Mazdooano, the gracious one, Kushan god on a gold dinara of Kanishka I (Coin ).

Kushan, Kushano-Sasanian, and Kidarite

Coins
A Catalogue of Coins
From the American Numismatic Society

David Jongeward and Joe Cribb

with Peter Donovan

THE AMERICAN NUMISMATIC SOCIETY

NEW YORK

 Introduction

Nearly all the , coins documented in this catalogue of the ANS collection of Kushan coins
were donated to the Society:

Table . Principal Sources (five or more coins) of Kushan coins in the American Numismatic Society
ANS Accession Collection No. of coins
. I. J. Greenwood 
. Valentine collection, gift of Mr. E.T. Newell 
. Columbia University 
. Ms. R. T. Barrington 
. K. Minassian 
. Mr. E. T. Newell 
. Sir John Marshall, purchased from Metropolitan Museum of Art 
. Purchased from A. F. McKenzie 
. Mrs. A. M. Newell 
. Metropolitan Museum of Art 
. F. Jacobs 
. G.C. Miles collection, gift of Mrs. J.R. McCredie 
. William Spengler 
. Marjorie D. Schwartz 
. William Spengler 
. Martha Carter 
. William Spengler 
. William Spengler 
. H. W. Herz 
. Harry Fowler 
. C. K. Panish 
. Mrs. Olivia Garvey Lincoln 
. Purchased from P. R. Donovan 


2 Kushan, Kushano-Sasanian, and Kidarite Coins

Map . The Kushan World. Courtesy of Elizabeth Errington.

A few coins have been purchased since the outset of the present catalogue project which began in
. Kushan coin donations to the ANS commenced with the I. J. Greenwood bequest in .
Subsequent donations include the collections of E. T. Newell in , a jointly donated collection
from William Spengler and Dr. Martha Carter in , and a large collection of Kushan coppers
from the Lincoln bequest in . Dr. Larry Adams, an ANS Trustee, has kindly permitted the
authors to include fifty-four gold coins from his private collection, an intended gift to the Society.
In the catalogue, the coins of Dr. Adams are designated with numbers preceded by the letters LAK.
The whole of the ANS collection of Kushan coins can be accessed online at www.numismatics.
org.1

. Individual coins may be found by appending the ANS accession number to the address: www.numismatics.org/
collection. The first coin in this catalogue may thus be found at numismatics.org/collection/...
 Introduction 3

THE KUSHAN EMPIRE AND ITS COINAGE

During the first centuries AD, a vast inland empire stretched across Central and South Asia. The
Kushan Empire was a super power of its time alongside those of China, Persia and Rome. Just how
and when the Kushan dynasty was formed continues to be debated, and precise dates, especially
for the late Kushan kings, are still elusive, but the coinage alone reveals the Kushan dynasty as a
major force in the cultural and political history of the ancient Silk Road.
Evidence for the reigns of a handful of Kushan kings has been gleaned from cryptic references
in Chinese and Kashmiri annals, supported by evidence from contemporary inscriptions on stone
and metal and from the Kushans’ extensive coinage. Some Kushan kings are only known because
their names appear on coins. Determining chronologies of kings in Central Asia has depended
on numismatics and epigraphy to a greater extent than on archaeology. Coin finds have provided
crucial evidence in most Kushan-era archaeological sites. This is especially true for the sites at
Begram in Afghanistan and Taxila in Pakistan, together with smaller sites in Pakistan, northern
Afghanistan, southern Uzbekistan, Tajikistan and India. In all these sites the dating of antiquities
has largely relied on the coins found in the same or related archaeological contexts (Errington
and Curtis : –). The  discovery in northern Afghanistan of the Rabatak inscription
(Sims-Williams and Cribb /; Sims-Williams , ) added another piece of firm
evidence for understanding the history of the Kushan Empire. The inscription records the purpose
of a cult at a religious sanctuary built on the orders of the fourth Kushan king Kanishka I. It lists the
gods whose images were to be presented in the sanctuary, and the achievements of Kanishka I in
subjugating the cities of northern India. It also provides the names of his dynastic predecessors: his
great-grandfather Kujula Kadphises, his grandfather Wima Takto and his father Wima Kadphises,
confirming the evidence of royal succession provided by the coins.
Kanishka I has generated the widest attention across the spectrum of cultural, political and
religious history, as well as in numismatics. In Rosenfield’s study of Kushan dynastic arts, the
reign of Kanishka is given more attention than all the other Kushan kings combined. Rosenfield
describes Kanishka as a figure of primary importance in Asian history, “exceptional in his ability
to consolidate a great empire while also encouraging the release of his peoples’ creative energies”
(Rosenfield : –). Kanishka’s reign is rightly considered a pivotal era in the history of the
area and saw major contributions in architecture, sculpture, and Buddhist texts and art.
Kanishka’s importance in written records is largely because of the part he played as a patron of
Buddhism. His issue of coins with Buddhist images supports the historicity of this legendary role.
He has also become crucial to modern historical research because of the use of an era, apparently
established in his first year, as a dating system for the next century and a half in Kushan territory.
Many contemporary inscriptions and sculptures carry dates in this era, so the Kanishka era has
also become of immense importance to epigraphists and historians of religion and art. Because
this era appears then to have disappeared, there has been a long running controversy over its start
date. This has largely been resolved by a growing consensus that places the Kanishka era in the
early second century AD, based in part on Falk’s analysis of a reference to the second century AD
as the “Kushan era” in an early Sanskrit text (Falk ). It is now widely agreed by scholars that
this era began in c. AD .
4 Kushan, Kushano-Sasanian, and Kidarite Coins

