sasanian mint abbreviations: the evidence of style

Sasanian Mint Abbreviations: The Evidence of Style*

NIKOLAUS SCHINDEL

[PLATES 38-39]

THE CORRECT interpretation of mint abbreviations poses one of the most important but difficult problems in Sasanian numismatics.1 Quite apart from their numismatic value, it is only when reliable identifications for the dozens of different mint signatures have been established that a vital source for the history and economy of ancient Iran will become wholly accessible.

At the 1936 International Numismatic Congress in London Ernst Herzfeld presented a new approach by successfully using late Sasanian administrative clay bullae, which often feature an abbreviated form of a toponym similar to that of a mint signature together with the place’s full name, to identify some mint names.2

Herzfeld’s idea has since been widely employed by students of Sasanian mint signatures.3

Despite the usefulness of bullae, the identification of mint signatures is primarily a numismatic question, and thus should be dealt with primarily by numismatic methods, using numismatic material. This principle has been most

* The present paper is the written version of a lecture at the 2003 International Numismatic Congress in Madrid. Because of some organisational mix-up on my side, I did not manage to hand it in in time for inclusion in the proceedings of the congress. The basic methodical ideas of this article can also be found in N. Schindel, Sylloge Nummorum Sasanidarum Paris – Berlin – Wien, Band III: Shapur II. – Kawad I. / 2. Regierung (Vienna, 2004), vol. 1, pp. 147-75. I have to thank Marcus Phillips and Susan Tyler-Smith for various suggestions, as well as help in Anglicizing the text.

1 General overviews on the subject and the methods employed can be found in R. Göbl, ‘Der s s nidische Münzfund von Seleucia (V h-Ardaš r) 1967’, Mesopotamia 8/9 (1973/4), pp. 239-40; W. Szaivert, Die Tätigkeit der s s nidischen Münzstätten ab der generellen Einführung der Signaturen und Datenangaben (Organisation, Technisches und historische Bezüge), unpubl. PhD thesis (Vienna, 1975), vol. 1, pp. 40-1; Schindel, SNS 3, vol. 1, pp. 147-8.

2 E. Herzfeld, ‘Notes on the Achaemenid coinage and some Sasanian mint-names’, in: J. Allan, H. Mattingly and E.S.G. Robinson (eds.), Transactions of the International Numismatic Congress organized and held in London by the Royal Numismatic Society, June 30 - July 3, 1936 on the occasion of its centenary (London, 1938), pp. 413-26.

3 See e.g. Göbl, ‘Münzfund von Seleucia’ (n. 1), as well as the contributions by R. Gyselen such as ‘Ateliers monétaires et cachets officiels sasanides’, Studia Iranica 8/2 (1979), pp. 189-212 or ‘Siglesd’ateliers monétaires sasanides: interpretation et identification’, in: R. Gyselen and L. Kalus, Deuxtrésors monétaires des premiers temps de l’Islam (Paris, 1983), pp. 141-58.

NIKOLAUS SCHINDEL 288

vigorously advocated by Robert Göbl.4 Notwithstanding their importance, the evidence of the administrative bullae can only play a secondary role in solving numismatic questions since bullae are a non-numismatic source, and should only be used after the analysis and synthesis of the numismatic material has been completed. As I hope to show here, relying on the numismatic material leads to results which are much more reliable than those which are based on sigillographic or other non-numismatic evidence.

Since style is of pivotal importance for this article, some general comments are appropriate.5 I do not intend to discuss the meaning of style in numismatics in general, but rather limit these preliminary remarks to a definition, and the practical use, of the analysis of style in Sasanian numismatics.

Let us start with the definition of style. The following definition was coined by Kurt Regling, and reiterated by Göbl: ‘(style is)…die Summe der künstlerischen Eigenschaften…Er gibt die Auffassung, aber auch die Eigenheiten der Ausführung durch den Künstler, also das wieder, was man als «Handschrift» des Graveurs bezeichnen kann…’.6 Humphrey Sutherland, starting with the chronological implications of style – ‘style of a period’ – arrived at a similar definition: ‘Style, then, is a personal and individual matter…Thus style is ultimately the particular mark of a particular man’.7

For the present paper, it suffices to define style as the totality of artistic individuality which can be observed on a coin (or, to be more precise, on a die). It is also useful to state what is not covered by the word style: neither typology nor physical features.

