IRANIAN
HUNS
Bactria
and the Hindu Kush
The
term Iranian Huns is sometimes used for a group of different tribes
that lived in Afghanistan and neighboring areas between the fourth
and seventh centuries and expanded into northwest India. They are
roughly equivalent to the Huns. They also threatened the northeast
borders of Sasanian Persia and forced the Shahs to lead many ill-documented
campaigns against them.
The
term was introduced by Robert Göbl in the 1960s and is based
on his study of coins. The term "Iranian Huns" coined
by Göbl has been sometimes accepted in research, especially
in German academia, and reflects how some of the namings and inscriptions
of the Kidarites and Hephthalites used an Iranian language, and
the bulk of the population they ruled was Iranian. Their origin
is controversially discussed. While Göbl describes four groups,
recent research sometimes describes the Xionites as a fifth group.
In recent research, it is debated whether the new arrivals came
as one wave or several waves of different peoples.
"Hun"
is used in the broad sense and these people may have been partly
non-Iranian. Until the spread of Islam and the re-appearance of
the Chinese under the Tang about 700 AD, the sources for central
Asian history are poor.
Related
to the Iranian Huns are the Uar, Hunas and uncertain terms from
various languages like "White Hun", "Red Hun"
and others.
Problems
with sources and names :
The Iranian Huns are not to be confused with the Huns proper, that
is, Attilla’s people. Sources are very thin. We have a few
written reports from Late antiquity, from China and from India where
they are referred to as Hunas. Much of our information comes from
the study of coins, of which many have been found. These coins raise
many problems of chronology and interpretation. Furthermore, coins
of the Iranian Huns cannot always be assigned to a definite ruler.
In
the fourth century various central Asian tribes began to attack
the Persian Sasanian Empire. The sources sometimes call these people
'Huns', but their origin is unclear. It is probable that they were
not related to the Huns who appeared on the south Russian steppe
about 375 and attacked the Roman Empire. The two terms should be
clearly separated. Like 'Scythian', ‘Hun’ in its various
forms was used loosely by ancient historians to refer to various
steppe tribes of which they knew little. In modern research, it
is often accepted that the term 'Hun' was often used, because of
its fame, for various mixed groups and is not to be understood as
the name of a concrete ethnic group.
Xionites
:
The Xionites were not included in Robert Göbl's classification
because they left no coinage. More recent research has found a connection
between the Xionites and Göbl's first wave of Iranian Huns.
Ca.
350 a group called the Xionites began to attack the Sassanid Empire.
They conquered Bactria, but Shapur II eventually defeated them.
Later they allied with the Persians, participated in the Roman-Persian
War and joined in the Siege of Amida (359) under their king Grumbates.
Written reports come from Ammianus Marcellinus, among others. The
Middle Persian term Xyon seems to be related to both 'Xionite' and
'Hun' but does not imply that all groups with this name were related
or ethnically homogenous. Among the Iranian Huns, except possibly
the Xionites, we can recognize definite Iranian elements, notably
the Bactrian language as an administrative language and coin inscriptions.
Kidarites
:
Portrait of Kidarites king Kidara, circa 350-386. The coinage of
the Kidarite Huns imitated Sasanian imperial coinage, with the exception
that they displayed clean-shaven faces, instead of the beards of
the Sasanians, a feature relating them to Altaic rather than Iranian
lineage.
Göbl’s first group were the Kidarites who near the end
of the fourth century were involved in the aftermath of the fall
of the Kushan Empire (after 225, see Kushano-Sasanian Kingdom).
Recent research has the Kidarites as a clan of the Xionites, or
somehow derived from them so that the two groups cannot be strictly
distinguished.Both groups appear as serious opponents of the Persians.
Priscus said that the Sasanids fought 'Kidarite Huns'. This was
probably at the time of Bahram V (420-438) and certainly the time
of Yazdegerd II (438-457). The Persians are known to have paid tribute
to the Kidarites.
The
name Kidarites comes from their first known ruler, Kidara (circa
350-385). They made coins in imitation of the Kushano-Sasanids who
had previously ruled the area. Many coin-hoards have been found
in the Kabul area which allows us to date the start of their rule
to about 380. Kidarite coins found in Gandhar suggest that their
rule sometimes extended into northern India. Their coins are inscribed
in Bactrian, Sogdian and Middle Persian and in the Brahmi script.
Their
power fell in the later fifth century. Their capital, Balkh, fell
in 467 probably after a great victory of Peroz I over their king
Kunkhas. Their rule in Gandhara lasted until at least 477, for in
that year they sent an embassy to the Northern Wei dynasty. They
seem to have held out in Kashmir a little longer, and then all traces
disappear. By this time the Hephthalites had established themselves
in Bactria and the Alkhons had driven the Kidarites out of the land
south of the Hindu Kush.
