[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 # The Early History of India, from 600 B.C. to the Muhammadan Conquest, including the Invasion of Alexander the Great c28: Appendix M. The Christians of St. Thomas The Early History of India, from 600 B.C. to the Muhammadan Conquest, including the Invasion of Alexander the Great c28 - **Language:** English ### Appendix M. The Christians of St. Thomas ### [c28.2](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.general.smith-1924.c28.2) In this Appendix I confine myself to the limited task of justifying the propositions in the text. It is out of the question to discuss fully the problems connected with the legend of St. Thomas and the origin of the ancient congregations of the 'Christians of St. Thomas' in Southern India. The following books are cited under the names of their respective authors:— (1) MACKENZIE, G. T.—'History of Christianity in Travancore', 3rd ed., in \*The Travancore State Manual\*, 1906, vol. ii, pp. 114–219. (2) RAE, G. MILNE.—\*The Syrian Church in India\*. (Blackwood, 1892.) (3) MEDLYCOTT, BISHOP A. E.—\*India and the Apostle Thomas\*. (Nutt, 1905.) (4) RICHARDS, W. J.—\*The Indian Christians of St. Thomas\*. (Bemrose, 1908.) ### [c28.3](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.general.smith-1924.c28.3) The seven churches founded by St. Thomas are enumerated by Richards (p. 77) as (1) Kotta-kāyalil, (2) Gōkamangalam, (3) Niranam, (4) Chayil, (5) Kurakēni, (6) Quilon, (7) Palūr. Mackenzie gives the same list, with some variation of spelling, except that he substitutes Maliankara for Kurakēni. Rae (p. 361) gives the list as (1) Cranganore, (2) Quilon, (3) Palur, (4) Parur, (5) South Pallipuram ¹ or Kokamungalum, (5) Neranum, (7) Nellakkul, called also Chael or Shail. Richards is responsible for the statement that ### [c28.4](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.general.smith-1924.c28.4) ¹ 'Palli' in the name Pallipuram means 'church' or any non-Hindu place of worship. ### [c28.5](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.general.smith-1924.c28.5) 'One of the seven churches founded by St. Thomas was at a place named Chayal in the eastern hills of Travancore. It has long been abandoned, owing to wild animals, but the ruins remain, and would repay antiquarian research' (p. 91). ### [c28.6](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.general.smith-1924.c28.6) I cannot explain the discrepancies in the lists, or say anything more about the alleged ruins at Chayal (\*alias\* Nellakkul, Chael, or Shail). ### [c28.7](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.general.smith-1924.c28.7) St. Thomas is believed to have ordained priests from two families: namely, one at Shankarapuri, which died out, and the other at Pakalōnmattam, which survived into the nineteenth century, and supplied archdeacons in the Portuguese and bishops in the Dutch period (Mackenzie, p. 137; Richards, p. 76). ### [c28.8](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.general.smith-1924.c28.8) 'There is no doubt,' Mr. V. Nagam Aiya observes, 'as to the tradition that St. Thomas came to Malabar and converted a few families of Nambudiris, some of whom were ordained by him as priests, such as ### [c28.9](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.general.smith-1924.c28.9) those of Sankarapuri and Pakalomattam.¹ For in consonance with this long-standing traditional belief in the minds of the people of the Apostle's mission and labours among high-caste Hindus, we have \[it\] before us to-day the fact that certain Syrian Christian women, particularly of a Desom called Kunnamkolam, wear clothes as Nambudiri women do, move about screening themselves with huge umbrellas from the gaze of profane eyes as those women do, and will not marry, except perhaps in exceptional cases and that only recently, but from among dignified families of similar aristocratic descent. This is a valuable piece of evidence of the conduct of the community, corroborating the early tradition extant on the coast.' (\*Manual\*, II, 122.) ### [c28.10](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.general.smith-1924.c28.10) ¹ Richards spells 'Pakalōnmat-tam'. Aiya (\*Manual\*, II, 122) writes 'Pakalomattam', while Mackenzie (ibid., p. 137) writes 'Palomattam'. Probably the first form is correct. ### [c28.11](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.general.smith-1924.c28.11) Mr. Aiya goes on to notice the Malabar version of the Abbanes story of the \*Acta\*, which is given more fully from a Malayālam manuscript by Richards (p. 72). ### [c28.12](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.general.smith-1924.c28.12) The martyrdom of St. Thomas at any place may be doubted, because an early writer named Heracleon, cited by Clement of Alexandria (\*c.\* A. D. 200), states that Thomas was not martyred (Medlycott, p. 120). The Roman Catholic writers, of course, impugn the statement of Heracleon, but anybody is at liberty to believe it if he chooses to do so. ### [c28.13](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.general.smith-1924.c28.13) The earliest testimony to the existence of a Christian Church in Socotra, derived from Persia, is that of Cosmas Indicopleustes, who wrote in A. D. 535. About a thousand years later (1542), St. Francis Xavier found nominally Christian congregations in the island, who claimed descent from the converts made by St. Thomas. The belief that Theophilus, the missionary sent out by Constantine about A. D. 354, visited Socotra appears to be erroneous (Medlycott, pp. 136, 138, 196–201).² Bishop Medlycott is, I think, right in holding that Theophilus visited Malabar and found Christians in that region. ### [c28.14](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.general.smith-1924.c28.14) ² The statement at the top of p. 136 (Medlycott) that the story of the mission of Theophilus refers to Socotra, is a slip, contradicted on pp. 196, 201, and with good reason. ### [c28.15](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.general.smith-1924.c28.15) Historical traditions of India and Ceylon when read together seem to carry the evidence for the existence of the Church in Malabar back to the third century. We learn from the Ceylonese chronicle, the \*Mahāvaṁśa\* (ch. xxxvi), composed about the beginning of the sixth century, that in the reign of king Gothakābhaya or Meghavarṇābhaya, whom Geiger places in A. D. 302–15, a learned Tamil heretic overcame an orthodox Buddhist theologian in controversy and gained the favour of the king, who placed his son under his tuition. The \*Mahāvaṁśa\* represents the victor in the disputation as being a monk named Sanghamitra, 'versed in the teachings concerning the exorcism of spirits and so forth'. Mr. K. G. Seshar Aiyar interprets this statement as meaning really that the successful controversialist was a Hindu, and identifies him with the famous Śaiva saint Māṇikka (or Māṇi) ### [c28.16](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.general.smith-1924.c28.16) Vāśagar.