It should be emphasized that style, according to the definition given above, is something with rather narrow chronological and geographical limits. This is what matters here. It is possible to talk in a very general context about, for example, the style of Sasanian coins in the third century but in that context style means something much broader, and perhaps is better described as ‘fashion’. In this sense, it means the customary appearance of what was produced for various rulers by various mints and also by various die-cutters. For a detailed numismatic analysis concentrating on a specific topic like mint attributions, such a use of the word style is not helpful, since mere artistic and technical conventions, in a given period, are useless. It is the products of single die-cutters, or at least of groups of artists closely linked together, which are of interest here. Sutherland’s warning that different styles do not necessarily have to represent different mints is also a

4 In the field of oriental numismatics see e.g. R. Göbl, Donum Burns. Die Kuš nmünzen im Münzkabinett Bern und die Chronologie (Vienna, 1993), p. 15.

5 The broadest and most important contribution, still worth reading, is C.H.V. Sutherland, ‘What is meant by ‘Style’ in coinage?’, ANSMN 4 (1950), pp. 1-12.

6 R. Göbl, Antike Numismatik, vol. 1 (Munich, 1978), pp. 141; 216. 7 Sutherland, ‘Style in coinage’, pp. 4; 5.

SASANIAN MINT ABBREVIATIONS: THE EVIDENCE OF STYLE 289

very important point.8 The cumulative evidence is what is really important in the following discussion on style. If a given pictorial detail can be found on only one out of a hundred coins, then it would be difficult to use it as a criterion for the identification of a single production group which would normally correspond to a mint. If the same feature is found on 15 out of the hundred, things are different. If these 15 coins have nothing else in common then the evidence for grouping them together is not strong but if they share more features, and thus a common style, then it is reasonable to assume that they belong to the same mint.

Negative evidence is also very important. Not only those features which are common to one group are relevant, but also those details which are different from other groups. One practical example: although the treatment of the bust in the altar flames on Pl. 38, no. 3 is somewhat different compared to Pl. 38, 4-5 the depiction of the assistant figures without korymboi, which all three coins share, does not occur elsewhere in this period. Since the artistic rendering of the obverses is almost the same on all three coins one can confidently group these issues together.

I do not feel it is possible yet to judge whether stylistic similarity in specific cases is due to the same artist producing the dies, or to the employment of various die-cutters from the same artistic school. The only attempt at identifying individual die-cutters in Sasanian numismatics has been made by Nikitin and Roth, but I am doubtful whether all their groupings can be substantiated.9 In some cases, it would appear that the same stylistic feature has been used by various generations of artists, such as the unusual depiction of the reverse figures leaning against the dotted border in the Herat mint from Shapur II (309-79) to Vahran V (420-38), well beyond the average life span of a single craftsman.10

Even if the abilities of individual die-cutters were different, and even if the same artist produced work of different quality at different times, one can still observe that the coins of a given group are homogenous when compared to other groups. A clear example is the Herat drachms of Vahran IV (388-99) and Yazdgerd I (399-420) (with mint name HLYDY or HLYDW). (Pl. 39, 19-20) Even though the obverse depiction of the ball of hair at the neck is somewhat different – possibly due to the fact that two different die-cutters produced these two dies, or simply because of the development of a single artist during his career – these two coins have so much in common that, even if they were not signed, one would be able to establish without any doubt that they belong together. One typical, and very obvious, feature is the broad and bold portrait. More specifically, one can cite the prominent depiction of the divine attributes in the crowns, as well as the careful and detailed treatment of the upper ribbons which have no parallels on

8 Sutherland, ‘Style in coinage’, p. 9. 9 A. Nikitin and G. Roth, ‘The earliest Arab-Sasanian coins’, NC (1995), pp. 133-4. The attribution

of pl. 26, nos. 14, 15 and 17 to the same artist does not really convince me. 10 Schindel, SNS 3, vol. 1, p. 51 with fig. 4.


any other coin of either king. In ideal cases – such as these HLYDY/HLYDW

drachms – typology and the execution of the legends offer other clues for attribution which are easier to define and prove than style which is always subjective. Discussion of stylistic phenomena can never replace looking critically at the coins themselves.

The identification of WH After these general remarks on style and its analysis, I will attempt to show how stylistic observations can greatly enhance our understanding of Sasanian mint signatures. One of the best examples is WH.Judging from the number of surviving examples,11 it represents one of the most prolific of all Sasanian mints so its location is of pivotal importance. So far, a consensus has existed that WH represents Weh-Ardashir, a foundation of Ardashir I (224-41) in the city complex of Ctesiphon.12 This identification is based only on the evidence of the bullae. When looking at the coins themselves one can see that it cannot be correct.