For the purposes of this catalogue, the list of Kushan and related rulers, together with their
approximate dates, is constructed around Falk’s date of AD  for the beginning of the Kanishka
era (see Table , below). Research on these issues is an ongoing process and constantly under
review.
Table . Rulers and Dynasties
Kushan Kings Dates AD Dates documented in inscriptions*
Kujula Kadphises c. – AZ  and 
Wima Takto c. – GR 
Wima Kadphises c. – GR 
Kanishka I c. – KA –
Huvishka c. – KE –
Vasudeva I c. – KE –
Kanishka II c. – KE []–[]
Vasishka c. – KE []–[]
Kanishka III c. – KE []
Vasudeva II c. –
Mahi c. –
Shaka c. –
Kipunadha c. –
Kushanshahs
Unidentified king c. 
Ardashir c. –
Peroz I c. –
Hormizd I c. –
Hormizd II c. –
Peroz II c. –
Varahran (Kidarite puppet) c. –
Shapur II c. –
Kidarites
Yosada c. 
Kirada c. –
Peroz c. –
Kidara c. –
*The dating eras employed in the inscriptions are abbreviated as follows: AZ—the Azes Era (counting from  BC), GR—the Greek
Era (counting from  BC), and KA—the Kanishka Era (counting from AD ).

KUSHAN COINAGE TRADITION

Coinage in the territory which was to become the Kushan Empire first appeared during its ad-
dition to the empire of the Achaemenid Persian kings. The Persian administration oversaw the
production of two locally made coinages, die stamped coins in the Greek style and punch-marked
bent-bar coins (Cribb : –). A hoard found at Chaman-i Hazouri in the Kabul region
contained coins imported from Mediterranean cities and kingdoms together with both kinds of
the locally made coins (Curiel and Schlumberger ; Cribb ). This hoard provides evidence
 Introduction 5

that India’s coinage tradition dates back to at least the late fifth century BC. The rule of the same
region by Greek and Indian kings in the period after the defeat of the Persian empire by Alexan-
der the Great meant that both Greek and Indian coinage circulated in the area after Alexander’s
conquest (Cribb ). Two forms of Indian coinage circulated in this area, silver punch-marked
coins, derived from the bent-bar coins made from cut sheets of silver and stamped with sun,
moon, tree and other symbols, and also square copper cast coins with similar symbolic designs.
After Greek and Indian rule the territory came under the control of Indo-Scythian (c.  BC–AD
) and Indo Parthian kings (c. AD –) who issued coins in the Greek tradition (Cribb a:
–).
When the Kushans began issuing coins in about AD , they adapted for their own purposes
coin designs already in use. Kushan coin minting techniques and coin design were an extension
of the traditions of Greek style coinage already current in the area over more than three centuries.
Many aspects of Greek coin design had been adapted locally first by the Indo-Greek kings of
the second century BC, who introduced bilingual inscriptions in Greek and Prakrit, written in
Brahmi or Kharoshthi script (Salomon : –, –; : –, –), then by the
Indo-Scythians of the first century BC who retained the general form of Bactrian and Indo-Greek
coinage, but replaced Greek royal portrait busts with full-figure royal images in nomad dress or
armor. In turn, the Indo-Scythians were overthrown by an Indo-Parthian dynasty in the early
first century AD who retained many of the Indo-Scythian designs, but also reintroduced portrait
busts, now in an Iranian style. Throughout the Indo-Greek to Indo-Parthian period, the coin
inscriptions gave the name and titles of the issuing ruler, except in a few cases where the coins are
inscribed with a former ruler’s name and titles as a continuing posthumous issue.
Apart from these cultural shifts, coin designs in this region remained structurally as they had
under the Indo-Greeks, with royal designs surrounded by Greek inscriptions on the obverse, and
religious images on the reverse surrounded by inscriptions in Prakrit (in Kharoshthi script). The
Kushans initially continued most aspects of these traditions, preferring to mimic designs of their
predecessors, and issued coins with Indo-Greek, Indo-Parthian and Indo-Scythian designs. Some
coin designs of the first Kushan king, Kujula Kadphises, are either direct copies or adaptations of
Indo-Greek, Indo-Scythian and Indo-Parthian issues, mostly modified by replacing the earlier
kings’ names with his own. Two of Kujula Kadphises’s coinages continue the practice of making
posthumous issues in the name of a long dead king, following the practice of the peoples they
conquered. In one of his issues from the mint in Taxila, Kujula Kadphises chose an imported
Roman coin design as his prototype.
Until the discovery of his name in the Rabatak inscription, the coinage after the issues in the
name of Kujula Kadphises was poorly understood. Those with the name of Kujula Kadphises’ son,
Wima Takto, were thought to relate to the next king, his son Wima Kadphises (Cribb b).
The rest of the coinage was anonymous, inscribed in Greek with the titles ΒΑΣΙΛΕΥΣ ΒΑΣΙΛΕΥΩΝ
[sic] ΣΩΤΗΡ ΜΕΓAΣ, king of kings great savior. A variety of attributions have been proposed,
associating them with Kujula Kadphises, Wima Kadphises, an unidentified Kushan king or a
usurper (MacDowall ; Mukherjee ; Fussman ; Bopearachchi ,  and ).
The use of the name of Wima Takto on two coin types linked by their designs and tamgas with the
anonymous coins shows that at least part of this enigmatic coinage was issued in his reign (Sims-
Williams and Cribb /). It seems likely that the issue of the anonymous coins may have
commenced in the reign of Kujula Kadphises in an attempt to establish a stable standard for his
monetary system.
6 Kushan, Kushano-Sasanian, and Kidarite Coins