¹ The Tamil lives of that personage affirm that the saint actually converted the king of Ceylon towards the end of his career. That king may be identified with Gothakābhaya, and it is possible that the author of the \*Mahāvaṁśa\* may have misrepresented the Śaiva Hindu Māṇikka Vāśagar as Sanghamitra, a Buddhist heretic. ### [c28.17](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.general.smith-1924.c28.17) ¹ \*Tamilian Antiquary\*, vol. i, no. 4, p. 54. The writer does not cite the statement in the \*Mahāvaṁśa\* correctly. The Tamil legend is given ibid., p. 66, and in Pope, \*Tiruvāśagam\*, p. xxxi. There is a fine metal image of Māṇikka—a presumably idealistic portrait—shown as fig. 161, p. 263 of \*South Indian Images\* by H. K. Sastri (Madras Government Press, 1916). ### [c28.18](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.general.smith-1924.c28.18) However little credit we may be disposed to give to the story about the conversion of the king of Ceylon, or to the identification of that king with Gothakābhaya of the \*Mahāvaṁśa\*, I see no reason for hesitating to believe the Indian tradition that Māṇikka Vāśagar visited Malabar and reconverted two families of Christians to Hinduism. The descendants of those families, who are still known as Manigrāmakars, are not admitted to full privileges as caste Hindus. Some traditions place the reconversion as having occurred about A.D. 270. If that date be at all nearly correct, the Malabar Church must be considerably older. So far as I can appreciate the value of the arguments from the history of Tamil literature, there seems to be good independent reason for believing that Māṇikka Vāśagar may have lived in the third century. Some authors even place him about the beginning of the second century.² If he really lived so early, his relation with the Church in Malabar would confirm the belief in its apostolic origin. ### [c28.19](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.general.smith-1924.c28.19) ² T. Ponnambalam Pillai, quoting various authorities, in \*Tamilian Antiquary\*, vol. i, No. 4, pp. 73–9; see also ibid., pp. 53–5; and Mackenzie, p. 138. The notion that the tradition about the origin of the Manigrāmakars has anything to do with Manicheans is untenable. Dr. Pope, shortly before his death, expressed his acceptance of the opinion that Māṇikka lived \*not later\* than the fourth century (\*Tam. Ant.\*, \*ut supra\*, p. 54). ### [c28.20](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.general.smith-1924.c28.20) CHAPTER X ### [c28.21](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.general.smith-1924.c28.21) THE KUSHĀN OR INDO-SCYTHIAN DYNASTY FROM ABOUT A. D. 20 TO A. D. 225 ### [c28.22](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.general.smith-1924.c28.22) THE migrations of the nomad nations of the Central Asian steppes, briefly noticed in the last preceding chapter, produced on the political fortunes of India effects so momentous that they deserve and demand fuller treatment. ### [c28.23](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.general.smith-1924.c28.23) A tribe of Turkī nomads, known to Chinese authors as the Hiung-nū, succeeded in inflicting upon a neighbouring and rival horde of the same stock a decisive defeat before the middle of the second century B. C. The date of this event is stated as 165 B. C. by most scholars, while Dr. Franke gives the limiting dates as 174 and 160 B. C. The Yüe-chi were compelled to quit the lands which they occupied in the province of Kan-suh in North-western China, and to migrate westwards in search of fresh pasture-grounds. The moving horde mustered a force of bowmen, estimated to number from one hundred to two hundred thousand; and the whole multitude must have comprised, at least, from half a million to a million persons of all ages and both sexes.¹ ### [c28.24](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.general.smith-1924.c28.24) ¹ The Yüe-chi were not snub-nosed Mongols, but big men with pink complexions and large noses, resembling the Hiung-nū in manners and customs (Kingsmill, \*J. R. A. S.\*, 1882, p. 7, of reprint of \*Intercourse of China with Eastern Turkestan\*). The Yüe-chi belonged to the Hu group of tribes, who seem to have been Iranians. The coins of Kanishka and Huvishka, as well as those of Kadphises II, present recognizable portraits. See Plates of Coins, \*ante\*. ### [c28.25](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.general.smith-1924.c28.25) In the course of their westward migration in search of grazing-grounds adequate for the sustenance of their vast numbers of horses, cattle, and sheep, the Yüe-chi, moving along the route past Kuchā (N. lat. 41° 38′, E. long. 83° 25′), to the north of the desert of Taklamakān, the Gobi of old maps, came into conflict with a smaller horde, named Wu-sun, which occupied the basin of the Ili river and its southern tributaries, the Tékès and Kongès.¹ The Wu-sun, although numbering a force of only ten thousand bowmen, could not submit patiently to the devastation of their lands, and sought to defend them. But the superior numbers of the Yüe-chi assured the success of the invaders, who slew the Wu-sun chieftain, and then passed on westwards, beyond Lake Issyk-kūl, the Lake Tsing of Hiuen Tsang, in search of more spacious pastures. A small section of the immigrants, diverging to the south, settled on the Tibetan border, and became known as the Little Yüe-chi; while the main body, which continued the westward march, was designated the Great Yüe-chi. ### [c28.26](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.general.smith-1924.c28.26) ¹ Chavannes, \*Turcs Occidentaux\*, p. 263. According to Laufer, \*The Language of the Yüe-chi\*, p. 12, the Wu-sun as well as the Yüe-chi and the Ephthalites, were Scythic Iranians. ### [c28.27](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.general.smith-1924.c28.27) The next foes encountered by the Yüe-chi were the Śakas, or Se, who doubtless included more than one horde; for, as Herodotus observes, the Persians were accustomed to use the term Sakai to denote all Scythian nomads.² The Śakas, who dwelt to the west of the Wu-sun, and to the north of the Jaxartes (Syr Daryā) also attempted to defend their lands; but met with even worse success than the Wu-sun, being compelled to vacate their pasture-grounds in favour of the victorious Yüe-chi, who occupied them. The Śakas were forced to migrate in search of new quarters, and, ultimately, as stated in the last preceding chapter, made their way into India through the northern passes.³ ### [c28.28](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.general.smith-1924.c28.28) ² In later times the Muhammadans were sometimes styled Śakas, as in the Baṭihāgaṛh inscription of Samvat 1385 from the Damoh District, Central Provinces (\*Ep. Ind.\*, xii, 45), and in several other instances. ### [c28.29](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.general.smith-1924.c28.29) ³ In the time of Darius, son of Hystaspes (500 B. C.), the Sakai, with the Caspii, formed the fifteenth satrapy; and, in the army of Xerxes, they were associated with the Bactrians under the command of Hystaspes, the son of Darius and Atossa (\*Herod.