The main argument against locating WH at Weh-Ardashir is style. As mentioned above, one can see, especially under Vahran IV and Yazdgerd I, different stylistic groups which can be located in different regions of the Sasanian Empire.13 In these groups, the same stylistic criteria occur on coins with different mint signatures. This clearly proves that the dies were cut by the same mint personnel for different minting places. In addition to stylistic characteristics, peculiarities of typology or legends occur which often also support the conclusions drawn from the analysis of style. A good example of the latter phenomenon is the occurrence of obverse signatures on stylistically identical issues from the Fars mints of DAL,ART, BYŠ and others under Vahran IV.14

The question of which signature represented the Sasanian capital is important and will be discussed in more detail below. Suffice it here to say here that AS (Pl.38, 1) is the most plausible candidate. Under Vahran IV it had exactly the same style as the mobile court mint BBA (Pl. 38, 2), while WH was stylistically totally different from both AS and BBA. On the other hand, the WH drachms of Vahran IV (Pl. 38, 3) show the same typological and stylistic criteria as issues from the mints AWH (Ohrmazd-Ardashir) and AYL (Eran-khwarrah-Shapur). (Pl. 38, 4-5)On the obverses, considerable differences can be observed: the style of the portraits is much finer and of a much higher standard of craftsmanship in the

11 See the notes in Schindel, SNS 3, vol. 1 on “Münzstätten” of Vahran IV. to Kavad I. 12 A.D.H. Bivar, ‘A Sassanian hoard from Hilla’, NC (1963), p. 165; Göbl, ‘Münzfund von Seleucia’

(n. 1), especially pp. 246-8; Szaivert, Tätigkeit der s s nidischen Münzstätten (n. 1), vol. 1, p. 53; M.I. Mochiri, Étude de numismatique iranienne sous les Sassanides et Arabe-Sassanides 2 (Teheran, 1977), pp. 263-82; Gyselen, ‘Ateliers monétaires’ (n. 3), p. 210. Gyselen, ‘Sigles d’ateliers monétaires’ (n. 3), pp. 148-9 avoids a decision on which of the cities commencing with ‘Weh-’ or ‘Wahman-’ is meant by WH. H.M. Malek, ‘A survey of research on Sasanian numismatics’, NC(1993), p. 243 says that the identification is uncertain and lists various suggestions.

13 On this topic in detail Schindel, SNS 3, vol. 1, pp. 49; 291. 14 Schindel, SNS 3, vol. 1, pp. 306-7.


AS/BBA group, while the AWH/AYL/WH coins are, in comparison, rather deplorable. Another very typical feature of these three mints is the absence of the korymboi in the assistant figures’ crowns on the reverse – there is no parallel to this phenomenon in any other group of mints under Vahran IV. Less spectacular than style, but also noteworthy, is the difference in the placement of the mint signature on the reverse.15 In AS and BBA, the signatures are normally placed either to the left or right of the altar flames, running downwards. (Pl. 38, 1-2) In the AWH/AYL/WH stylistic group, there is first, more variation in where the signature is placed, and secondly, the letters are mostly arranged clockwise and are read from the inside like the reverse legends. (Pl. 38, 4-5) The form of the obverse legends supports these attributions. All AS and BBA issues have the ideogram ZY between the royal name and the title MLKA, ‘king’, while ZY never occurs on any Khuzistan issue. Finally, many more minor typological variants occur in the AWH/AYL/WH group than in the more standardised AS/BBA group.

The AWH/AYL/WH style can be observed on only a few coins from the beginning of Yazdgerd I’s rule,16 while for most of his reign the dies were apparently produced centrally for both Asuristan and Khuzistan. Only towards the end does Khuzistan become stylistically distinguishable once again. This local style can be observed under Vahran V as both BBA and AS (Pl. 38, 6) are stylistically markedly different from WH (Pl. 38, 7) which is once again very close in style to AW (Pl. 38, 8) and AY. The most obvious feature is the treatment of the reverse figures. On all coins in the AS/BBA group, they hold short barsom bundles; their feet are rather long and shown as a horizontal line and the assistants’ dress is depicted with vertical strokes. In the AWH/AYL/WH group, the barsom bundles are almost invariably long, even if it is sometimes difficult to distinguish dress from barsom; the feet are vertical, and the bodies are formed by two parallel strokes adorned with dots. Finally, the reverse figures on coins from the AWH/AYL/WH group are much taller than the ones from AS/BBA.

Gold dinars of the next ruler, Yazdgerd II (438-57), are known which feature a somewhat anachronistic obverse type insofar as the diadem ribbons commence above the ball of hair behind the king’s neck and not below it, as is the rule from Vahran IV onwards. Three different mints are recorded for this obverse type: WH

(Pl. 38, 9), AW (Pl. 38, 10) and AY (Pl. 38, 11). On the only gold coin which can be attributed to AS for stylistic reasons,17 a regular obverse type is employed (Pl.38, 12). Apart from typology, one can also see stylistic differences between WH,AW and AY on the one hand and AS on the other in, for instance, the treatment of the assistant figures on the reverse. In AS, their bodies are adorned with small vertical strokes as under Vahran V, while in AW, AY and WH, they consist of two

15 Schindel, SNS 3, vol. 1, pp. 179-80; 304. 16 Schindel, SNS 3, vol. 2, no. A9 from AWH.17 Schindel, SNS 3, vol. 1, p. 380.


dotted parallel lines. The diadem ribbons in general are shown smaller and in more detail in AS than on the Khuzistan issues.

