The Early History of India, from 600 B.C. to the Muhammadan Conquest, including the Invasion of Alexander the Great c28.61

c28.61

Kanishka unquestionably belonged to the Kushān section of the Yüe-chi nation, as did the Kadphises kings, and there does not seem to be sufficient reason for believing that he was unconnected with them.¹ The coins of both Kadphises II and Kanishka, found together in many places, frequently display in the field the same four-pronged symbol, and agree accurately in weight and fineness, besides exhibiting a close relationship in the obverse devices.² If, as some scholars hold, the group of kings comprising Kanishka, Vāsishka, Huvishka, and Vāsudeva preceded Kadphises I, the coins of the two princes last named should be found together, as they are not, and those of Kadphises II and Kanishka should not be associated, as they are. We must accept the Chinese evidence that Kadphises II (Yen-kao-ching) 'conquered T'ien-chu (India), and then set up generals, who governed in the name of the Yüe-chi'. Nobody can dispute the fact that Kanishka, Vāsishka, and Huvishka were well established in power at Mathurā on the Jumna as well as in Kashmīr and in the intermediate Panjāb. It is not apparent how they could have attained that position prior to the 'conquest of India' by Kadphises II, as attested by the Chinese historian. Without further pursuing in detail a tedious archaeological argument, it will suffice to say here that ample and conclusive reason can be shown for holding that the great majority of Indianists are right in placing the Kanishka group directly after that of the Kadphises kings. Our knowledge is so limited that difficulties remain, whatever theory be adopted, but the ordinary arrangement of the royal names appears to be strictly in accordance with the history of other nations, and with the phenomena of artistic, literary, and religious development.¹