\* iii. 93; vii, 64). Now that the position of the Wu-sun has been determined, and the line of the Yüe-chi migration thus fixed, the approximate location of the Sakai must be as stated in the text. Strabo clearly states that the Sakai and allied tribes came from the neighbourhood of the Jaxartes. Canon Rawlinson's opinion that they occupied the Kāshgar and Yarkand territory in the days of Darius (\*Herod.\* transl., vol. ii, 403; v, 170) is no longer tenable. The Śaka migration is discussed fully in my paper, 'The Śakas in Northern India', \*Z. D. M. G.\*, 1907, pp. 403–21; and by Dr. F. W. Thomas in his valuable article 'Sakastana' (\*J. R. A. S.\*, 1906, pp. 181–216, 460–4). He shows reasons for believing that Śakas had been settled in Sīstān from very early times, and for holding that an irruption of Śakas into that country in the second century B.C. is improbable. In my second edition I had assumed the reality of such an irruption, but now am disposed to agree with Dr. Thomas. ### [c28.30](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.general.smith-1924.c28.30) For some fifteen or twenty years the Yüe-chi remained undisturbed in their usurped territory. But meantime their ancient enemies, the Hiung-nū, had protected the infant son of the slain Wu-sun chieftain, who had grown to manhood under their care. This youth, with Hiung-nū help, attacked the Yüe-chi, and avenged his father's death by driving them from the lands which they had wrested from the Sakas. Being thus forced to resume their march, the Yüe-chi moved into the valley of the Oxus, and reduced to subjection its peaceful inhabitants, known to the Chinese as Ta-hia. The political domination of the Yüe-chi probably was extended at once over Bactria, to the south of the Oxus, but the head-quarters of the horde continued for many years to be on the north side of the river, and the pastures on that side sufficed for the wants of the new-comers. ### [c28.31](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.general.smith-1924.c28.31) In the course of time, which may be estimated at one or two generations, the Yüe-chi lost their nomad habits; and became a settled, territorial nation, in actual occupation of the Bactrian lands south of the river, as well as of Sogdiana to the north, and were divided into five principalities. As a rough approximation to the truth, this political and social development, with its accompanying growth of population, may be assumed to have been completed about 10 B.C. ### [c28.32](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.general.smith-1924.c28.32) For the next century nothing is known about Yüe-chi history; but more than a hundred years after the division of the nation into five territorial principalities, situated to the north of the Hindū Kush, the chief of the Kushān section of the horde, who is conventionally known to European writers as Kadphises I, succeeded in imposing his authority on his colleagues, and establishing himself as sole monarch of the Yüe-chi nation. His accession as such may be dated approximately in the year A.D. 40, which cannot be far wrong.¹ ### [c28.33](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.general.smith-1924.c28.33) ¹ Many books antedate the unification of the Kushān monarchy in consequence of a misunderstanding of a condensed version of the history given in Ma-twan-lin's Chinese encyclopaedia of the thirteenth century. The publication of translations of the original texts which the encyclopaedist abstracted has made the true meaning plain, although exact dates are not known. In a valuable paper 'Indoskythische Beiträge' in \*Sitzungsber. d. königl. preuss. Akad. der Wissenschaften\*, 1916, pp. 787–827, Sten Konow suggests (p. 814), and he may well be right, that the Śaka era was founded by Kadphises II, and that the Mālava or Vikrama era originated at Ujjain, and was established by a king named Vikrama, who defeated the Śakas, who preceded the Kushāns. The king called Kadphises I in the text is the Kieū-tsieū-k'io of the Chinese, and the Kozolakadaphes, Kozoulokadphises, and Kujulakarakadphises of various coins. The exact meaning of these names or titles is unknown. Full references will be found in my paper entitled 'The Kushān or Indo-Scythian Period of Indian History' (\*J. R. A. S.\*, 1903, pp. 1–64). I have given up the theory advocated in that essay that the Kushāns used the Laukika era. The name of the clan is spelled Kushana in the Kharoshṭhī script, which does not mark long vowels, but there is good Chinese and Sassanian evidence that the second vowel was long, e. g. the words \*rabbā Kushān\* on coins of Hormazd II (A. D. 302–9). See Drouin, 'Les Légendes des Monnaies Sassanides,' in \*Revue Archéologique\*, 1898, pp. 62 foll. I therefore follow Cunningham and Drouin in using the form 'Kushān' instead of the more fashionable 'Kushana'. Baron A. von Staël Holstein believes that Kusha (Kusa) 'was the correct name of the warlike race that gave Kaniṣka to the Buddhist world'. The forms transliterated as 'Kushān', &c., appear to be genitive plural of the name Kusha (Kusa). ('Was there a Kuṣana Race?' \*J. R. A. S.\*, Jan., 1914, pp. 79–88). Fleet and Allan disagree with the Baron (\*J. A. R. S.\*, 1914, pp. 369–81, 413). See also Fleet, \*ibid\*, 1915, p. 532 and Thomas, \*ibid\*, 1915, p. 532. Laufer (\*Language of the Yüe-chi\*, Chicago, 1917) denounces the speculations of A. v. S. Holstein as 'entirely inadmissible'. The names Yüe-chi and Kuṣana have no philological connexion, but are 'thoroughly independent'. Laufer agrees with F. W. Thomas (\*J. R. A. S.\*, 1906, p. 203) that Kuṣana was 'not a tribal name, but a family or dynastic title'. See also K. P. Jayaswal (\*J. B. O. Res. Soc.\*, vi, pp. 12–22), who suggests that Kushān was actually the personal name of Wema Kadphises' predecessor, Kadphises I. ### [c28.34](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.general.smith-1924.c28.34) The pressure of population upon the means of subsistence, which had impelled the Yüe-chi horde to undertake the long and arduous march from the borders of China to the Hindū Kush, now drove it across the barrier, and stimulated Kadphises I to engage in the formidable task of subjugating the provinces to the south of the mountains. ### [c28.35](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.general.smith-1924.c28.35) He made himself master of Ki-pin, which may be interpreted as meaning Gandhāra, as well as of the Kābul territory,¹ and, in the course of a long reign, consolidated his power in Bactria, and found time to attack the Parthians. His empire thus extended from the frontiers of Persia to the Indus, or perhaps to the Jihlam, and included Sogdiana, now the Khanate of Bukhāra, with probably all the territories comprised in the existing kingdom of Afghanistan. The complete subjugation of the hardy mountaineers of the Afghan highlands, who have withstood so many invaders with success, must have occupied many years, and cannot be assigned to any particular year, but A. D. 50 may be taken as a mean date for the conquest of Kābul. ### [c28.36](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.general.smith-1924.c28.36) ¹ The Chinese texts, as Sylvain Lévi has proved conclusively, distinguish Ki-pin from Kao-fū, or Kābul. The signification of Ki-pin or Ka-pin has varied. In the seventh century, in the time of the Tang dynasty, it generally, although not invariably, meant Kapiśa, or North-eastern Afghanistan. Sten Konow in the paper mentioned in the preceding note (p. 811) holds that in Han times Ki-pin meant Gandhāra (the region including Taxila and Takht-i-Bahai). He seems to be right, and I relinquish my earlier view that the name signifies Kashmir, as suggested by Sylvain Lévi, in \*J. A.