Under Peroz (457-84), central die production was introduced for the entire Sasanian realm except Khurasan; thus analysis of style is no longer of any use for the location of mints, except of course in Khurusan. In the first half of the fifth century, however, the numismatic material has, I believe, yielded a clear and homogenous picture of very close links between the three mints WH, AW and AY, be they stylistic or typological. Out of these three, AW and AY can safely be located in the region of Khuzistan on the basis of both numismatic and sigillographic evidence,18 and also because Khuzistan is the only region where two very important cities whose names begin with the respective letters are situated. Since WH displays the same style as these two Khuzistan mints, it should be located in the same region. If one looks for a city of some importance – given the large monetary output of WH – located in Khuzistan the name of which begins with WH, the most plausible candidate is Jundy-Shapur under its official name Weh-Andiyok-Shapur.19 The full official name is attested on bullae in the form WH-ANTYWK-ŠHPWL.20 It was one of the most important cities in the Sasanian Empire21 and, according to Potts, the largest Khuzistan town in the fifth century, maybe second in size only to Ctesiphon itself.22 It would be very strange indeed if such a large and prosperous city did not have a mint of its own. The identification of WH with Jundy-Shapur proposed here fills this lacuna, and also solves the stylistic problems which are posed by the old location of WH in Asuristan. Even if one takes into account the possibility that single die cutters might have moved around the Sasanian realm, thus taking with them their individual style, the cumulative evidence shown on Plate 38 clearly supports the location of WH in Khuzistan, especially since these stylistic observations are valid for more than half a century. A single exception under Vahran IV23 from the itinerant mint BBA featuring an AS/BBA style obverse coupled with an AWH/AYL/WH reverse can be explained by the assumption that when the coin in question was struck, the court and its mint were stationed in Khuzistan, and that a local Khuzistan die cutter was employed to cut this reverse die.24

18 Schindel, SNS 3, vol. 1, pp. 151-2. 19 Interestingly enough, this identification has already been suggested by R. Göbl, ‘Aufbau der

Münzprägung’, in: F. Altheim and R. Stiehl, Ein asiatischer Staat. Feudalismus unter den Sasaniden und ihren Nachbarn (Wiesbaden, 1954), p. 93, although Göbl later changed his opinion and accepted Weh-Ardashir as a safe attribution.

20 R. Gyselen, La géographie administrative de l´empire sassanide. Les témoignages sigillographiques (Res Orientales 1) (Paris, 1989), pp. 114; 116.

21 For general information Gyselen, Géographie administrative, p. 75. 22 D.T. Potts, The Archeology of Elam. Formation and Transformation of an Ancient Iranian State

(Cambridge, 1999), p. 424. 23 Schindel, SNS 3, vol. 2, no. 32. 24 Schindel, SNS 3, vol. 1, p. 305.


The identification of AS This new attribution of WH to Weh-Andiyok-Shapur means that the location of AS becomes much more certain. Like WH, AS is one of the most prolific Sasanian mints from Vahran IV to the 22nd regnal year of Khusro I (531-79). The previously suggested location of Isfahan25 can be safely ruled out since the name of that city is written in Pehlevi sph`n, and thus does not begin with the letters AS.26 Other, more plausible, locations are either Asuristan, the name of the region in which the capital, Ctesiphon, was situated or, less likely, Aspanvar,27 part of the city complex of Ctesiphon. Both interpretations refer to Ctesiphon. Until now there has been no numismatic evidence either for or against this location but the new interpretation of WH allows one to identify AS with Ctesiphon for two reasons. First, since WH refers to Weh-Andiyok-Shapur in Khuzistan, and not to Weh-Ardashir in Asuristan, there is no other mint with a sufficiently large output of coin which could refer to Ctesiphon. Second, the stylistic similarity of BBA and AS, which can be observed from Vahran IV (Pl. 38, 1-2) to Vahran V, can be explained by the fact that the royal court often resided at Ctesiphon and thus both mints were normally located at the same place, i.e. Ctesiphon. The existence of two mints at the same place might be explained by the assumption that AS struck coins for the region of Asuristan and the Sasanian capital Ctesiphon, while BBA was fulfilling the monetary needs of the royal court itself.