Wima Takto’s son, Wima Kadphises, introduced a novel design for his copper coinage based
in Kushan culture with a highly original image of the standing king in nomad dress making an
offering at a small altar. Alongside these he used a variety of royal images on gold coins, with the
king seated on or emerging from a mountain top, riding an elephant, seated on a throne or riding
in a chariot, all reflecting aspects of Kushan culture.
Wima Kadphises’ image of a devotional king sacrificing at an altar was his most influential
innovation and it was retained throughout Kushan coinage (Cribb : –), as well as
influencing the coin design of several successor states (Cribb  and ). It was this design
which became the primary image used by his son Kanishka I. Kanishka I also made the final break
with key aspects of the earlier tradition by changing the language on his coins from Greek to
Bactrian, an Iranian language written using Greek letters (Sims-Williams a: –; b:
–), and dropping the use of Kharoshthi along with Greek. He also introduced the labeling
of divine images on the reverse, perhaps following Roman practice (Errington and Cribb :
–). Kanishka’s successor Huvishka reused the portrait types of Wima Kadphises, particularly
the king emerging from mountain top on his gold coins and the elephant rider, king seated on
mountain and king seated on throne on his copper (see Appendix B for Huvishka’s portrait
designs).
All the kings after Huvishka retained the sacrificing king design introduced by Wima Kadphises
and adapted by Kanishka I. Apart from a gradual shift in style, the only other innovation to take
place in Kushan coin design was the gradual phasing out of Bactrian inscriptions, which were
replaced by Brahmi inscriptions in the form of monograms written in the field of the coin. The
introduction of Brahmi monograms began in the reign of Vasudeva I, but became the dominant
form of inscription in the reign of Vasudeva II, who put the initial part of his name Vasu as a
vertical Brahmi monogram in the obverse right field of his coins. All his successors appear to have
followed this practice of identifying themselves through such a monogram (Errington and Cribb
: ; Burns :–).
Kanishka’s adoption of Bactrian language inscriptions has been explained in a variety of ways
(Cribb : ). The discovery of the Rabatak inscription (Sims-Williams and Cribb /:
–), which explicitly refers to the transition from Greek to Bactrian, points to a deliberate
political act of the Kushans to establish a more distinctly Iranian identity and a resolutely anti-Greek
attitude (as suggested by Fussman : –). The abandonment of Kharoshthi inscriptions on
the reverses of Kushan coins, however, does not appear to have had a political meaning, but simply
reflects the consequence of the coinage becoming imperial and therefore circulating throughout
the Kushan Empire, rather than being essentially local to the Gandhara and Punjab regions, the
only parts of the Kushan state where Kharoshthi had traditionally been used on coins. During
Kanishka’s reign and that of his successor Huvishka, Kharoshthi still appeared on some copper
coins produced in Kashmir, Gandhara or the Punjab in the form of control marks (usually as
single letters, but as a name Yodhavade on some rare issues not in the ANS collection).
The introduction of Brahmi monograms was clearly of a different order to the decision to
use Bactrian. The first uses of Brahmi seem to have been related to the administration of coin
production, as tiny Brahmi control marks began to be used at only one of Vasudeva I’s gold mints
in the last part of his reign. Under Kanishka II, in the only mint in routine production, the use of
Brahmi monograms became a standard procedure which spread to the copper mint and to newly
located mints when they opened. The reign of Kanishka II also saw the loss of parts of Bactria from
 Introduction 7