\*, tome vii, ser. ix, p. 161. See the learned observations of Watters (\*On Yuan-chwang\*, i, 259), who points out that 'in many Chinese treatises Ka-pin is a geographical term of vague and varying extension, and not the description of a particular country. It is applied in different works to Kapis, Nagar, Gandhāra, Udyāna, and Kashmir.' Sir M. A. Stein spells Ki-pin as Chi-pin. All Chinese names are spelt in a great variety of ways by different authors. Dates, also, are given with a certain amount of variation. ### [c28.37](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.general.smith-1924.c28.37) The Yüe-chi advance necessarily involved the suppression of the Indo-Greek and Indo-Parthian chiefs of principalities to the west of the Indus; and in the last preceding chapter proof has been given of the manner in which the coinage legibly records the outline of the story of the gradual supersession of Hermaios, the last Greek prince of Kābul, by the barbarian invaders. ### [c28.38](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.general.smith-1924.c28.38) The final extinction of the Indo-Parthian power in the Panjāb and the Indus valley probably was reserved for the reign of Kanishka. ### [c28.39](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.general.smith-1924.c28.39) At the age of eighty Kadphises I closed his victorious reign, and was succeeded, in or about A. D. 77 or 78, by his son, who is most conveniently designated as Kadphises II.¹ This prince, no less ambitious and enterprising than his father, devoted himself to the further extension of the Yüe-chi dominion, and apparently completed the conquest of Northern India, commenced by his predecessor. ### [c28.40](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.general.smith-1924.c28.40) ¹ Yen-kao-ching of the Chinese; Wima (Ooēmo) Kadphises, &c., of the coins. ### [c28.41](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.general.smith-1924.c28.41) There is reason to believe that he conquered the Panjāb and a considerable part of the Gangetic plain, probably as far as Benares. It is probable that he extended his power to the mouths of the Indus and swept away, if they still existed, the petty Parthian princes who still ruled that region in the first century after Christ, but are heard of no more afterwards. The conquered Indian provinces were administered by military viceroys, to whom should be attributed the large issues of coins known to numismatists as those of the Nameless King, which are extremely common all over Northern India from the Kābul Valley to Ghāzīpur and Benares on the Ganges, as well as in Cutch (Kachchh) and Kāthiāwār.¹ ### [c28.42](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.general.smith-1924.c28.42) ¹ No inscriptions of Kadphises II being known, the evidence for the extent of his Indian dominions rests chiefly on the distribution of his coins. When the \*Periplus\* was written, about A. D. 80, Parthian chiefs still ruled the Indus delta. The proof that the Nameless King, Σωτὴρ μέγας, was contemporary with Kadphises II is given in detail by Cunningham (\*Num. Chron.\*, 1892, p. 71). His coins, mostly copper or bronze, include a few in base silver. Both Kadphises II and the Nameless King use the title \*sōtēr-megas\*; but while the former calls himself \*basileus basileōn\*, ‘king of kings’, the latter describes himself as \*basileus basileuōn\*, ‘reigning king’. The participle probably indicates subordinate rank. See \*Catal. Coins in I. M.\*, vol. I. ### [c28.43](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.general.smith-1924.c28.43) The embassy of Chang-kien² in 125–115 B. C. to the Yüe-chi, while they still resided in Sogdiana to the north of the Oxus, had brought the western barbarians into touch with the Middle Kingdom, and for a century and a quarter the emperors of China kept up intercourse with the Scythian powers. In the year A. D. 8 official relations ceased, and when the first Han dynasty came to an end in A. D. 23, Chinese influence in the western countries had been reduced to nothing. Fifty years later Chinese ambition reasserted itself, and for a period of thirty years, from A. D. 73 to 102, General Pan-chao led an army from victory to victory, nearly as far as the confines of the Roman empire,³ and thus effected the greatest westward extension ever attained by the power of China. The king of Khotan, who had first made his submission in A. D. 73, was followed by several other princes, including the king of Kāshgar, and the route to the west along the southern edge of the desert was thus opened to the arms and commerce of China. The reduction of Kuchā and Karashahr in A. D. 94 similarly threw open the northern road. ### [c28.44](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.general.smith-1924.c28.44) ² See ‘The Story of Chang K'ién, China's Pioneer in Western Asia’, by Friedrich Hirth, in \*J. Amer. Or. Soc.\*, vol. xxxvii, pt. i, ii, cited in \*J. R. A. S.\*, 1918, p. 202. ### [c28.45](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.general.smith-1924.c28.45) ³ Prof. Douglas says that ‘an army under General Pan-c'hao marched to Khoten, and even carried their country's flag to the shores of the Caspian Sea’ (\*China\*, in Story of Nations Series, p. 18). M. Sylvain Lévi, referring to Mailla, \*Histoire générale de la Chine\*, says—‘jusqu'aux confins du monde gréco-romain’ (\*Notes sur les Indo-Scythes\*, p. 50). ### [c28.46](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.general.smith-1924.c28.46) The steady advance of the victorious Chinese evidently alarmed the Kushān king, presumably Kadphises II, who regarded himself as the equal of the emperor, and had no intention of accepting the position of a vassal. Accordingly, in A. D. 90,¹ he boldly asserted his equality by demanding a Chinese princess in marriage. General Pan-chao, who considered the proposal an affront to his master, arrested the envoy and sent him home. Kadphises II, unable to brook this treatment, equipped a formidable force of 70,000 cavalry under the command of his viceroy Si, which was dispatched across the Tsung-ling range, or Tāghdumbāsh Pāmīr, to attack the Chinese. The army of Si probably advanced by the Tāshkurghān Pass, some fourteen thousand feet high,² and was so shattered by its sufferings during the passage of the mountains, that when it emerged into the plain below, either that of Kāshgar or Yārkand, it fell an easy prey to Pan-chao, and was totally defeated. Kadphises II was compelled to pay tribute to China, and the Chinese annals record the arrival of several missions bearing tribute at this period.