The identification of GW Another important point which emerges from the study of style is the fact that the same mint abbreviation can stand for different places. This phenomenon is already known from the bullae, for example the abbreviations AP28 and MA.29 The clearest and most interesting case numismatically is GW which has traditionally been identified with Gurgan.30

25 Göbl, ‘Aufbau der Münzprägung’ (n. 19), p. 86; E. Eichler, ‘Die Hauptmünzstätten im sasanidischen Iran’, GN 6/21 (1971), p. 6; Szaivert, Tätigkeit der s s nidischen Münzstätten, vol. 1 (n. 1), p. 50; H. Simon, ‘Die s s nidischen Münzen des Fundes von Babylon. Ein Teil des bei Koldeweys Ausgrabungen 1900 gefundenen Münzschatzes’, Acta Iranica Varia 5/12 (1976), p. 196.

26 M. Back, Die sassanidischen Staatsinschriften. Studien zur Orthographie und Phonologie des Mittelpersischen der Inschriften zusammen mit einem etymologischen Index des mittelpersischen Wortguts und einem Textcorpus der behandelten Inschriften (Leiden, 1978), p. 257; Gyselen, Géographie administrative, (n. 20), p. 112.

27 Mochiri, Étude de numismatique iranienne 2 (n. 12), pp. 258-61; his arguments are somewhat invalidated by his incorrect reading of WYHC as VSP: see S. Tyler-Smith, ‘Sasanian mint abbreviations’ (review of Mochiri, Étude de numismatique iranienne 2), NC (1983), pp. 244-5.

28 It stands for both Abarshahr and Abhar, Gyselen, Géographie administrative (n. 20), pp. 113-14 and R. Gyselen, ‘La province sassanide d’Abhar. Nouvelles données dans les collections des musées royaux d’art et d’histoire de Bruxelles’, Studia Iranica 30/1 (2001), pp. 31-44 respectively.

29 There are bullae with MA in the centre which feature the name of the region Mahd (Media) or of the province Masabadan in the circular legend, Gyselen, Géographie administrative (n. 20), p. 119 and R. Gyselen, Nouveaux matériaux pour la géographie historique de l`empire sassanide: Sceaux administratifs de la collection Ahmad Saeedi (Paris, 2002), p. 70 respectively.

30 For an overview on this and other earlier locations Schindel, SNS 3, vol. 1, p. 159.


Gyselen challenged this interpretation on the basis of a Yazdgerd I drachm which clearly carries the full name GWDMY on the reverse.31 It goes without saying that the issue in question cannot originate from Gurgan which is spelled gwlg`n or gwlk`n in Pehlevi.32 In the case of this and similar Yazdgerd I drachms (Pl. 39, 13) there can be no doubt that they were struck in Fars because the use of a signature on the obverse, as well as of the full mint name on the reverse, is limited to Fars mints under Vahran IV and at the beginning of the reign of Yazdgerd I.33 Since the town suggested by Gyselen, Qum, is situated in Pahlav,34

not in Fars province, this cannot be the correct identification and one has to look for another candidate in Fars. The most plausible one is Juwaym, as already proposed by Mochiri.35

It is clear from stylistic considerations as well as the pattern of minting and historical evidence that not all coins with the abbreviation GW can refer to the same place on the more common drachms of Yazdgerd I’s successors. The drachms of Vahran V for example have a style which is totally different from the Yazdgerd I drachms from Juwaym.36 (Pl. 39, 15-16) Although one might argue that under different kings, different styles are to be encountered there is a Vahran V coin with a longer mint signature clearly reading GWL in exactly the same style as his GW coins.37 (Pl. 39, 14) Apart from the considerable stylistic differences, this coin cannot come from Juwaym because that name is spelled without the letter L. There can be little doubt that this issue, as well as the numerous drachms of distinctive style struck by Vahran V and Yazdgerd II, comes from the mint of Gurgan. Although there is some stylistic development between the early Vahran V issues and his later coins and those of his successor Yazdgerd II some features such as the treatment of the assistant figures and the carefully executed obverse legends link the earlier Vahran V drachms with later ones. One further argument for an eastern location is the broad flans which had been typical for eastern issues since Shapur II. The monetary output of GW is also significant. Table 1 shows the percentage of drachms struck at Gurgan and Khurasan out of the entire drachm production. For comparison the data for Asuristan has been added.38

31 R. Gyselen, ‘De quelques ateliers monétaires sasanides. I. Un prétendu atelier de Gurg n’, Studia Iranica 12/2 (1983), pp. 235-8.

32 Back, Staatsinschriften (n. 26), p. 217; Gyselen, Géographie administrative (n. 20), pp. 113; 119. 33 Schindel, SNS 3, vol. 1, pp. 306-7; 333-4. 34 Gyselen, Géographie administrative, p. 73. 35 M.I. Mochiri, ‘Petite liste de quelques ateliers sassanides inédits’, Iran 34 (1996), pp. 71-2. 36 Schindel, SNS 3, vol. 1, p. 357. 37 First published by H.M. Malek, ‘A fifth century hoard of Sasanian drachms’, Iran 33 (1995), no.