the Kushan Empire, so the gradual reduction in the use of Bactrian as an official language began
at the same period. By the reign of Vasudeva II, Bactrian inscriptions on the coins were becoming
increasingly illegible. The Brahmi monograms became an easier means of identification for the
user and replaced Bactrian. On a few gold issues of Vasudeva II Kharoshthi monograms appeared
in place of the usual Brahmi ones. Illegible traces of Bactrian continued to appear on most gold
coins, but disappeared completely from the copper.
Brahmi monograms were also used on the coins issued by successor states, including Kidarite
Hun coins in Gandhara and Gupta coins in India. However, Bactrian survived in use on Kushano-
Sasanian coinage in Afghanistan, and was continued on the coins issued by their successors in the
same region, the Kidarite and the Alchon Huns.

KUSHAN MONETARY SYSTEM AND MINTS

Although the Kushans adapted many aspects of the coin design practice of their forerunners in
the region, their monetary system only followed earlier practices during the period of its estab-
lishment under Kujula Kadphises. The introduction of the anonymous Soter Megas coinage at the
end of the reign of Kujula Kadphises marked a departure from earlier monetary practice. This new
coinage attempted to unify the currency throughout Kushan territory, leaving only Kashmir with
a separate system until the following reign. New areas of conquest in Gandhara and India briefly
used modified versions of the unified currency, while the denominational system in Kashmir was
changed to comply with the imperial coinage. The new coinage was based on copper denomina-
tions weighing two drachms (c. . g) and a half drachm (. g) on a “reduced Attic” standard. In
size it also approximated to the Indo-Scythian and Indo-Parthian base-silver four drachm (c. .
gram) on the Indo-Greek standard. The general issue Soter Megas coinage was exclusively copper,
replacing the chaos created by the debasement of silver coinages previously in use in both Bactria
and south of the Hindu Kush. The new coinage featured a radiate bust of the Kushan sun god
Mioro on its obverse, and a horseman on the reverse. In newly conquered Gandhara, however,
Wima Takto issued an Indo-Greek standard Soter Megas coinage that took account of the previ-
ous system (Indo-Parthian) by retaining about  silver content and copying the Indo-Parthian
horseman/Zeus design type.
In the next reign the unification process was taken a step forward in establishing a completely
unified coinage for the entire empire, including Kashmir and newly conquered territories. New
copper denominations were added and higher denominations in gold were also introduced. Wima
Kadphises’ coinage now consisted of copper coins weighing four, two and one drachms (, , and
 gram), and gold of four, two, one (rare) and half drachms (, ,  and  gram). The tetradrachm
and didrachm coppers and the dinara and half dinara gold were clearly intended as the standard
units, as in the next reigns of Kanishka and Huvishka these were the dominant issues. Only in
Kashmir were one drachm coppers routinely issued.
By the reign of Vasudeva I the copper coinage consisted only of the four drachm and the gold
of two and half drachm denominations. The two drachm gold coin was very close in weight to
the imported Roman denarius aureus, the standard Roman gold denomination, so that at some
point before the reign of Kanishka II it came to be known as the dinara. The name of the copper
denomination is not known. In this catalogue the large copper denomination will be referred to
as tetradrachm from late in Huvishka’s copper issues when reduced weight denominations are
referred to as “units.”
8 Kushan, Kushano-Sasanian, and Kidarite Coins

