A History of Indian Literature v2.c25: Appendix V. The Date of Kaniṣka’s Reign
A History of Indian Literature v2.c25
- Language
- English
Appendix V. The Date of Kaniṣka’s Reign
v2.c25.2
The date of the reign of King Kaniṣka is of the utmost importance for the study of the History of Buddhism and Buddhist literature. Now though there are numerous dated coins of Kaniṣka, and inscriptions in which Kaniṣka is mentioned, there is no sure means of determining according to which era these dates should be reckoned. There are also traditions about Kaniṣka in Tibet, China and Mongolia. Deriving their material from Indian sources, the Chinese give much edifying information concerning Kaniṣka, but they do not give us any synchronisms with Chinese History. Hence even now we have nothing beyond hypotheses as to Kaniṣka’s time. Epigraphical, numismatical, archaeological and literary evidence points more and more to the 2nd century A. D. as the time when Kaniṣka reigned, and to round about 125 A. D. as the probable date of his accession. The view, still maintained by a few scholars, that Kaniṣka is the founder of the Śaka era, which began in 78 A. D., is less likely to be correct.
v2.c25.3
In view of the importance and the difficulty of this question, I give below a summary of the almost overwhelming literature on the problem, which is still further complicated by the fact that there were probably two rulers named Kaniṣka.
v2.c25.4
(1) The view that Kaniṣka is *the founder of the Vikrama era in 58 B. C.* will find but few supporters now-a-days. It was represented by Alexander *Cunningham* (Archaeological Survey of India, Reports, Vol. II, 1871, p. 68 note, 159 ff.; III, p. 31),¹ J. F. *Fleet* in his Introduction to the English translation of G. Bühler's ‘Indian Palaeography’ in Ind. Ant. 33, 1904, and in JRAS 1906, 979 ff.; 1903, 334; 1913, 95 ff., 965 ff.; 1914, 992 ff.; O. *Franke* in ABA 1901, 61 ff., J. *Kennedy* in JRAS 1912, 665 ff., 981 ff.; 1913, 369 ff., 661 ff., 1054 ff.; S. *Lévi* JA 1896, s. 9, t. VIII, 444 ff., 1897, s. 9, t. IX, 1 ff.,² *assumes the 1st century B.C. and the beginning of our era as Kaniṣka's time.* The same view is also held by L. D. *Barnett* in JRAS, 1913, 193, and in Calcutta Review, Feb. 1924, p. 252.
v2.c25.5
¹ *Cunningham* changed his opinion later, and placed Kaniṣka about 80 A.D.
v2.c25.6
² The same Chinese sources on which *Lévi* takes his stand, are utilised by Ed. *Specht* in JA 1897, s. 9, t. X, p. 152 ff., for fixing the date as the end of 1st or the beginning of the 2nd century A.D.
v2.c25.7
(2) The view that Kaniṣka is *the founder of the Śaka era in 78 A.D.* was first put forward by *J. Fergusson* in JRAS, 1880, 259 ff. and by H. *Oldenberg* in Zeitschrift für Numismatik 8, 1881, 289 ff. (English translation in Ind. Ant. 10, 1881, 213 ff.), and is still defended at the present day by E. J. *Rapson* (Cambridge History I, pp. 581, 583 ff.), Daya Ram *Sahni* in JRAS, 1924, 399 ff., L. *Bachhofer* in OZ, 1927, 21 ff., 1930, 10 ff., Hari Charan *Ghosh* in Ind. Hist. Qu. 4, 1928, 760 ff.; 5, 1929, 49 ff. *The first century A.D. is assumed as Kaniṣka's time by* L. A. *Waddell* in JRAS, 1913, 947 ff., on archaeological grounds, and by J. Ph. *Vogel* in Ep. Ind., VIII, 173 ff. on palæographical grounds.