2. 38 Data is derived from Schindel; SNS 3, vol. 1, p. 183, based on the museum collections covered

there, as well as the Numismatic Central Card File at the Institute for Numismatics and Monetary History, Vienna University.


TABLE 1 Percentage of drachms struck at Gurgan, Khurasan and Asuristan

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

Vahran

IV

Yazdgerd

I

Vahran

V

Yazdgerd

IIPero

z

Valkash

Kavad I/1

st reig

n

Zamasp

Kavad I/2

ndrei

gn

%GurganKhurasanAsuristan

While clearly being of secondary importance well into the reign of Peroz, the coin production of GW suddenly increased under Valkash (484-8). As one can see from the total absence of Sasanian issues from any Khurasan mint until the second decade of the sixth century, Khurasan was lost to the Sasanians after the defeat of Peroz by the Hephthalites in 484.39 From that date onwards, Gurgan formed the frontier between the Sasanian and the Hephthalite realms. This explains why the monetary production of Gurgan dramatically increased after 484, since it would be natural for Gurgan to need more coin for paying tribute or soldiers stationed there. If one locates GW in Fars there is no obvious explanation for this phenomenon.

The identification of HL The mint signature HL can also be assigned to two different places. Most authors have attributed all coins with these two letters to the Khurasan mint of Herat.40 An analysis of style clearly proves that this is not correct for all HL issues. When the signature is first found under Vahran IV, (Pl.39, 17) all coins display the typical western style encountered, for example, in AS

(Pl. 38, 1) or BBA (Pl. 38, 2). We know that Herat was an active mint under this king since the full name, HLYDY, is commonly found on the reverse. (Pl. 39, 19)The stylistic differences between HL and HLYDY, which indicate that HL cannot

39 See on this topic N. Schindel, ‘The Sasanian Eastern Wars in the 5th Century: The Numismatic Evidence’ (to be published in the proceedings of the 5th Congress of the Societas Iranologica Europaea, held at Ravenna in 2003).

40 Göbl, ‘Aufbau der Münzprägung’ (n. 19), p. 90; Szaivert, Tätigkeit der s s nidischenMünzstätten, vol. 1, p. 51; H Gaube, Arabosasanidische Numismatik (Braunschweig, 1973), p. 96; Mochiri, Étude de numismatique iranienne 2, p. 75; Mochiri later changed his mind and also advocated Herat in Fars on the basis of the legends as well as style. For further invariable equations of HL with Herat in Khurasan see S. Tyler-Smith, ‘Sasanian Mint Abbreviations’, p. 242; Malek ‘Survey of Research’, p. 242. The signature is listed as uncertain by Göbl, ‘Münzfund von Seleucia’ (n. 1), no. 39.


refer to Herat in Khurason, are re-inforced by the fact that until the second reign of Kavad I (499-531) Khurasan is stylistically always very different from the rest of the Sasanian empire. This can again be seen on coins of Yazdgerd I, where HL

(Pl. 39, 18) and HLYDY – sometimes spelled HLYDW (Pl. 39, 20) – have nothing stylistically in common. There even is a Yazdgerd I drachm which appears to bear the mint indication HL on the obverse also, a typical feature of Fars province under Vahran IV and at the beginning of the reign of Yazdgerd I.41 Thus it is possible that the mint HL under these two kings was located in Fars, maybe in the city of Herat in the district of Stakhr.42 If this suggestion could be substantiated, the use of the same abbreviation – HL – could be explained by the fact that it referred to homonymous cities. The arguments are not as clear cut as for the issues of GW as the bulk of the ‘western’ HL issues under both Vahran IV and Yazdgerd I do not display the typical Fars style nor is the style homogeneous. Be that as it may, HL was a mint of secondary importance, compared with HLYDY.After the last appearance of the full name of the Khurasan mint in a rather degenerate form under Peroz,43 it disappeared after the king’s defeat by the Hephthalites in 484 and the loss of all Khurasan. When the mint signature HL

came into use again in the third decade of Kavad I’s reign its location in Khurasan is re-inforced by the reappearance of two other Khurasan mints, ML (Merv) and AP (Abarshahr), at roughly the same time.44

As already stated above, die production was centralised for the whole empire, except Khurasan, under Peroz and after this date stylistic analysis cannot be employed in the same fashion as for Vahran IV or Yazdgerd I.45 After a period of turmoil following Peroz’s death central die production was re-introduced in the second reign of Kavad, this time covering Khurasan too. Stylistic criteria cannot again be used to locate mints until the end of the Sasanian empire when SK – Sakastan – began to employ a style of its own.46 For any mint founded after c.450, one has to use other arguments such as statistical analyses and historical evidence. It is these two methods which I shall employ in the following treatment of the signature WYHC.