Alkhons
:
Portrait of king Khingila, founder of the Alchon Huns, c.
430 - 490 CE
The second wave was the Alkhons who established themselves in the
Kabul area around 400. Their history must be reconstructed almost
exclusively from coin-hoards. Their coins are based on Sassanid
models, probably because they took over the Persian mint at Kabul.
The Bactrian word "Alxanno" is stamped on their coins,
from which we derive the name "Alkhon". It is not clear
whether this word means a tribe, or a ruler, or is a royal title.
Under
their king Khingil (died about 490) they attacked Gandhar and drove
out the Kidarites. Their following attacks on Indian princes seem
to have been unsuccessful. In the early sixth century they expanded
from Gandhar to northwest India and practically destroyed the rule
of the Guptas, whose coins they imitated.
This
claim of an Alkhon invasion is based entirely on coin-finds since
Indian sources call all of the northern invaders 'Huns', including
perhaps the Hephthalites. Under Toraman and his son Mihirakul (515-540/50?)
they were especially aggressive. Mihirakul is portrayed negatively
and is accused of persecuting Buddhists. Around the middle of the
sixth century their power in north India broke down. Mihirakul suffered
a serious defeat in 528 and thereafter his power was limited. His
capital was Sakal in Punjab which was once an important Indo-Greek
center. After his death (550?) they stopped pressing their attacks.
Despite its short duration the Hun invasion was politically and
culturally devastating for India. Later some of the Alkhons seem
to have returned to Bactria.
Nezak
:
Nezak Huns ruler, circa 460 - 560 CE
Göbl’s third wave were the Nezak Huns who settled around
Kabul. Early scholars called them 'Napki'. The exact chronology
is unclear. The first written accounts come from the early seventh
century. Some place their foundation in the late sixth century after
the fall of the Hephthalites. The coins imply a foundation in the
late fifth century. If we accept the early dating they were under
pressure from the Hephthalites, but by the later dating they profited
from the Hephthalite collapse.
Their
coins are strongly based on Sassanid models but are clearly recognizable
by their distinctive bulls-head crowns which allow the coins to
be divided into types. It seems that returning Alkhon groups met
the Nizaks and produced an Alkhon-Nizak mixed language.
It
is certain that they expanded to Gandhar and minted coins there.
Chinese sources from the early seventh century prove that their
capital was Kapis. Their remnants south of the Hindu Kush seem to
have been destroyed by the Arab conquest in the late seventh century.
Hephthalites
:
A probable Hephthalite ruler, murals from Dilberjin Tepe
The fourth and most important wave were the Hephthalites who arrived
in the mid fifth century. As with the other groups an exact chronology
is difficult to establish. From later Perso-Arabic sources such
as Al-Tabari it appears that they were opponents of the Persians
already in the first half of the fifth century, although the sources
use the vague term “Turk”. The few reports of Greco-Roman
authors, who often had little knowledge of events so far east, made
little distinction between the different groups and it seems more
probable that they referred to other Iranian Huns who arrived before
the Hephthalites proper. They were called "White Huns"
by Procopius who gives some information. Their coins are based on
current Persian models.
To
the end of the fifth century they had spread from eastern Tocharistan
(Bactria) and brought several neighboring areas under control. They
expanded not to India but to Transoxana. The Hunas reported from
Indian sources were probably Alkhons (see above). By the beginning
of the sixth century they controlled a significant area in Bactria
and Sogdia.
The
Hephthalites had many conflicts with the Persians. In 484 Peroz
I fell in battle against the Hephthalites, who had defeated him
before. In 498/99 they restored Kavadh I to the throne. The Persians
seem to have paid tribute, at least some of the time. Among the
Iranian Huns the Hephthalites were the most serious threat to the
Persians. Syrian and Armenian sources report repeated Sassanid attempts
to secure their northeast border which led to disaster for Peroz
I who had previously defeated the Kidarites. According to Procopius
they had an effective ruling system with a king at the top and,
at least after the conquest of Bactria and Sogdia, were no longer
nomads. They used Bactrian language as an administrative language
and used the urban centers of their realm, notably Gorgo (location?)
and Balkh. Around 560 their realm was destroyed by an alliance of
Persians and Gokturks. Hephthalite remnants lasted until the Arab
conquest in the late seventh and early eighth centuries.
Source
:
https://en.wikipedia.org/
wiki/Iranian_Huns