³ ### [c28.47](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.general.smith-1924.c28.47) ¹ According to Laufer (op. cit., p. 3), the demand was made in A. D. 87. ### [c28.48](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.general.smith-1924.c28.48) ² For an account of Tāshkurghān in the Sarikol tract of the mountains, see Stein, \*Preliminary Report of Exploration in Chinese Turkestan\*, pp. 11–13; \*Sand-buried Ruins of Khotan\*, ch. v; \*Ancient Khotan\*, p. 54, note 17. ### [c28.49](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.general.smith-1924.c28.49) ³ 'In the time of the Emperor Hwa \[=Hiao-houo-ti, or Ho-ti\] (89–105) they \[the Indians\] often sent messengers to China and presented something, as if it were their tribute. But afterwards those of the western regions rebelled (against the emperor of China), and interrupted their communication, until the second year of the period Yenhsi (159) in the reign of the Emperor Kwan \[=Hwan-ti\] (147–67)' (\*Annals of Later Han Dynasty\*, as translated by Prof. Legge in \*India, What Can it Teach us?\* p. 277). ### [c28.50](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.general.smith-1924.c28.50) The Indian embassy which offered its congratulations to Trajan at some date after his return to Rome in A. D. 99 may have been dispatched by Kadphises II to announce his conquests.⁴ ### [c28.51](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.general.smith-1924.c28.51) ⁴ 'And to Trajan after he had arrived in Rome there came a great many embassies from barbarian courts, and especially from the Indians. . . . He (Trajan) having reached the ocean (at the mouth of the Tigris) saw a vessel setting sail for India’ (Dion Cassius, \*Hist. Rom.\*, ix, 58; lxvii, 28; in McCrindle, \*Anc. Ind.\* (1901), p. 213). ### [c28.52](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.general.smith-1924.c28.52) The Yüe-chi conquests opened up the overland path of commerce between the Roman empire and India. Kadphises I, who struck coins in bronze or copper only, imitated, after his conquest of Kābul, the coinage either of Augustus in his latter years, or the similar coinage of Tiberius (A. D. 14 to 38). When the Roman gold of the early emperors began to pour into India in payment for the silks, spices, gems, and dyestuffs of the East, Kadphises II perceived the advantage of a gold currency, and struck an abundant issue of orientalized \*aurei\*, agreeing in weight with their prototypes, and not much inferior in purity. In Southern India, which, during the same period, maintained an active maritime trade with the Roman empire, the local kings did not attempt to copy the imperial \*aurei\*, which were themselves imported in large quantities, and used for currency purposes, just as English sovereigns now are in many parts of the world.¹ ### [c28.53](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.general.smith-1924.c28.53) ¹ For weights and assays of Kushān coins, see Cunningham (\*Coins Med. India\*, p. 16). The opinions expressed by Von Sallet (\*Nachfolger Alexanders\*, pp. 56, 81) that the close resemblance between the heads of Kadphises I and Augustus is due to fortuitous coincidence, and that there is no reason to connect the weight of the Kushān coins with that of the imperial \*aurei\*, can only be regarded as strange aberrations of that distinguished numismatist. The one silver coin of Kadphises II which is known weighs 56½ grains, and thus agrees in weight, as Cunningham observed, with a Roman silver \*denarius\*. A silver coin of Huvishka, \*oкро\* type, now in the museum of the Bombay Branch R. A. S., agrees in weight with the Indo-Parthian silver (\*Prog. Rep. A. S. W. Circle\*, 1915–16, p. 59). For an account of large finds of Roman coins in India, see Thurston, \*Coin Catal. No. 2 of Madras Museum\*; and, more fully, Sewell, ‘Roman Coins found in India’, \*J. R. A. S.\*, 1904, p. 591. The testimony of Pliny (\*Hist. Nat.\* xii, 18) to the drain of Roman gold in exchange for Indian, Arabian, and Chinese luxuries is well known:—‘Minimaque computatione milies centena milia sestertiûm annis omnibus India et Seres peninsulaque illa imperio nostro adimunt. Tanto nobis deliciae et feminae constant. Quota enim portio ex illis ad deos quaeso iam uti ad inferos pertinet ?’ The Roman coins in circulation in North-western India were not however all gold. ‘As many as 69 Roman coins were found in Mrs. Howell's collection, most of which were silver and belonged to the various officers of the Roman Republic.’ These coins were all collected from Kohat and the neighbouring regions and must have been in circulation there for the purposes of commerce. Seventeen of them belong to the Roman emperors, four to the ‘coinage of Italy’, and one to the ‘coinage of Spain’. Forty-one pertain to the various officers of the Roman Republic, and one is unidentifiable. The remaining five, which are copper, belong to both republican and imperial times (\*Prog. Rep. A. S. W. I.\*, 1916–17, p. 51). ### [c28.54](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.general.smith-1924.c28.54) The victorious reign of Kadphises II undoubtedly was prolonged, and may be supposed to have lasted for about thirty-two years, from A. D. 78 to 110.¹ ### [c28.55](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.general.smith-1924.c28.55) ¹ No definite proof of the length of this reign can be given, but the extent of the conquests made by Kadphises II and the large volume of his coinage are certain indications that his reign was protracted. Cunningham assigned it a duration of forty years. My presentation of the history of Kanishka is largely based on the original and valuable essay by Mr. R. D. Banerji of the Indian Museum, entitled 'The Scythian Period of Indian History' (\*Ind. Ant.\*, 1908, pp. 25–75). Prof. Lüders's view that the Kanishka of the Ara record may have been the grandson of the Kanishka of the years 3 and 11 (\*Sitzungsber. d. kön. preuss. Akad. d. Wissensch.\*, 1912, p. 827) is accepted by Sten Konow (\*op. cit.\*, p. 266 n., \*ante\*), who takes Vajheshka to be an alternative form of Vasishka (p. 819). He further explains his views in \*Ep. Ind.\*, xiv, pp. 130 ff. This view apparently is also accepted by K. P. Jayaswal in a paper on the 'Statue of Wema Kadphises and Kushān Chronology' (\*J. B. O. Res. Soc.\*, vi, pp. 12–22). The point requires further elucidation. I think that Prof. Lüders is right, and Sten Konow agrees (p. 805 n.), in reading \*Kaïsarasa\* 'Caesar', as a title of Kanishka in the Ara inscription, but the reading is not sufficiently clear to justify stress being laid upon it. The name of Kanishka is sometimes spelled Kāṇishka and the form Kanishtha (Kaniṣṭa), transliterated by the Chinese as Kanit'a, also occurs. In all probability the Śaka era was founded by Kadphises II; and possibly a new era, running from the accession or from the enthronement of Kanishka, came into use in Northern India, including Kābul, and continued in use in the reigns of his successors. Private inscriptions certainly so dated extend from the year 3 to the year 99. The evidence from Taxila makes it quite clear that the Kadphises kings preceded Kanishka. ### [c28.56](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.general.smith-1924.c28.56) Kadphises II was succeeded by Kanishka, who alone among the Kushān kings has left a name cherished by tradition, and famous far beyond the limits of India. His name, it is true, is unknown in Europe, save to a few