The identification of WYHC WYHC was a very important mint in later Sasanian times. Its identification has long been uncertain though it seems to represent a town whose name begins ‘Weh-az’. It is first known for regnal years 1747 (Pl. 39,

41 Schindel, SNS 3, vol. 2, no. 75. 42 H. Gaube and T. Leisten, Die Kernländer des Abb sidenreiches im 10./11. Jh. Materialien zur

TAVO-Karte B VII 6 [Beihefte zum Tübinger Atlas des Vorderen Orients, Reihe B (Geisteswissenschaften) Nr. 75] (Wiesbaden, 1994), p. 74; Mochiri, ‘Petite liste’ (n. 35), pp. 73-4.

43 Schindel, SNS 3, vol. 2, no. A35; no. A33 already features the shorter form of the signature, HL.44 Schindel, SNS 3, vol. 1, pp. 470; 490. 45 Schindel, SNS 3, vol. 1, p. 399. 46 See e.g. S. Tyler-Smith, ‘Coinage in the name of Yazdgerd III (AD 632-651) and the Arab

conquest of Iran’, NC (2000), p. 143. 47 Schindel, SNS 3, vol. 2, no. A25.


21) and 1848 of Kavad I, although only by very few specimens.49 Then, there is a unique drachm from year 12 of Kavad’s successor Khusro I50 (Pl. 39, 22) which,it has been suggested, is a mule of an obverse die of the thirties or forties of the reign of Khusro I with a reverse from year 12 of his successor Ohrmazd IV (579-90).51 I do not think the coin can be a hybrid and, since the reverse is the important side I will confine my discussion to that side. As long as the drachm is a Sasanian original, not an imitation, the important point is whether the reverse die dates to year 12 in the reign of Khusro I or Ohrmazd IV. Whether the die was muled with a later obverse to produce the piece under discussion is not relevant. The answer to the question is, I think, rather easy. One only has to compare the form of the attendants’ crowns. Under Ohrmazd IV, they merely consist of a semicircle which frames the dots which represent the eyes; above this is the korymbos. In the second decade of the reign of Khusro I, however, the two mural elements are still depicted on the reverse (cf. fig. 1). Since such a detailed treatment can be seen also on the WYHC year 12 drachm in question, I think we can be sure that its reverse die really dates to regnal year 12 of Khusro I, and not of Ohrmazd IV.

Khusro I Ohrmazd IV

FIG. 1

Leaving aside these rare issues, WYHC is one of the most prolific Sasanian mints from Khusro I’s 23rd regnal year onwards, (Pl. 39, 23) its pre-eminence stretching until the very end of the dynasty. It was been argued long ago by Bellinger52 that WYHC must represent Ctesiphon since it is the commonest mint signature found for short-lived kings such as Khusro III (c.630) (Pl. 39, 24)whom we know to have been crowned in Ctesiphon. Mochiri’s discussion of the

48 S. Tyler-Smith, ‘The Kav d hoard’, NC (2004), pp. 308-9 with pl. 39, no. 23. 49 In addition to the two coins cited above, I know only two more specimens which have been

published recently by M.I. Mochiri, ‘Foundation of Veh-az- mid-Kav d’, ONSN 182 (2004), nos 1-2. 50 The coin comes from Tom Mallon’s excellent homepage at http://www.grifterrec.com. 51 This suggestion has been brought forward by F. Gurnet in an email to SASAN-L dated March 13th

2003. 52 A.R. Bellinger, ‘A note on the Sassanian mint monograms’, Numismatic Review 3/2 (1946), p. 48.

The identification of the Khusros after 628 is somewhat difficult (H.M. Malek, ‘Xusro II or Xusro IV: a reply’, ONSN 137 (1993), pp. 7-9), but despite that, Bellinger’s argument is convincing.


numismatic material re-inforces this attribution.53AS, which I have argued above

stands for the Sasanian capital, was one of the most productive mints from its first appearance under Vahran IV until it suddenly stopped striking coins in regnal year 22 of Khusro I. WYHC immediately started operating on a large scale in the following year, i.e. regnal year 23. Thus, it seems very likely that AS was replaced by WYHC, and that both signatures refer to the same place, the city compound of Ctesiphon.

One possible argument against this is the fact that WYHC also occurs in the Arab-Sasanian series where it must be located in Fars, not in Iraq, because the Zubayrid governor Umar b. Ubaidallah who struck coins at WYHC is numismatically known – save for an issue from Kirman – only in Fars.54 A further argument for a Fars location is the existence of Arab-Sasanian copper coins with the signature WYHC, since such issues are typical for Fars, while no specimens are attributable to Asuristan.55 Another possible contradiction is the existence of the Kavad I coins with the signature WYHC since if this abbreviation is to be located at Ctesiphon it should represent Weh-az-Andiyok-Khusro, a town founded by Khusro I for settling the captured population of Antioch on the Orontes which the Sasanians had taken in 540, and not a town incorporating the name of Kavad.

