité d’héritages littéraires et de découvertes archéologiques. C’est uniquement sur cette base que quatre principaux groupes, ou clans, avaient pu jusqu’à maintenant être distingués: les Kidarites, les Alchons, les Rois Nezak et les Hephtalites. Les turcs de l’ouest avaient été initialement appelés à l’aide en tant qu’alliés contre les Huns, pourtant, leur frappe des monnaies se rallie directement à celle des 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 types de monnaies jusque-là inconnus. L’analyse numismatique se consacre à l’ordre chronologique modifié, conditionné par des règnes parallèles. Les recherches les plus récentes permettent ainsi d’éclairer des hypothèses qui ont pu être avancées grâce à la synthèse de plusieurs types de source et qui enrichissent la connaissance de l’histoire des Huns Iraniens. Klaus Vondrovec Kunsthistorisches Museum Burgring 5 A - 1010 Wien Österreich.

(12) 36. BUFM 50, Vondrovec, Numismatic Evidence of the Alchon Huns reconsidered, 25 - 56. Plates Eastern Issues of Shapur II (309–379). SNS III Ib1/3a. Alchon Huns: Anonymous Clan Ruler. Type 36A. SNS III Ib1/3a. Anonymous Alchon (all types found in Shah-ji-ki-Dheri). Type 40. 41. 42. 43.

(13) 37. BUFM 50, Vondrovec, Numismatic Evidence of the Alchon Huns reconsidered, 25 - 56. Khingila. Type 44. Type 66A (unpublished). 57. 54. 61. 59A (unpublished). 318 (unpublished). 66. 81. 132A (unpublished).

(14) 38. BUFM 50, Vondrovec, Numismatic Evidence of the Alchon Huns reconsidered, 25 - 56. Javukha. Type 49. 51. 50. 117. 82. ?. Type 118. 140. ζαβοχο. Type 96. 96A. 97. 98. 99. Type 101. 102. 103. 104. 105. 100. 106.

(15) 39. BUFM 50, Vondrovec, Numismatic Evidence of the Alchon Huns reconsidered, 25 - 56. ζαβοχο. Type 106A Gupta: Kumaragupta. 107 Alchon: Mihirakula. raja lakhāna – udayāditya. Type 135. Type 79. Mehama. Type 62. 63. 71. Type 316 (unpublished). 73. 74.

(16) 40. BUFM 50, Vondrovec, Numismatic Evidence of the Alchon Huns reconsidered, 25 - 56. Hephthalites. Type 287. 287A. 288. 289. Impression of a Seal (Callieri 2002, fig. 1a). Later Stage Khingila. Javukha. Mehama. raja lakhāna – udayāditya. Type 81. 82. 316. 79.

(17) BUFM 50, Vondrovec, Numismatic Evidence of the Alchon Huns reconsidered, 25 - 56. 41. CatalogueI Sasanians: Shapur II (309–379) 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: 11h (l.o.) mzdysn bgy šhpwhly MRKAn MRKA ’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 individual crown in right field: Crescent. Reverse: Fire altar, two attendants, bust in the flames. Pehlevi: 11h (l.o.) mzdysn bgy šhpwhly MRKAn MRKA ’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 of Shapur II (= SNS III, obv-type Ib1). Reverse: Fire altar, two attendants, bust in the flames wearing the crown of Shapur II. Bactrian: 1h (r.o.) αλχοννο 9h (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).

(18) 42. BUFM 50, Vondrovec, Numismatic Evidence of the Alchon Huns reconsidered, 25 - 56. 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: 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 ribbon is attached to the necklace in upper left field: Crescent in right field: Tamgha (S 1). Reverse: Fire altar, two attendants. 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 ribbon is attached to the necklace in upper left field: Crescent in right field: Tamgha (S 1). Reverse: Fire altar, two attendants. Bactrian: 4h (r.i.) αλχοννο (retrograde) Brahmi: in lower left field: cu Peshawar, no. 8/2379: ? g, 3h, 29.7 mm. no legend.

(19) BUFM 50, Vondrovec, Numismatic Evidence of the Alchon Huns reconsidered, 25 - 56. 43. Type 43 Drachm Obverse: Bareheaded profile bust right; two ribbons are attached to the necklace in upper left field: Crescent in right field: Tamgha (S 1). Reverse: Fire altar, two attendants. Bactrian: 1h (r.o.) αλχoνo Brahmi: in lower left field: śe or śi Jean-Pierre Righetti, no. 44: 3.44 g, 3h, 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 in upper left field: Crescent in right field: Tamgha (S 1). Reverse: Fire altar, two attendants, sometimes an oval object in the flames. Brahmi: 7h (r.o.) khi gi – la or khe gi – la Bactrian: 1h (r.o.) αλχoννανo or αλχαννανo (long) or αλχανν (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 broad ribbon is attached to the necklace. Reverse: Vase. no legend London, no. 1894.5.7.2006: 0.92 g, 2h, 13.6 mm. Brahmi: left and right: khe – ṅgi.