The unification and standardization achieved during the reigns of Wima Takto and Wima
Kadphises lasted until the end of the Kushan Empire. To some extent the standard was continued
by the successor Kushano-Sasanian and Kidarite Hun states and also borrowed by the Gupta
empire in India. However, the system was not as robust as its continuity suggests. The causes are
not entirely clear, but under Huvishka the weight of the standard copper four drachm unit began
to drop, so that its origins in the Attic standard became obscured. The initial cause seems to have
been a loss of control of the issue system, as the same designs appear on coins weighing from the
standard  grams down to about  gram. When control was restored a new standard was set at
about  grams. The process of decline continued and by the end of the reign the coins were being
issued at about  grams. Under Vasudeva I they dropped down to about  grams. Each of the
following reigns saw a progressive reduction of the standard until the end of the empire, when
copper coins weighing less than  grams were being issued. The Kushano-Sasanian coinage also
followed a similar downward trajectory. When the Kidarites took over from both the Kushans and
the Kushano-Sasanians, the copper coinage standard dropped to about  gram (Khan, Errington,
Cribb : ).
The gold coinage maintained a high standard until the period of Kanishka II, when the gold
content of the coins began to fall significantly, although not the weight. The initial gold issues of
Wima Kadphises were made with almost pure gold, and through the next century a drop in fineness
of less than  has been observed (Bracey ; Oddy and Cribb ). From the accession of
Kanishka II the gold coins began to be debased progressively. The gold content had fallen to about
 by the end of Vasishka’s reign. Kanishka III and Vasudeva II’s reigns suggest an attempt to
restore a higher fineness of about , but without success as the gold content continued to drop.
During Shaka’s reign, the fineness dropped from about  down to about . The decline
continued during Kipunadha’s reign until some of his issues contained less than  gold and
lost their gold appearance. Kushano-Sasanian and Kidarite gold coins show gold quality close to
the contemporary issues of the Kushans. It is likely that the cost of conflict between the Kushans
and the Kushano-Sasanians was in part the cause of this decline. The decrease in value of the gold
coinage followed the track of the descending weight standard of the copper coinage. Although it is
likely that the monetary system was based on an official correlation between the gold and copper
coinages, no evidence survives to confirm this or to indicate the nature of the correlation.
The production of gold and copper coinage seems normally to have been separate. Unfortunately
there are no indicators such as mint marks or mint names that reveal the number of mints or their
locations. The identification of mints and conjectures about their location are based on distinctions
in design, style and production techniques and on the distribution of finds.
Die studies suggest that initially there was only one gold mint, with a second mint added
towards the end of Kanishka I’s reign. The original mint remained the main one through the
reigns of Huvishka and Vasudeva I, with the added mint working as a subsidiary. The number of
dies attributed to each mint suggests that production at the main gold mint was double that of the
subsidiary mint. Die studies also suggest that production at the Kushan mints appears to involve
just two individuals at anvils striking coins at the main mint and one at the subsidiary mint.
There were probably other workers involved in refining and alloying the metal, making blanks and
checking production, but it is clear that only a small team was involved, so mint locations could
be readily transferable.
At the end of the reign of Vasudeva I, the main gold mint stopped production, but copies of
its designs continued in a series of posthumous imitations. The imitations gradually evolved in
 Introduction 9

design, providing the prototype for the first Kushano-Sasanian gold issues minted by the second
Kushanshah, Peroz I. It seems plausible to suggest that the main mint was closed or taken over as
a result of the Sasanian invasion of Bactria. As later gold coins from the same mint are sometimes
marked with the Bactrian name Bachlo (i.e. Bactra = Balkh), it also seems plausible to suggest
that the main Kushan gold mint was located in the same city. The subsidiary Kushan gold mint
continued until the reign of Vasishka, when it also ceased production and new mints were opened
further east. This is also the time when the Sasanians seem to have taken possession of Peshawar,
so it is likely that this was the location of the subsidiary mint. The loss of the main and subsidiary
gold mints forced the Kushans to open mints in at least two other locations. The distribution of
finds suggests that one was located in Mathura and the other in the Punjab, probably at Taxila.
After Vasudeva II, the mint at Mathura seems to have been moved back into Gandhara.
Under the first Kushan king, Kujula Kadphises, production of copper and silver coinage was
localised, reflecting the various regional monetary systems in the territory he conquered. The
largest production centres relate to the two centres of Kushan rule in its conquered territories at
Begram and Taxila. Local finds help to distinguish the production of similar coinage at local mints
in these territories. With reforms of the copper coinage of Wima Takto and Wima Kadphises,
the copper coinage appears to be produced centrally, probably also at Begram, with some local
production at subsidiary mints in Kashmir and in newly conquered territory under Wima Takto
and perhaps continuing in Kashmir under Wima Kadphises.
Kanishka’s main production of copper coinage also seems to have been at Begram. Kanishka
also had a large subsidiary mint in Kashmir that produced mostly copper drachms. Kashmir was
an important source of copper and the coins produced there from Kujula Kadphises into the reign
of Huvishka are often recognizable due to their magnetic response (Tanner et al. ). Another
small subsidiary mint producing only four drachm issues opened in the last years of Kanishka I’s
reign, probably in Gandhara, perhaps to complement the subsidiary gold mint at Peshawar. Under
Huvishka, copper coinage production continued at the three mints working under Kanishka, but
towards the end of his reign he also opened a small copper mint in Mathura.
The production of copper coinage from the period of Vasudeva I onwards is more difficult to
locate. Some production can be matched with gold issues due to the shared use of Brahmi control
marks, but there is insufficient evidence to be precise about the location and number of mints. The
picture is obscured by the massive production of imitation coins. Some of these can be linked with
the Kushano-Sasanians through the use of mint control marks that appear on the posthumous
Vasudeva gold coinage attributable to them. Kushano-Sasanian copper coin production from the
reign of Peroz I suggest two minting centres, one linked with the gold mint in Bactria and the
other somewhere south of the Hindu Kush, either at Begram or Peshawar. The Kidarites seem to
have continued the use of two minting centres, in Bactria and in Gandhara.
For most of the Kushan period the depiction of divine images on the coins reflected pre-Kushan
practice, with a small number, sometimes just one, deity being selected for use on one ruler’s coins.
This was the case for the coins of Wima Kadphises, all of which depict the Kushan god Oesho (see
Appendix C), and also for the coinage of Vasudeva I, who also used Oesho designs. His successor,
Kanishka II, retained Oesho for some issues, but mostly used the goddess Ardochsho. Oesho and
Ardochsho continued to be used as the divine images on all coins of the late Kushans.
The coinage of Kanishka I and Huvishka reveal a major departure from this practice, as
many deities appear on their coins. Many reasons have been proposed for this. Some researchers
suggest that the gods depicted on the coins represent the diverse religious beliefs of their subjects,
10 Kushan, Kushano-Sasanian, and Kidarite Coins

