91 The Kidarites first came to the attention of scholars by the references to them in Greek and Chinese his- torical texts. The Greek historian Priscus, in his account of the history of the late roman empire and its encounters with the Huns, referred to a group of Huns, as the ‘Huns called Kidarites’ (Ουννους τους Κιδαριτας καλουμενους, Priscus, Fragment 33, blockley 1983: 336–337; Ουννους … τους Κιδαριτας λεγομενους, Fragment 41.1, blockley 1983: 346–347), ‘Kidarite Huns’ (Ουννων των Κιδαριτων, Fragment 41.3, block- ley 1983: 348–349; τους Κιδαριτας Ουννους, Fragment 51, blockley 1983: 360–361) or simply as ‘Huns’ (των Ουννων, Fragment 41.3, blockley 1983: 348–349) or ‘Kidarites’ (Κιδαριτων, Fragment 47, blockley 1983: 354–355). These Kidarite Huns were reported as occupying a territory with a shared border with the Sasanian empire and being in conflict with the Sasanians (‘Parthians’), during the reign of Yazdagird ii (438–457) (Priscus 41.3) and directly with the Sasanian emperor Peroz (459–484) in 464/5 (Priscus 41.1; blockley 1985: 66), 467 (Priscus 47 and 51). in the report of 465, the new Kidarite leader is identified as Kounchas (Κουνχας, Fragment 41.3), a young man not yet old enough to have children. The cause of the conflict between the Sasanians and Kidarites was the halting by Peroz’s father Yazdagird ii of the payment of tribute by the Sasanians to the Kidarites. in 467, the Persians defeat the Kidarites and capture their city balaam (Βαλααμ, Fragment 51) (enoki 1969: 18–22; blockley 1983: 349 and 396, note 163). The Chinese chronicles of the Northern Dynasties (Beishi 97.11b) and of the Wei Dynasty (Weishu 102.8b) record that the ‘Da Yuezhi’ (Great Yuezhi) capital was at ‘boluo’ (balkh) and that their king called ‘Jiduoluo’ (ancient pronunciation kjie-ta-la) who was under pressure from the ‘ruanruan’ (ruru), a nomad group of inner Asia, crossed the great mountains and, going southwards, invaded india (Tianzhu). They also record that the five kingdoms north of Gandhara (Qiantuoluo) were subject to his rule. elsewhere (Beishi 97.13a and Weishu 102.10a), they report that he moved westwards under pressure from the Xiongnu (Huns) and had appointed his son to rule in Fulousha (Peshawar). His son’s kingdom was called ‘Xiao Yuezhi’ (Lesser Yuezhi) and its people were like the Xiongnu and the Qiang (Tibetans); they moved around following their cattle and used gold and silver coins (Zürcher 1968: 372–374). enoki (1969: 1) suggested that this report was based on information provided to the court of the Northern Wei emperor Taiwu (424– 452) by visiting Da Yuezhi merchants during the period 425–452 (enoki 1969: 1) or by Dong Wan, the Chinese emissary sent to the West in 437 (enoki 1969: 8). Although there are some problems related to the transmission of these texts, particularly in terms of the surviving Weishu being a reconstructed text based largely on the Beishi, rather than the original, the association of this information concerning Kidara and his son with the Wei period does not need to be questioned. There are, however, strong reasons to presume that the information has been shaped by the references to the Da Yuezhi in the Han period chronicles. What the Beishi and Weishu say about Kidara can be recognised as contaminated by the descriptions in the Hanshu and Hou Hanshu of the Da Yuezhi and their ruler, first Kushan king Kujula Kadphises (Ghirshman 1948: 78, enoki 1969: 15; Cribb 1990: 181; Grenet 2002: 205). The Han chronicles can be seen as the source for the details such as the statements that the ‘westward’ movement of the king was under pressure from the Xiongnu, that their capital was at balkh, that they moved ‘southward’ over the mountains, that they were J oe C ribb The Kidarites, The Numismatic evidence. With an Analytical Appendix by A. oddy