students of unfamiliar lore, although it lives in the legends of Tibet, China, and Mongolia, and is scarcely less significant to the Buddhists of those lands than that of Asoka himself. Notwithstanding the widespread fame of Kanishka, his authentic history is scanty, and his chronological position strangely open to doubt. Unluckily no passage in the works of the accurate Chinese historians has yet been discovered which synchronizes him with any definite name or event in the well-ascertained history of the Middle Kingdom. The Chinese books which mention him are all, so far as is yet known, merely Buddhist works of edification, and not well adapted to serve as mines of historic fact. They are, in truth, as are the books of Tibet and Mongolia, translations or echoes of Indian tradition, and no student needs to be told how baffling are its vagaries. Kanishka and his proximate successors certainly are mentioned in an exceptionally large number of inscriptions, of which considerably more than a score are dated; and it might be expected that this ample store of epigraphic material would set at rest all doubts, and establish beyond dispute the essential outlines of the Kushān chronology. But, unfortunately, the dates are recorded in such a fashion as to be open to various interpretations.¹ ### [c28.57](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.general.smith-1924.c28.57) ¹ The substantial controversy is between the scholars who place the accession of Kanishka in a. d. 78 and those who date it later in about a. d. 120. It is possible that the Kushān kings may have used a special era, distinct from the Śaka, but it is unlikely. If such an era was used, it began after, not before, a. d. 78. Sir J. H. Marshall, Director-General of the Archaeological Survey, has been convinced by the direct evidence of the stratification of the remains of Taxila that Kanishka reigned in the second rather than the first century of the Christian era. A nearly complete list of the dated inscriptions will be found in the author's paper on the Kushān period, cited \*ante\*, p. 266. For records of the third year of Kanishka at Sārnāth near Benares, see \*Ep. Ind.\*, viii, 173. Other additions also have been made to the list. ### [c28.58](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.general.smith-1924.c28.58) Excavations at a small town called Māt in the Mathurā district have disclosed the remarkable life-size statue of Kanishka (see Plate) and two other headless statues of kings. The name and titles of Kanishka are inscribed on his skirt in plain script. The details of his dress and equipment are of interest, and differ from those shown on the coins.² ### [c28.59](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.general.smith-1924.c28.59) ² For description of Māt, see Growse, \*Mathurā\*, 3rd ed., 1883, p. 391. See note 1 on next page. ### [c28.60](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.general.smith-1924.c28.60) I have no doubt whatever that the numismatic evidence alone—a class of evidence unduly depreciated by some historical students—proves conclusively that Kanishka lived at a time considerably later than the Christian era, subsequent to both Kadphises I and Kadphises II, and was exposed to the influence of the Roman empire. Many other lines of evidence, of great force when brought together, lead to the conclusion that Kanishka came to the throne early in the second century of the Christian era, and most probably in a. d. 120, directly succeeding Kadphises II. ### [c28.61](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.general.smith-1924.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 ### [c28.62](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.general.smith-1924.c28.62) ¹ K. P. Jayaswal is of opinion that the statue of the seated king, discovered close to the statue of Kanishka near Mathurā, is that of Wema Kadphises (Kadphises II) and that Kanishka was the son of Kadphises II. This traverses the opinion put forward in the third edition of this work that Kanishka was not the son of Kadphises II, but of Vajheshka (\*J. B. O. Res. Soc.\*, v, p. 511 and vi, pp. 12–22). If the theories of K. P. Jayaswal in regard to the statue, and the views of Lüders and S. Konow in reference to the Kanishka of the Ara inscription are correct, it seems justifiable to infer that Kanishka was the son and immediate successor of Kadphises II. The difficulty in regard to the 'Nameless King' (\*ante\*, p. 268 n.) is explained by K. P. Jayaswal, by taking 'Kushān' to be the personal name of Kadphises I (\*J. B. O. Res. Soc.\*, vi, pp. 17–19). But this problem requires further elucidation. ### [c28.63](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.general.smith-1924.c28.63) ² Examples of the association of the coins of Kadphises II and Kanishka are: (1) in Gopālpur \*stūpa\*, Gorakhpur District; coins of Kadphises II, Kanishka, Huvishka, and a much earlier prince, Ayu Mitra (\*Proc. A. S. B.\*, 1896, p. 100); (2) Benares hoard of 163 pieces, namely 12 of Kadphises II, and the rest (4 not read) of Kanishka and Huvishka (Thomas, Prinsep's \*Essays\*, I, 227 note); (3) Masson's collections from Beghrām, 25 miles from Kābul (ibid., pp. 344–51). See also \*Ariana Antiqua\*. The numerous coins found by Marshall at Taxila clearly establish the order of the dynasties as stated in the text. ### [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. ### [c28.65](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.general.smith-1924.c28.65) Kanishka, then, may be assumed to have succeeded Kadphises II, to whom he was closely related, in or about A. D. 120. Tradition and the monuments and inscriptions of his time prove that his sway extended all over North-Western India, probably as far south as the Vindhyas, as well as over the remote regions beyond the Pāmīr passes. ### [c28.66](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.general.smith-1924.c28.66) Hiuen Tsang, who recorded the history or tradition which he learned in Kapisa, expressly states that ‘when Kanishka reigned in Gandhāra his power reached the neighbouring states, and his influence extended to distant regions’. He kept order, we are told, over a wide territory reaching to the east of the Tsung-ling mountains, that is to say, ‘the meridional range or ranges which buttress the Pāmīr region on the east and divide it from the Tārīm Basin.'¹ In India his coins are found constantly associated with those of Kadphises II from Kābul to Ghāzīpur on the Ganges, while their vast number and variety indicate a reign of considerable length.² ### [c28.67](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.general.smith-1924.c28.67) ¹ Stein, \*Ancient Khotan\*, p. 27. ### [c28.68](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.general.smith-1924.c28.68) ² Inscription at Suë Vihār, near Bahāwalpur, ed. Hoernle, \*Ind. Ant.\*, x, 324, dated in the \*year 11 in the reign of mahārāja rājātirāja devaputra Kanishka, on the 28th day of the month Daisios of the Macedonian calendar\*. That calendar might be used in connexion with any era, as it was used with the Pontic era of 297 B. C. by Pontic cities (\*Num. Chron.