while others argue that their designs represent the gods of the nations with whom the Kushan
Empire traded. Such explanations do not fit the surviving evidence (Cribb : –). The
Rabatak inscription (Sims-Williams and Cribb /) with its list of gods who were seen
as responsible for Kanishka I’s accession to the throne creates a different view of the Kushan
pantheon. The inscription shows the Kushan king seeking authority from a wide range of gods,
and divine representations on the coins of Kanishka I and Huvishka show them seeking that
authority from an even wider range of gods (see Appendix C). Although some of the gods initially
appear with Greek names and some have Indian names, the Rabatak inscription has made it clear
that the Greek names are simply translations of the names of Iranian gods, and the Indian names
are convenient labels for these same Iranian gods (Cribb ). The gods represent the religious
practice and beliefs of the Kushan kings, not of their subjects or their trading partners.
The place of the gods on the coins also appears to have had a practical purpose alongside their
use as an expression of Kushan royal authority (Cribb : –). Although Göbl () and
MacDowall () were correct to show that the divine images related to the mint administration,
an analysis of their use shows that they were used to mark batches of production, rather than the
administrative subdivisions, at the Kushan mint (Cribb : ).

PREVIOUS STUDIES OF KUSHAN COINS

There are four useful listings of Kushan coins available at present. John Rosenfield’s The Dynastic
Arts of the Kushans (Berkeley ), Michael Mitchiner’s Oriental Coins and their Values—Ancient
and Classical World, (London ), Robert Göbl’s System und Chronologie der Münzprägung des
Kušānreiches (Vienna ) and his Donum Burns—die Kušānmünzen im Münzkabinett Bern
und die Chronologie (Vienna ). In preparing this volume we have made use of all four, and
acknowledge the value they bring to the subject.
The first of these (Rosenfield) is not a coin catalogue, but an outline of the designs on Kushan
coins as an aid to understanding their place within official art in the Kushan Empire. Its analysis
of the identity of royal and divine imagery represented an outstanding contribution to the subject,
particularly at a time when there was no systematic listing available of the coins themselves. The
absence of such a guide to the coinage is the only serious deficiency of this study, as there was no
measure by which Rosenfield could distinguish the normal from the abnormal and the personal
idiosyncrasies of the die engraver from the officially sanctioned representation of king or god. The
subsequent discovery of the Rabatak inscription has also clarified the function of divine images
within the Kushan state in a way about which Rosenfield could only speculate.
Mitchiner’s work presents itself implicitly as a corpus-style presentation of the Kushan coinage
as part of a larger account of ancient coinage in Asia. Its weaknesses lie in the limited number
of coins it presents, as it is by no means an exhaustive treatment of the material. Nevertheless,
when it appeared in , Mitchiner’s listing was without doubt the best presentation made of this
complex series. It remains an immensely useful resource, particularly because it is based on many
specimens from private collections, and because of Mitchiner’s insights into the organization of
the coinage. In the ANS catalogue, Mitchiner’s numbers are used for coinages of the first two
Kushan kings, Kujula Kadphises and Wima Takto.
Göbl’s massive  volume easily superseded Mitchiner’s account of the Kushan coinage.
It represents a highly detailed attempt to describe the Kushan monetary system by means of a
structured presentation of a corpus of the whole of the Kushan, Kushano-Sasanian and Kidarite
 Introduction 11

