[Pramāṇa](https://indike.org/pramana/) › [Studies](https://indike.org/pramana/ins) › [General history and culture](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.general) › [The Early History of India, from 600 B.C. to the Muhammadan Conquest, including the Invasion of Alexander the Great](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.general.smith-1924) › c28.64 # The Early History of India, from 600 B.C. to the Muhammadan Conquest, including the Invasion of Alexander the Great c28.64 The Early History of India, from 600 B.C. to the Muhammadan Conquest, including the Invasion of Alexander the Great c28.64 - **Language:** English ### [c28.64](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.general.smith-1924.c28.64) ¹ The chief supporters of the view that Kanishka and his immediate successors preceded the Kadphises kings, are Fleet (\*J. R. A. S.\*, 1903, 1905, 1906, 1913, various papers), Dr. O. Franke, of Berlin (\*Beiträge aus chinesischen Quellen zur Kenntniss der Türk-völker und Skythen Zentralasiens\*, Berlin, 1904), and Mr. James Kennedy. Franke lays stress on the fact that Chinese historians, as distinguished from Buddhist writers, never mention Kanishka. But he himself sufficiently answers this argument by the remark that ‘with the year 124 A. D. the source was dried up from which the chronicler could draw information concerning the peoples of Turkestan’ (p. 71; see also p. 80). The other argument on which he relies is based on the well-known story telling how, in 2 B. C., a Yüe-chi king communicated certain Buddhist books to a Chinese official. The inference drawn is that the king in question must have been Kanishka. I admit the premise, that is to say, the fact that in the year 2 B. C. the king of Yüe-chi knew and cared something about Buddhism; but I deny the conclusion drawn by Franke and Sylvain Lévi. There is no difficulty in devising better explanations of the admitted fact. Franke (p. 96) greatly underrates the power and influence of Kanishka. This misunderstanding appears to be due to the learned author's avowed indifference to Indian archaeological evidence (p. 100). It seems to me that no historical problem can be solved satisfactorily without a careful review of the evidence of all kinds, and that reasoning which shrinks from grappling with certain classes of facts cannot claim to be decisive. The evidence now obtained from the excavations at Taxila and further research prove clearly that the order which I have adopted in the text is correct. - [Previous: c28.63](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.general.smith-1924.c28.63) - [Next: c28.65](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.general.smith-1924.c28.65) - [Up: c28](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.general.smith-1924.c28) --- Source: [https://indike.org/pramana/ins.general.smith-1924.c28.64](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.general.smith-1924.c28.64) · Pramāṇa