\*, 1905, p. 118). Similarly, Jahāngīr used the names of the Persian solar months with the Hijrī lunar year. ### [c28.69](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.general.smith-1924.c28.69) The temporary annexation of Mesopotamia between the Euphrates and Tigris in A. D. 116 by Trajan brought the Roman frontier within 600 miles of the western limits of the Yüe-chi empire. Although the province to the east of the Euphrates was given up by Hadrian in the year after its annexation, there can be no doubt that at this period the rulers of Northern and Western India were well acquainted with the fame and power of the great empire in the west.³ ### [c28.70](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.general.smith-1924.c28.70) ³ The provinces abandoned by Hadrian were Armenia, Mesopotamia, and Assyria (Merivale, \*Hist. of the Romans\*, ch. lxvi). ### [c28.71](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.general.smith-1924.c28.71) Kanishka may be credited with having completed in his earlier years the subjugation and annexation of the secluded vale of Kashmīr. He certainly showed a marked preference for that delightful country, where he erected numerous monuments, and founded a town, which, although now reduced to a petty village, still bears his honoured name.⁴ ### [c28.72](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.general.smith-1924.c28.72) ⁴ Stein, \*Rājat.\*, transl. bk. i, 168–72. Kanishkapura is now represented by the village of Kānispōr, 74° 28′ E. long., 34° 14′ N. lat., situated between the Vitastā (Bihat) river and the high road leading from Varāhamūla (Bārāmūla) to Srīnagar. The text of the Kashmīr chronicle is as follows: 'Then there were in this land three kings, called Hushka, Jushka, and Kanishka, who built three towns named after them. That wise king Jushka, who built Jushkapura with its Vihāra, was also the founder of Jayasvāmipura. These kings, who were given to acts of piety, though descended from the Turushka race, built at Sushkaletra and other places \*mathas\*, \*chaityas\*, and similar \[structures\]' (Stein, transl. \*Rājatar.\*, Bk. I, vv. 168–71). Kalhaṇa adds that during the rule of those powerful princes Kashmīr to a large extent was in the possession of the Buddhists. He dates them 150 years after the Nirvāṇa, which is, of course, absurd. Jushka suggests an alternative form of the name to be Juvishka. His reality is attested by the continued existence of his town, now the large village of Zukur, to the north of Srīnagar. There is no sufficient reason to identify him with Vāsudeva. He may have been merely a Viceroy in Kashmīr. Coins of Kanishka and Huvishka are abundant in that country. The word \*Turushka\* was often applied to Muhammadans, and meant, I think, simply 'foreigner from beyond the passes'. The term must not be interpreted as implying a belief that Kanishka, &c., belonged to the Turks, or any other distinct nomad people. ### [c28.73](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.general.smith-1924.c28.73) Tradition affirms that he penetrated far into the interior of India, and attacked the king residing at the ancient imperial city of Pātaliputra. It is said that he carried off from that city a Buddhist saint named Aśvaghosha. Comparison of the different versions of this story gives reasons for accepting as true at least the bare fact that Kanishka and Aśvaghosha were contemporaries.¹ If the chronology adopted in this edition be correct, the Indo-Scythian or Kushān dynasty, during the reign of Kanishka, wielded authority over Western India, through the agency of the Śaka satraps of Ujjain, one of whom, Chastana, was probably related to the Kushān dynasty. There are grounds also for the belief that from the time of Kanishka to the reign of Vāsudeva, Kushān rule extended over Bihār.² ### [c28.74](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.general.smith-1924.c28.74) ¹ Chinese translation, made in A. D. 472, of a lost Sanskrit work called the \*Śrī Dharmapiṭaka-sampradāya-nidāna\* (?), in Lévi, \*Notes sur les Indo-Scythes\*, p. 36. According to a Tibetan tradition, Kanishka dispatched a friendly invitation to Aśvaghosha, who, being unable to accept it on account of age and infirmities, sent his disciple Jñāna Yaśa in his stead (transl. of \*Sumpālī Ch'oijūng\* in \*J. Buddhist Text Soc.\*, 1893, pt. iii, p. 13). A variant version is given in Schiefner's \*Tāranāth\*, ch. xii; and another by Watters (ii, 104), who says that the saint was given to Ka-ni-t'a (Kanishka), king of the Yue-ti, as part of a war indemnity. The form Kanit'a, with aspirated \*t\*, used by the Chinese author, is explained by the tradition of the local Brahmans of Kanishkapura (Kānispōr), who ascribe the foundation of the place to Kanishṭha Rāja (Stein, transl. \*Rājat.\*, Bk. I, v. 168, note). This king, Kanit'a, treated the bhikshu with much kindness and esteem, and Aśvaghosha continued his labours in his new place of abode in Kashmīr. Watters adds that 'this great Buddhist, who apparently lived in the second century of our era, was a poet, musician, scholar, religious controversialist, and zealous Buddhist monk, orthodox in creed, and a strict observer of discipline'. Aśvaghosha was a pupil of Pārśva, who took a leading part in Kanishka's Council (Watters, i, 209); M. Foucher also holds independently, from 'le témoignage des bas-reliefs', that Aśvaghosha lived in the second century after Christ (\*L'Art gréco-bouddhique\*, i, 623). ### [c28.75](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.general.smith-1924.c28.75) ² See \*J. B. O. Res. Soc.\*, vi (1920), p. 22. ### [c28.76](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.general.smith-1924.c28.76) Kanishka's capital was Purushapura, the modern Peshāwar, the city which then guarded, as it now does, the main road from the Afghan hills to the Indian plains. There, in his latter days, when he had become a fervent Buddhist, \[Figure: INSCRIBED LIFE-SIZE STATUE OF KANISHKA, FROM MĀT IN MATHURĀ DISTRICT \*(Photograph by Brajbāsi Friend & Co., Muttra)\*\] ### [c28.77](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.general.smith-1924.c28.77) he erected a great relic tower, which seems to have deserved to rank among the wonders of the world. The superstructure of carved wood rose in thirteen stories to a height of at least 400 feet, surmounted by a mighty iron pinnacle. When Song-yun, a Chinese pilgrim, visited the spot at the beginning of the sixth century, this structure had been thrice destroyed by fire, and as often rebuilt by pious kings. A monastery of exceptional magnificence which stood by its side,¹ was still flourishing as a place of Buddhist education as late as the ninth century when it was visited by Vīradeva, an eminent Buddhist scholar, who subsequently was appointed abbot of Nālandā in the reign of king Devapāla of Magadha (\*c.\* A. D. 844–92).