Just bought this one. Call this the start of my ancient imitation collection. Hunnic Tribes, Hephthalites. Uncertain. Circa 7th century AD. AR Drachm (31mm, 3.48 g, 3h) Imitating a Sasanian drachm of Hormazd IV from the Balkh mint, dated RY 11. Countermarks of Phromo Kesaro, applied late 7th to early 8th centuries AD. Crowned bust right; c/m: human head left Fire altar flanked by two attendants; c/m: ΦPOPO in Baktrian. Göbl, Dokumente -; D. Schnädelbach ONS Newsletter 169 (Spring 2001), p. 3. For c/m’s: Göbl, Dokumente KM -, 59 var stainless
Its unusual for them to imitate that ruler, most imitations done by Hepthalites were of Peroz coins. This was because they captured him and as ransom had many donkey loads of Peroz coins given in exchange. Since so much of their money was Peroz coins, that is what they usually copied on their own. I would want to look at that obverse versus Peroz and Hormizd coins to see if they were really copying Hormizd. To me it looks like a Zabulistan issue, as those are usually well worn dies. I have one with the obverse die worn down to the nub by the time it was used, imprinted just a mash on the obverse. Excellent countermark, btw. It is very scarce to get such clear countermarks like that. Great coin! Chris Edit: Looking at it more it sure isn't a Peroz imitation. Interesting find. Btw, I wouldn't call these "imitations", the Hepthalites simply made coins similar to what was in circulation near them. Its not an imitation any more than Japanese and Vietnamese cash coins were imitations of Chinese. They are simply similar because in that area of the world that is what money looked like. I would call it a "local issue" more than imitation myself. If it did not have the countermark then I would call it a contemporary imitation.
Thanks for the replies, guys. While it technically is a local issue, it is defined as an imitation because it imitated an official coin of the Sassanian empire. Within the empire, these coins would have hardly any value (if any). The same with Celtic coinage, they imitated Greek types (Alexander the Great Drachm and Tetradrachm, for example) but were used within the tribes making it a local coin. When the Hepthalites, Celtic, or any other make coins similar to an offical mints example, that would be defined as imitating. stainless
I fail to understand several things about this issue but leading the way is the connection to Phromo Kesaro. The reverse c/m (Baktrian or Greek?) seems to read ΦOPO rather than ΦPOPO. Many specimens are weak on this mark but I'll add here one that seems clear: While not really related to this coin, a similar one made my latest page http://www.forumancientcoins.com/dougsmith/gadpaisa.html discussing a series on imitative coins that are several steps farther removed from the Sasanian originals. We could ask the question when a copy becomes far enough removed from the original that it stops being a copy and becomes a type of its own. The Hephthalite coin shown by stainless maintains the mintmark and date of the original long after those were current so I'd call the issue imitative. I have not seen one without the two c/m's but the one on my page shows the third c/m. I have no good feeling about the when, where and why of any of these marks. It seems likely that the coins relate in some way to tribute payments like the ones made following the capture of Peroz and the Greek word for 'tribute' is ΦOPO so I tend in that direction. Whatever they are, there have been a lot of these on the market recently suggesting a large find being disbursed.
Probably just imitatives, but if I see a contemporary counterfeit I like at the right price I'll grab it. stainless
Doug, I'm going to PM you in a minute about Phromo Kesaro, but the type you show in that link I've seen one other with that countermark (I think on CNG). stainless
I've probably seen half a dozen with 3 marks now but two is much more common. I have seen photos of a coin showing just the reverse FORO mark as well so perhaps the three were all applied separately. When I wrote my page on the Gadhaiya Paisa I mentioned that I would like to know enough to have a page on the Hephthalites but not only do I not, I wonder if anyone does. Tom Mallon had a great site but still lists them as 'Huns from Questionable centers'. http://www.grifterrec.com/coins/huns/huns6.html
I didn't realize his coin was one of the tribute countermarked ones. I have walked through the logic of these, (in my mind at least), and I consider them Hepthalite issues, for payment to the Turks. First, they were obviously not Sassanid issues, and if struck by the Hepthalites to pay to the Sassanids the Persian would not have wanted such close copies of their own coinage. The dating of these, as well, seem to indicate past 570 so it would be after the were defeated by the Turks and Sassanids. In that era a lot of local Hepthalite lords were allowed to rule in places like Zabulistan and simply pay tribute to the Turk overloards. Therefor, I always thought these were simply Hepthalite coins struck as payment to Turks, but do not know whether the Hepthalites or the Turks countermarked them. I do not know if that helps, but is what I can piece together from my references. I have 10 of these purchased from CNG a while ago, so I had looked into the background. Chris Btw you can usually find these coins with and without countermarks. That is another aspect of who struck them and why I considered. It simply does not answer who struck the countermarks, only why.
