Indian Antiquary Vol 46

Author(s): Richard Carnac Temple, Devadatta Ramkrishna Bhandarkar
Publisher: Swati Publications

Page 283

NOVEMBER, 1917]
THE DATE OF KANISHKA
269
Thus Mr. V. A. Smith says: "The whole story is pure mythology, and the geography is as inythical as the tale itself ...... After much consideration I am now of opinion that the story of the personal ministration and the martyrdom of St. Thomas in the realms of Gondophares and Mazdai should not be accepted.” 26 Dr. Fleet also expresses a similar but a more moderate opinion as follows: "Now in the Christian tradition there are details which tend to prevent us from placing implicit reliance upon it. And as regards its external bearings, it would hardly suffice, standing alone, to allow us to introduce into the early history, as a proved fact, the existence, at some time between about A.D. 33 and 69 of two kings of India, or of parts thereof, whose names should be found in the Gudnaphar, Gundaphar, Goundaphoros or Gundaforus, and the Mazdai, Misdaios or Mes deus of the tradition. 27 Mr. Burkitt who has made a special study of the subject is also of opinion that " That the stories in the Acts of St. Thomas have little or no historical basis is indeed almost self-evident."
The tradition about Gondophares therefore cannot be accepted as an historical fact, unless it is corroborrated by independent evidence. Reliable independent evidence however there is none, and scholars do not even agree as to the bearing of the numismatic and palæographic facts with regard to the question. Dr. Fleet and Mr. R. D. Banerji do not hesitate to place Kanishka before Gondophares, while Dr. Bühler, Dr. Thomas, Mr. V. A. Smith, Mr. Rapson and others would reverse the position. I am inclined to accept the latter view, and hold it as an established fact, on numismatic and palæographic grounds, that Kanishka flourished later than Gondophares. But the specific date proposed for Gondophares on this ground possesses little value, as the date of Kanishka itself is open to dispute and forms the subject-matter of the present discussion. There is thus no good ground for the assumption that Gondophares flourished in the middle of the first century A.D.
The above discussions make it quite clear that no serious objection can be opposed to the results obtained by referring the dates under consideration to the era of A. D. 78.
The Chinese evidence is thus corroborrated by the results deduced from Indian inscriptions regarding the date of Kushan sovereignty. We have seen that, by referring the Indian inscriptions to the well-known era beginning in A.D. 78, the date of the Indo-Parthian king Gondophares falls in A.D. 181 and that of the Kadphises kings between A.D. 191 and 214. The Chinese evidence also shows that Kozoulo-Kadphises defeated the Parthians and conquered Kabul, and that his son conquered India, shortly before A.D. 220. This perfect agreement between two such different sources of information shows that we are on the right track.
It follows from what has been said before that Kanishka must be placed after A.D. 214. The silence of Fan-Ye regarding Kanishka seems to carry this limit to about A.D. 220. We must therefore look for the initial point of the Kanishka era very near this date, for he cannot well be very far removed from Wema-Kadphises. As I have said before, we should, whenever practicable, avoid the assumption of a brand new era for the existence of which there is no actual evidence at all. Our choice must therefore fall upon a known era which commences close to A.D., 220 if there be any. Such an era is to be found in the so-called “ Traikataka, Kalachuri or Chedi era," the initial point of which falls in A.D. 248-249, and assuming our main arguments to be correct, there can be scarcely any hesitation in looking upon Kanishka as the inaugurator of the era.
26 Early History of India, 3rd Edition, pp. 233-234.
RAS., 1905, p. 227.