² ### [c28.78](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.general.smith-1924.c28.78) ¹ For the topography of Gandhāra, the region around Peshāwar, the only trustworthy authority is Foucher's admirable treatise, \*Notes sur la géographie ancienne du Gandhāra\* (Hanoi, 1902). Tāranāth (Schiefner, ch. xiii, p. 62) mentions the neighbouring town of Pushkalāvati as a royal residence of Kanishka's son. The fullest description of the great relic tower is that by Song-yun (Beal, \*Records\*, vol. i, p. ciii, and in Chavannes's revised version, Hanoi, 1903). It is mentioned by Fa-hien (ch. xii) and Hiuen Tsang (Bk. ii, Beal, i, 99 ; Watters, i, 204). Even so late as A. D. 1030 Albērūnī alludes to the \*Kanik-chaitya\* (Sachau, transl. ii, 11). The monastery is described by Hiuen Tsang (Beal, i, 103). The identification of the site is due to Foucher (op. cit., pp. 9–13, with view and plan). The site indicated by Foucher has been excavated by the Archaeological Department with remarkable success, the most notable discovery being that of the now celebrated relic casket bearing an image and inscription of Kanishka whose Superintending Engineer had the Greek name of Agesilaos (\*J. R. A. S.\*, 1908, p. 1109 ; \*Ann. Rep. Arch. S., India\*, 1908–9, pp. 38–60 ; \*Hist. of Fine Art in India and Ceylon\*, pp. 356–8, pl. lxxv). ### [c28.79](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.general.smith-1924.c28.79) ² Ghosrāwa inscription, ed. and transl. by Kielhorn, \*Ind. Ant.\*, xvii (1888), pp. 307–12. ### [c28.80](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.general.smith-1924.c28.80) The final demolition of this celebrated establishment undoubtedly must have been due to the Muhammadan invasions of Mahmūd of Ghaznī and his successors. Muslim zeal against idolatry was always excited to acts of destruction by the spectacle of the innumerable images with which Buddhist holy places were crowded. ### [c28.81](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.general.smith-1924.c28.81) The ambition of Kanishka, as already observed, was not confined by the limits of India. He is alleged to have engaged in successful war with the Parthians, having been attacked by the king of that nation, who is described by the tradition as 'very stupid and with a violent temper'.³ ### [c28.82](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.general.smith-1924.c28.82) ³ Lévi, op. cit., p. 40. ### [c28.83](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.general.smith-1924.c28.83) The prince referred to may be either Chosroes (Khusrū), or one of the rival kings who disputed the possession of the Parthian throne between a. d. 108 and 130.¹ ### [c28.84](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.general.smith-1924.c28.84) ¹ G. Rawlinson, \*Parthia\* (1893), p. 316. ### [c28.85](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.general.smith-1924.c28.85) The most striking military exploit of Kanishka was his conquest of Kāshgar, Yarkand, and Khotan, extensive provinces of Chinese Turkestān lying to the north of Tibet and the east of the Pāmīrs, and at that time, as now, dependencies of China.² When Kadphises II had attempted the same arduous adventure in a. d. 90, he had failed ignominiously, as already related, and had been compelled to pay tribute to China; but, after the death of Pan-chao, Kanishka having secured the peaceful possession of India and Kashmīr, was in a better position to surmount the appalling difficulties of conveying an effective army across the passes of the Tāghdumbāsh Pāmīr, which no modern ruler of India would dare to face. Kanishka succeeded, where his predecessor had failed; and not only freed himself from the obligation of paying tribute to China, but exacted the surrender of hostages from a state tributary to the Chinese empire. The assertion made by one authority that the hostages included a son of the emperor of the Han dynasty does not appear to be worthy of belief. The territory of the ruler to whose family the hostages belonged seems to have been not very distant from Kāshgar. ### [c28.86](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.general.smith-1924.c28.86) ² Yărkand represents the modern pronunciation. Yārkand often occurs in Muhammadan texts (Stein, \*Anc. Khotan\*, p. 87). ### [c28.87](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.general.smith-1924.c28.87) The hostages were treated, as beseemed their princely rank, with the utmost consideration, and were assigned suitable residences at different Buddhist monasteries for each of the three seasons—the hot, the cold, and the rains. During the time of the summer heats, when the burning plains are not pleasant to live in, they enjoyed the cool breezes at a Hīnayānist monastery named Sha-lo-ka, perhaps meaning 'the Kāshgar monastery', situated in the hills of Kapisa, the modern Kāfiristān, beyond Kābul, which was erected specially for their accommodation. During the spring and autumn, including the rainy season, they resided in Gandhāra, no doubt at the capital; while they spent the cold weather at an unidentified place in the Eastern Panjāb, to which the name of Chīnabhukti, or 'the Chinese allotment', was given in consequence. They were reputed to have introduced the pear and peach, previously unknown in that part of India, during their residence at Chīnabhukti. One of their number, before returning home, deposited a rich store of gold and jewels for the endowment of the Kapisa establishment, and they all continued to recognize the generosity with which they had been treated by remitting offerings for the benefit of the brethren. The grateful monks adorned their walls with paintings representing their guests, who are said to have been somewhat like Chinamen in appearance and dress. When Hiuen Tsang resided at the Kapisa monastery, during the rainy season of A. D. 630, he found that his hosts still cherished the memory of their benefactors, and celebrated services in their honour. He also stayed for fourteen months in A. D. 633-4 at the hostages' monastery in Chīnabhukti. _First 86 of 140 passages. [Read on](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.general.smith-1924.c28)_ ## Linked texts (14) - [Rājataraṅgiṇī](https://indike.org/pramana/in.lit.historical.kashmir.rajatarangini) — Kalhaṇa, Sanskrit - [Tārīkh-i Firishta](https://indike.org/pramana/in.darkages.general.tarikh-i-firishta) — Muḥammad Qāsim Hindū Shāh Firishta 1606, Persian - [Naturalis historia](https://indike.org/pramana/inf.la.imperial.pliny-elder) — C. Plinius Secundus, Latin - [Res gestae](https://indike.org/pramana/inf.la.late.ammianus) — Ammianus Marcellinus, Latin - [Mahāvaṃsa](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.theravada_postcanon.vamsa.mahavamsa) — Pāli - [Purāṇa](https://indike.org/pramana/in.purana) — Sanskrit - [玄奘](https://indike.org/pramana/inf.cn.tang.xuanzang) — Classical Chinese - [Jñānaprasthāna](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.sanskrit.darsana.abhidharma.sarvastivada.jnanaprasthana) — Kātyāyanīputra, Classical Chinese - [Sārnāth](https://indike.org/pramana/inp.site.sarnath) - [\*Saṃyuktaratnapiṭakasūtra](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.sanskrit.avadana.samyuktaratnapitakasutra) — Sanskrit - [Māt (Tōkrī Tīlā)](https://indike.org/pramana/inp.site.mat) - [Benares](https://indike.org/pramana/inp.site.benares) - [Ghazipur](https://indike.org/pramana/inp.site.ghazipur) - [Kashmiri](https://indike.org/pramana/inp.site.kashmiri) --- Source: [https://indike.org/pramana/ins.general.smith-1924.c28](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.general.smith-1924.c28) · Pramāṇa