________________
NOVEMBER, 1917)
THE DATE OF KANISHKA
261
THE DATE OF KANISHKA. BY RAMESH CHANDRA MAJUMDAR, M.A., CALCUTTA. THE most characteristic feature of all the recent discussion about the date of Kanishka is the tacit admission of the scholars that the initial year of his reign must be either 58 B.C. or A.D. 78. Both the theories are, however, beset with serious difficulties that have been quite clearly brought forth in the discussion held in the hall of the Royal Asiatic Society of Great Britain and Ireland. I propose, therefore, to offer my own views about the matter, which are substantially different from those mentioned above.
Two classes of evidence alone throw direct light on the question of Kanishka: the Chinese historical texts, and Indian coins and inscriptions. I believe that if they are interpreted without any bias, they agree in placing Kanishka in the first half of the third century A.D. I propose to show how the evidence of Chinese history directly leads to this inference, which is again supported by the Indian evidence when interpreted without any pre-existing bias.
Chinese Evidence: Two Chinese historical texts throw important light upon the history of the Indo-Kushans. These are the “Heou Han Chou” or the "History of the Later Han Dynasty" and the "Wei-lio ” The former covers the period between A. D. 25 and 220 and was composed by Fan-Ye who died in A.D. 445. The latter was composed by Yu Houan between A.D. 239 and 265, and the events mentioned in it come down to the period of Emperor Ming (A. D. 227-239).3
Fan-Ye gives the following accounts of the Kushan conquest of India :
"In old days the Yue-chi were vanquished by the Hioungnu. They then went to Tahia and divided the kingdom among five gabgous,' viz. those of Hieou-mi, Chouang-ii, Kouei-chouang, Hitouen and Tou-mi. More than hundred years after that, the Yabgou of Kouei-chouang (Kushan) named K'ieou-tsieou-kio (Kozoulo, Kadphises) attacked and vanquished the four other 'Yabgous 'and called himself king; the name of his kingdom was Kushan. He invaded Ngan-si (Parthia) and took possession of the territory of Kaofu (Kabul) He also overcame Pouta and Kipin (Kasmir ?) and became completely master of these kingdoms. K'ieou-tsieou-kio died at the age of inore than eighty. His son Yen-Kaotchen (Demo-Kadphises) sacceeded him as king. In his turn he conquered India and established there a Chief' for governing it. From this time the Yue-chi became extremely powerful. All the other countries designate them Kushan after their king, but the Han retain the old name and call them Ta-Yue-che.”
In the course of his description of India Fan-Ye adds the following >
“At this time all these Indian kingdoms were subject to the Yue-chi. The Yue-chi had killed their king and installed a Chief'to administer the government."!
Now if we altogether banish from our mind all preconceived theories regarding the Kushan Chronology the meaning of the passages quoted above offers no difficulty. As FanYe dates past events by referring them to distinct chronological periods (apparently the Chinese equivalent of our method of dating in the years of an era) it appears plainly, from the
1 JRAS., 1913, pp. 627-650, 910-1042. ? These were propounded at first in a thesis submitted to the Calcutta University in October, 1912. 3 My accounts of these books are based on the French translations that appeared in Toung Pao,
1907, (p. 163 ff), and 1905, (p. 519 ff.) T'oung Pao, 1907, p. 193-4.