Hun coinages. Göbl’s work was based on an extensive collection of material from public and
private collections, auction sales and dealers’ lists. It remains the largest body of data on Kushan
coins in print and underpins any study of the monetary systems. It will maintain its position as an
essential tool in the study of the subject for a long time to come. Unfortunately, Göbl omitted the
coins of the first two rulers.
The main weakness of Göbl’s approach is his treatment of the structure of the mint system in
the Kushan state. Göbl’s understanding of mint organizations was developed through his study of
Roman coinage and he applied his understanding of the production of Roman coinage too rigidly
to the Kushan system. According to Göbl’s approach the Kushan mint was normally composed of
four workshops distinguished by reverse types. This idea was borrowed from late Roman coinage,
where an added letter or a number in the reverse design indicated the existence of independent
workshops (officinae) within each mint producing their own series of coins. These additional
letters or numbers began in the third century AD and continued into the fourth. But Göbl, as well
as other scholars of Roman coinage, sought to detect workshops on earlier Roman coins according
to reverse types (MacDowell ). It was Göbl’s belief in the workshop system that influenced his
understanding of Kushan history and prompted him to directly link Kushan and Roman minting
practice. Göbl’s analysis of Roman minting practice, however, is not entirely free of controversy:
“The usual assumption that the different reverse types were produced by different officinae within
the mint is still far from proven and in many cases seems to me to hinder rather than to advance
our understanding of the coinage… What do we gain, then, by speaking of ‘officinae’…?” (Clay
: ).
The problems arising from Göbl’s insistence on a workshop based structure for coin production
can readily be understood when the use of dies is reviewed. Kushan coin die analysis conducted
at the British Museum shows that normally only two work stations (and sometimes just one)
produced coins at Kushan gold mints (Cribb : –; Bracey ). They worked in the same
space and could swap reverse dies between them. There was no practical reason for the mint
to be divided into workshops. Göbl’s analysis based on workshops confused the arrangement of
the production of Kushan gold coins, and often induced him to group coins that do not belong
together, and separate coins that belong together.
Göbl began his organization with the idea of four workshops distinguishable by four reverse
types. He used Kanishka’s first gold issue with Helios (Miiro), Salene (Mao), Nanaia (Nana) and
Hephaistos (Athsho) reverses to establish his approach. But then Göbl came across an issue with
five reverses, so he had to find a way to take into account the deity, Oesho. Instead of adjusting his
scheme, Göbl felt obliged to find a way to group the fifth reverse into one of his four workshops.
He did this by transferring Athsho into the workshop represented by Miiro, reallocated the Athsho
workshop to Oesho, thus complicating his approach.
Göbl’s mistaken linkage between Kushan and Roman mint practice became one of the
underlying reasons for the chronology he developed placing the beginning of the Kanishka I era
in the third century (AD ), which is about  years later than the AD  date generally
accepted by scholars now (Göbl : ). This chronology created weaknesses in Göbl’s analysis
of other aspects of the Kushan coinage, particularly in relation to the Kushano-Sasanian series,
for which he suggested a commencement date of about AD  in the reign of Shapur II (AD
–), whereas the evidence now available shows that it ended during this reign and began in
the time of Ardashir I (AD –) (Göbl : ).
12 Kushan, Kushano-Sasanian, and Kidarite Coins

Equally detrimental is a practical problem arising from Göbl’s approach: the accumulative
process by which coins were entered into his scheme. His adding of extra examples to the end of a
list of coins of a particular type creates a lack of clarity, and therefore, confusion. For example, Göbl
divided Kanishka I’s gold coins with Bactrian inscriptions into two ‘emissions’, first according to
two crown types, and secondly according to deities on the reverse. He lists twelve coins under Miiro
with the first crown, but the die links and style shows that the order of issue was entirely different
to the order that emerges in his listing. When a thorough study of dies and style is attempted, it is
possible to determine the order in which the obverse and reverse dies were produced (Cribb and
Bracey forthcoming).
In , Göbl refined his presentation in a collection catalogue based on the holdings of the
Bern Museum, Switzerland, particularly its donation from Dr. Craig Burns who specialized in col-
lecting late Kushan coins. Göbl remedied some of his misunderstandings relating to the structure
of the coinage from Vasudeva I onwards, removing, for example, his assignation of some coins of
Vasudeva I to a second king Vasudeva who he identified as a contemporary of Kanishka II.

KUSHAN, KUSHANO-SASANIAN, AND KIDARITE COINS IN THE

COLLECTION OF THE AMERICAN NUMISMATIC SOCIETY
In this catalogue of the ANS collection, the production system of Kushan coinage is presented
differently from that of either Mitchiner or Göbl. Die analysis allows us to recognize that reverse
types were used to distinguish batches of production at the same mint. There are two possible ex-
planations for the batching. The mint may have used a change of deity to indicate a new period of
production, or to distinguish consignments of bullion. There is not enough evidence to know how
the batching system was structured, but it has nothing to do with workshops. Analysis also reveals
that obverse dies seemed to be kept in production for about a year. There are roughly enough dies
to suggest that approximately one obverse die was made for each work station each year of the
reign of Kanishka I and Huvishka, for example. Every time a die wore down, it was recut, in some
cases many times. On the other hand, reverse dies were rarely recut, but if a die wore out or broke
before the production period or batch was complete, another reverse die with the same design was
made to replace the unusable die (Cribb : –).
This catalogue follows a sylloge approach in its listing of a single collection, but follows a
collection catalogue approach in its presentation of analytical material and commentary, with
the addition of detailed coin descriptions. It is our intention that the ANS collection of Kushan
coins provide a tool for people to use in a variety of ways for the identification and placement of
the coins. We have chosen to present the ANS coins chronologically based on the die analysis and
research being developed during the preparation of the forthcoming corpus-style catalogue of the
Kushan coins in the British Museum.
The ANS coins are classified by ruler, mint, phase of production, metal, denomination, type
and variety. The section listings are prefaced by introductory essays to establish the historical
context of the kings and the coins. All of the ANS gold coins are illustrated. A selection of copper
coins is illustrated, including those of sufficient quality or condition to illustrate specific types.
A large number of heavily worn coins in the ANS collection are of considerable interest in
spite of their condition. We provide each of these coins with a catalogue number, while illustrating
only a few. The remainder can be found on the ANS online collection database where they are
all illustrated (numismatics.org/search). Poor condition coinage is of immense significance in
understanding its post-production use, as it offers insight into issues that remained in circulation
 KUSHAN, KUSHANOSASANIAN,
David Jongeward is an independent cultural Kushan, Kushano-Sasanian, and
historian and a departmental associate with the Kidarite Coins
Royal Ontario Museum, Department of World
Cultures, Toronto, Canada. He was visiting scholar
The Kushan Empire was a vast inland empire that
AND KIDARITE COINS
KUSHAN, KUSHANOSASANIAN, AND KIDARITE COINS