v2.c25.8
(3) *The end of the 1st and the beginning of the 2nd century A.D.* is assumed by many scholars, s. H. *Oldenberg* in NGGW, 1911, 427 ff. (English translation in JPTS, 1910-11, p. 1 ff.), AR, 17, 1914, 646 ff., *Ed. Specht* in JA 1897, s. 9, t. X, p. 152 ff., *A. M. Boyer* in JA 1900, s. 9, t. XV, 526 ff., *H. Lüders*, Die Inschrift von Āra in SBA, 1912, 824 ff. (English translation in Ind. Ant., 42, 1913, 132 ff.); *F. W. Thomas* in JRAS, 1913, 627 ff., 1011 ff.; 1914, 748 ff., GGA, 1931, 1 ff., and *M. A. Stein* in Ind. Ant., 34, 1905, 77 ff.: "Palæographical and other considerations make it appear probable that the date of Kaniṣka's accession may be somewhat later than the beginning of the Saka era." According to *R. D. Banerji*, who has formulated all the theories advanced up to that time (Ind. Ant., 37, 1908, 27 ff.) Kaniṣka crossed the Indus in the year 91 A.D. and died in 123 A.D.
v2.c25.9
(4) *The 2nd century A.D.* is supported on archaeological grounds by *A. Foucher*, L' art gréco-bouddhique du Gandhāra I, 1905, p. 623, II, 1918, p. 505 ff., *Sir John Marshall* in JRAS, 1914, 973 ff., 1915, 191 ff., Guide to Taxila, 2nd Ed., Calcutta, 1921, p. 17, *V. A. Smith*, History of Fine Art in India and Ceylon, Oxford, 1911, p. 99.¹ The most decided supporter of the view that Kaniṣka did not come into power until after the year 125 A.D. and that the Kaniṣka era begins with the year 128-29 A.D., is *Sten Konow* (ZDMG, 68, 1914, 97; SBA, 1916, 787 ff.; Ep. Ind., XIV, 1918, 130 ff.; Acta Or., II, 1923, 130 ff.; III, 1924, 52 ff.; JBRAS, N. S. 1, 1, 1925, p. 1, ff.; Ind. Hist. Qu., 3, 1927, 851 ff. and lastly in Kharosthi Inscriptions, Corpus Inscriptionum Indicarum, Vol. II, part I, Calcutta, 1929, pp. lxxv ff., lxxx ff., xciii f.). *V. A. Smith*, Early History, 271 ff., gives approximately 120-160 A.D., and *R. Kimura* (Ind. Hist. Qu., 1, 1925, 415 ff.)
v2.c25.10
¹ Earlier views are discussed and criticised by *Smith* in JRAS 1903, p. 3 ff.
v2.c25.11
140-180 A. D. as the time of Kaniṣka's reign. *Cf.* also A. V. *Staël-Holstein* in SBA, 1914, 643 ff.; E. *Windisch* Philologie und Altertumskunde in Indien, Leipzig, 1921 (AKM, XV, 3), p. 26 ff., who again gives a survey of the various theories, and *Keith*, Hist. Sansk. Lit., p. xxvii.
v2.c25.12
(5) *The 3rd century A.D.* is supported only by D. R. *Bhandarkar* (JBRAS, 20, 1899, 269 ff.), R. G. *Bhandarkar* (JBRAS 20, 1900, 385 ff.), R. C. *Majumdar* (Ind. Ant., 46, 1917, 261 ff. and JDL, 1, 1920, 65 ff.).
v2.c25.13
For a second Kaniṣka, who was probably the grandson of the great Kaniṣka and lived in the 3rd century, s. *Lüders* l.c.; Satis Chandra *Vidyabhushana* in JASB 6, 1910, 477 ff.; *Kimura* l.c.; Daya Ram *Sahni* l. c.; Hari Charan *Ghosh*, Ind. Hist. Qu., 5, 1929, p. 70, and Sten *Konow*, Kharoshthi Inscriptions, p. lxxx f.