(20) 44. BUFM 50, Vondrovec, Numismatic Evidence of the Alchon Huns reconsidered, 25 - 56. 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: Fire altar, two attendants, bust in the flames. Brahmi: 2h (r.o.) khigi (= khingila) London, no. 1922.4.24.3735: 3.66 g, 2h, 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 in right field: Tamgha (S 2). Reverse: Fire altar, two attendants. 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 necklace in left field: Tamgha (S 3) in right field: Wheel (S 4). Reverse: Fire altar, two attendants. 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. Type 66A (unpublished) Drachm Obverse: Profile bust right on a vegetal element; wearing a pearl diadem with three rosettes; a broad double ribbon is attached to the necklace in left field: Tamgha (S 1), in right field: Fire altar. Reverse: Fire altar, two attendants. Brahmi: 11h (l.o.) khigi (retrograde) Bactrian: 1h (r.o.) αλχο NZK: 3.76 g, 3h, 29.5 mm. no legend.

(21) BUFM 50, Vondrovec, Numismatic Evidence of the Alchon Huns reconsidered, 25 - 56. Type 61 Drachm Obverse: Profile bust right on a vegetal element; wearing a diadem with a crescent at the forehead; two ribbons are hanging from the diadem; fly-whisks are emerging from the shoulders in right field: Tamgha (S 1) Bactrian: 8h (r.o.) χιcτιλo (= χιγγιλo) – 1h oχoνo (= αλχoνo) Jean-Pierre Righetti, no. 57: 3.78 g, 3h, 32.4 mm. Reverse: Fire altar, two attendants. no legend. Type 318 (unpublished) Drachm Obverse: Profile bust right on a vegetal element; wearing a diadem with a crescent at the forehead, another crescent at the side; a ribbon is hanging from the diadem in right field: Rosetta (S 44). Reverse: Fire altar, two attendants. Brahmi: 1h (r.o.) khigila – 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 crescent at the forehead, another crescent at the side; 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: Rosetta/Chakra (S 41). Reverse: Fire altar, two attendants. Brahmi: 9h (r.o.) deva āhi – 1h khigila 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 Jean-Pierre Righetti, no. 100: 1.50 g, 5h, 16.7 mm. no legend. 45.

(22) 46. BUFM 50, Vondrovec, Numismatic Evidence of the Alchon Huns reconsidered, 25 - 56. Javukha Type 49 Drachm Obverse: Profile bust right; wearing a diadem with a crescent 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: Fire altar, two attendants. 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 Obverse: Profile bust right; wearing a diadem with a crescent 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: Fire altar, two attendants. 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 Obverse: Profile bust right; wearing a diadem with a crescent 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: Fire altar, two attendants. Brahmi: 11h (r.o.) aha – 1h jaükha Aman ur Rahman, no. 402: 3.37 g, 3h, 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 diadem Brahmi: 10h (r.o.) jaya – 1h āhi javūvla Aman ur Rahman, no. 445: 3.44 g, 3h, 26.7 mm. Reverse: Fire altar, two attendants. no legend.

(23) BUFM 50, Vondrovec, Numismatic Evidence of the Alchon Huns reconsidered, 25 - 56. Type 117 Drachm Obverse: Horseman to right; wearing a diadem with a crescent on top; two ribbons are hanging from the diadem in left field: Tamgha (S 1); in right field: Club (S 27). Reverse: Fire altar, two attendants. 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 crescent on top; two ribbons are hanging from the diadem in left field: Tamgha (S 1) in right field: Rosetta on conch shell (S 26). Reverse: Fire altar, two attendants. 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 a crescent on top, two ribbons are hanging from the diadem in right field: Footprints (S 30). Reverse: ?. Brahmi: 9h (r.o.) śahi ja – 1h vakha Coll. Conte Quaroni: ? g, ?h, 22.4 mm. ?. 47.

(24) 48. BUFM 50, Vondrovec, Numismatic Evidence of the Alchon Huns reconsidered, 25 - 56. ζαβοχο Type 96 Drachm Obverse: Profile bust right on a vegetal element; wearing a diadem with a big crescent on top (therein a trident?), 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: Fire altar, two attendants. Bactrian: 1h (r.o.) ζαβοχο – μυρo (or μιιρo) – coνo Þoo London, no. 1894.5.6.1287: 3.24 g, 3h, 24.8 mm. no legend. Type 96A Drachm Obverse: Profile bust right on a vegetal element; wearing a 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: Fire altar, two attendants. Bactrian: 1h (r.o.) ζαβοχο – μυρo (or μιιρo) – coνo Þoo Jean-Pierre Righetti, no. 84: 3.68 g, 3h, 24.1 mm. no legend. Type 97 Drachm Obverse: Profile bust right on a vegetal element; wearing a diadem with a big crescent at the front, another crescent at the centre; two ribbons are hanging from the diadem in right field: Lotus on a conch shell (S 83). Reverse: Fire altar, two attendants. Bactrian: 1h (r.o.) ζαβοχο – μυρo (or μιιρo) – coνo Þoo Coll. Conte Quaroni: ? g, 3h, 22.7 mm. no legend.