from 2005 to 2013 with the Asian Institute, Munk

stretched across Central and South Asia during
School of Global Affairs, University of Toronto. His
the first to fourth centuries AD. The origins of
most recent project is a catalog of the Gandhara
Kushan dynasty continue to be debated, and
sculpture collection in the Ashmolean Museum,
precise dates, especially for the late Kushan
Oxford University, forthcoming in 2015. He
coordinated and coauthored an interdisciplinary
collaborative research project: Gandharan
A CATALOGUE OF COINS FROM THE AMERICAN NUMISMATIC SOCIETY kings, remain elusive, but the coinage reveals the
Kushan dynasty as a major force in the cultural
and political history of the ancient Silk Road.
Buddhist Reliquaries, published in 2012.
Joe Cribb is the former Keeper of Coins and Kushan coinage began c. AD 50 with issues of the
Medals at the British Museum, where he worked first Kushan king, Kujula Kadphises
for forty years as a curator of Asian coins and (c. AD 50–90). The first Kushan coins were based
currencies. He has published many articles on on Greek, Scythian and Parthian coin designs
Kushan, Kushano-Sasanian, and Kidarite coins already current in the territory of present day
and on the processes of numismatic research. Afghanistan and Pakistan.
In 1997 he was awarded the Ikuo Hirayama Silk
Road Art and Archaeology prize, in 1999 the Under Kujula Kadphises’ son Wima Takto
Royal Numismatic Society’s medal, and in 2008 (c. AD 91–113) and grandson Wima Kadphises
the American Numismatic Society’s Archer M. (c. AD 113–127) the coinage system was
Huntington Medal. He was President of the Royal gradually centralized to serve the entire Kushan
Numismatic Society 2005-2010, and has been empire, stretching from Uzbekistan and
Secretary General of the Oriental Numismatic Tajikistan to northern India. Gold and copper
Society since 2011. denominations were established during the reign
of Wima Kadphises which were maintained
Peter Donovan is the Curatorial Associate for the through the reigns of ten more kings until the
Islamic and South Asian collections at the ANS. A demise of the Kushan empire in the mid-fourth
retired consultant exploration geochemist working century AD.
worldwide, his career ended with 13 years at the
United Nations Development Program.
This catalogue presents all the Kushan coins
in the American Numismatic Society, with
The American Numismatic Society publishes books, selected illustrations, detailed descriptions and
journals, and monographs on coins, medals, and commentary. The production system of Kushan
related objects of all periods coinage is presented with major revisions of

JONGEWARD AND CRIBB

and cultures. chronology and organization compared with
previous publications. This presentation has
The American Numismatic Society been based on the latest coin-based research,
75 Varick Street, 11th floor including die studies and site find analysis.
New York, NY 10013 The coins are classified by ruler, metal, mint,
production phase, denomination, type and
f ron t jac ket photo: S c u lptu r a l g roup variety. Introductory essays present the historical
depic t ing t he Budd hist deit ies Panchi ka and cultural contexts of the kings and their coins.
and Har it i (Phar ro and Ardo chsho of t he All the ANS gold coins and a selection of copper
Kushans ) f rom Ta k ht - i B a hi. coins are illustrated. This catalogue also features
© Br it ish Mus eu m. two series of coins issued by the Kushano-
Sasanian and the Kidarite Hun rulers of former
Kushan territory because they followed and
bac k jac ket photo: R oy a l p or t r ait on a
adapted the Kushan coinage system.
gold d inara of Wima Kadphis es.
ANS 1944.100. 30 1 6 2 .
Photog raphe d by A l an R o che. The authors intend this catalogue to be a tool for
jac ket de sig n: Oliver D. Hoover
DAVID JONGEWARD AND JOE CRIBB scholars and collectors alike for understanding,
identifying ,and attributing these fascinating
ANS WITH PETER DONOVAN coins that represent four centuries of Central and
South Asian ancient history.
THE AMERICAN NUMISMATIC SOCIETY