The idea discussed above, that the same signature can refer to two different mint places is relevant to the location of WYHC. If one assumes that WYHC was used by two different mints at different times the problem of which town it represents at any given time can be solved very easily by the correct interpretation of the historical evidence. Under Kavad, WYHC referred to this king’s newly founded city, Weh-az-Amid-Kavad (Arrajan) in Fars. Since this mint never gained any importance, its signature could be transferred to Khusro I’s new town of Weh-az-Andiyok-Khusro. As Ctesiphon lost its importance after the fall of the Sasanian dynasty the abbreviation could once again be used by Weh-az-Amid-Kavad in Fars for the Arab-Sasanian issues. There may have been some problems for the Sasanian administration in distinguishing homonymous cities by the few letters available for mint signatures, especially since in the case of place names starting ‘Weh’ two possible variants, namely WH (Weh-Andiyok-Shapur/Jundy-Shapur) and WYH (maybe Weh-Kavad in Asuristan56) had already been taken. This interpretation of WYHC is not new since Stephen Album has already advocated a different location and meaning for WYHC in later Sasanian times compared to the Arab-Sasanian period,57 and recently, Susan Tyler-Smith

53 Mochiri, Étude de numismatique iranienne 2 (n. 12), especially pp. 260-1. 54 S. Album and T. Goodwin, SICA 1: The Pre-Reform Coinage of the Early Islamic Period (Oxford,

2002), pp. 21; 56; 65-7. 55 R. Gyselen, Arab-Sasanian Copper Coinage (Vienna, 2000), p. 78, types 48 and 49. 56 Schindel, SNS 3, vol. 1, p. 170. 57 Album, SICA 1, pp. 66-7.


has also shared the same view.58 The parallel cases of GW and HL add additional strength to the arguments for safely localising WYHC in the city compound of Ctesiphon.

I hope to have shown that a close inspection of Sasanian coins can lead to more reliable results than the analysis of bullae by themselves, and that in cases where numismatic and sigillographic evidence are not in accord, one has to give priority to the numismatic evidence. It is thus possible to gain new locations for some of the most important Sasanian mint abbreviations by the use of stylistic analysis combined with other numismatic and historic tools.

KEY TO PLATES 38-39

1. Vahran IV Å Drachm Type SNS Ia1/2a AS

2. Vahran IV Å Drachm Type SNS Ia1/2a BBA

3. Vahran IV Å Drachm Type SNS Ia1/2a WH

4. Vahran IV Å Drachm Type SNS Ib2/2a AWH

5. Vahran IV Å Drachm Type SNS Ia3/2a AYL

6. Vahran V Å Drachm Type SNS Ib1/2 AS

7. Vahran V Å Drachm Type SNS Ib2/2 WH

8. Vahran V Å Drachm Type SNS Ib2/2 AW

9. Yazdgerd II Ã Dinar Type SNS Ic2/1 WH

10. Yazdgerd II Ã Dinar Type SNS Ic2/1 AW

11. Yazdgerd II Ã Dinar Type SNS Ic2/1 AY

12. (En.) Yazdgerd II Ã Dinar Type SNS Ib1/2b. n.m (AS)13. Yazdgerd I Å Drachm Type SNS Ib1/1a GWDMY

14. Vahran V Å Drachm Type SNS Ib2/1 GWL

15. Vahran V Å Drachm Type SNS Ib2/1 GW

16. Vahran V Å Drachm Type SNS Ib2/2 GW

17. Vahran IV Å Drachm Type SNS Ia1/2a HL

18. Yazdgerd I Å Drachm Type SNS Ib1/1a HL

19. Vahran IV Å Drachm Type SNS Ia1/2a HLYDY

20. Yazdgerd I Å Drachm Type SNS Ia1/1b HLYDW

21. Kavad I/2nd reign Å Drachm Type SNS Ib/1a WYHC, regnal year 17

22. Khusro I Å Drachm Type SN II/2 WYHC, regnal year 12

23. Khusro I Å Drachm Type SN II/2 WYHC, regnal year 23

24. Khusro III Å Drachm Type SN I/1 WYHC, regnal year 2

58 Tyler-Smith, ‘Kav d hoard’ (n. 48), pp. 308-9.

PLATE 38

SCHINDEL, SASANIAN MINT ABBREVIATIONS (1)

1 2 3 4

5 6 7 8

9 10 11 12

PLATE 39

SCHINDEL, SASANIAN MINT ABBREVIATIONS (2)

13 14 15 16

17 18 19 20

21 22 23 24

sasanian mint abbreviations: the evidence of style

Documents