(25) BUFM 50, Vondrovec, Numismatic Evidence of the Alchon Huns reconsidered, 25 - 56. Type 98 Drachm Obverse: Profile bust right on a vegetal element; wearing a 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: Three flowers on Tamgha S 1 (S 84). Reverse: Fire altar, two attendants. Bactrian: 1h (r.o.) ζαβοχ – [..] – 11h Þαo no 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 a 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: Trident (S 16). Reverse: Fire altar, two attendants. 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 a 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: Trident and conch shell (S 17). Reverse: Fire altar, two attendants. 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 a 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: Trident in a pot on lotus (S 15). Reverse: Fire altar, two attendants. Bactrian: 1h (r.o.) ζαβ[oχ ..] London, no. OR 0478: 3.48 g, 9h, 23.7 mm. no legend. 49.

(26) 50. BUFM 50, Vondrovec, Numismatic Evidence of the Alchon Huns reconsidered, 25 - 56. Type 102 Drachm Obverse: Profile bust right; wearing a diadem with a big crescent 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: Fire altar, two attendants. 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 crescent 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: Fire altar, two attendants. 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 crescent 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: Fire altar, two attendants. Unclear (awaiting better specimen, but most likely ζαβοχο) Bern, no. 68.1263: 3.20 g, 3h, 23.3 mm. no legend. Type 105 Drachm Obverse: Horseman to right in right field: Tamgha (S 1). Reverse: Wheel on a stand (Dharmachakra ?); left and right a reclining animal (?). Bactrian: 9h (r.o.) ζαβοχο – μιι(or υ) – ρo – coνo Þoo Jean-Pierre Righetti, no. 87: 3.64 g, 12h, 23.3 mm. Brahmi: jaya or yaya (on most specimens unclear).

(27) BUFM 50, Vondrovec, Numismatic Evidence of the Alchon Huns reconsidered, 25 - 56. 51. Type 106 Drachm Obverse: Horseman to right in right field: Tamgha (S 13). Reverse: Wheel on a stand (Dharmachakra ?); left and right a reclining animal (?). Bactrian: 9h (r.o.) ζαβοχο – μιι(or υ) – ρo – coνo Þoo Jean-Pierre Righetti, no. 88: 3.83 g, 2h, 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: 9h (r.o.) ζαβοχο – μιι(or υ) – ρo – coνo Þoo ANS, no. 1981.134.4: 3.30 g, 12h, 22.3 mm. Brahmi: 9h (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: 9h (r.o.) ζαβοχο – μιι(or υ) – ρo – coνo Þoo London, 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 ´jitamahendra. 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, feeding peacock.

(28) 52. BUFM 50, Vondrovec, Numismatic Evidence of the Alchon Huns reconsidered, 25 - 56. Mihirakula Type 135 Drachm Obverse: Profile bust right on a vegetal element; wearing a 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: 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 at the forehead; two ribbons are hanging from the diadem. Reverse: Fire altar, two attendants. Brahmi: 9h (r.o.) raja (or rāja) lakhāna – 1h udayāditya Aman ur Rahman, no. 403: 3.77 g, 3h, 28.0 mm. no legend. Mehama Type 62 Drachm Obverse: Profile bust right; wearing a diadem with a crescent at the forehead; a crescent with a dash at either shoulder; 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: 1h (r.o.) μηo (unclear) London, no. 1894.5.6.1165: 3.51 g, 3h, 28.9 mm. no legend.

(29) BUFM 50, Vondrovec, Numismatic Evidence of the Alchon Huns reconsidered, 25 - 56. Type 63 Drachm Obverse: Profile bust right; wearing a diadem with a crescent 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: Vajra (S 33 var) Bactrian: 1h (r.o) μηo (unclear) Karachi: ? g, 12h, 27.5 mm. Reverse: Fire altar, two attendants. no legend. Type 71 Drachm Obverse: Bareheaded profile bust right on a vegetal element; two small ribbons are hanging from the diadem in left field: Tamgha (S 1) in right field: Fire altar (S 36). Reverse: Fire altar, two attendants. Brahmi: 2h (l.o.) (retrograde): mepama – 10h (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 diadem 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 left field: Tamgha (S 1) in right field: Club (S 39) Brahmi: 10h (r.o.) a (sometimes ba, sometimes a second aksara like ya) 12h (r.o.) bapa or paba (bapa could mean 'father', or probably just a short version of Mepama) Jean-Pierre Righetti, no. 68: 3.52 g, 3h, 29.2 mm. Reverse: Fire altar, two attendants. no legend. 53.

No results found