Que) What do you know about the date of Kanishka?
(Or). Discuss the date of coronaion of Kanishka -1
Ans)
Kanishka I: Date of Accession
Kanishka was the greatest of the Kushana emperors, but there is no unanimity among scholars regarding the date of his accession to the throne. According to Fleet, Kanishka reigned before the Kadphises group and was the founder of that era which commenced in, 58 B.C. This view of Fleet was accepted by Cunningham, Dowson, Franke and Kennedy. But the discoveries of Marshall and other information have demolished the old hypothesis. It can be proved beyond the shadow of doubt that Kanishka did not start the Vikram era. According to Hiuen-Tsang, Kanishka ruled over Gandhara. But according to other Chinese evidence, Yin-mo-fu ruled over Gandhara about 50 B.C. Since the two could not rule over Gandhara at the same time and the period of Yin-mo-fu is certain, Kanishka must belong to some other period and not about 58 B.C. Hence, he could not have started the Vikram era which started in 58 B.C.
The view of Marshall, Sten Konow, Smith, Van Wijk and other scholars was that the rule of Kanishka began about 125 A.D. and ended in the second half of the second century A.D. The Junagadh inscription of Rudradamana says that Rudradamana was the ruler of the lower Indus Valley. It is clearly stated that he was not under any ruler and he was the sovereign who was elected by the people. The Sree Vihar inscription also says, that the empire of Kanishka included the lower Indus Valley. As it is definitely known that Rudradamana was the ruler between 130 and 150 A.D., Kanishka could not be the ruler at the same time. His mastery over the lower Indus Valley cannot be reconciled with the contemporary sovereignty of Rudradamana. Moreover, Kanishka’s dates 1-23, Vasishka’s dates 24-28, Huvishka’s dates 31-60 and Vasudeva’s dates 74-98 suggest a continuous reckoning. In other words, Kanishka was the originator of an era. However, we do not know of any era which was current in North-West India and which commences in the second century A.D.
Puri gives his views on this complicated question in these words: “We have considered the information relating to the Kushanas, with particular reference to the date of Kanishka, from all the available sources. Scholars have failed to reach an agreement on this point. Unfortunately, nothing new has cropped up and it is only a re-examination and revaluation of the known sources. The accidental scholars are more inclined in placing Kanishka in the second century A.D. with, of course, a few exceptions, while those in India, again with a few exceptions, are inclined to be conservative and credit him with the founding of the era of 78 A.D. Their main argument is that we know of no era in the second century A.D., and Kanishka’s clash with Rudradamana was not a fact to be ignored in his Junagadh inscription, if the two were more or less contemporaries. Further, Wima Kadphises, succeeding an octogenarian father, could not have ruled for a longer time, and a period between A.D. 64-78 is enough for him, and he was immediately succeeded by Kanishka. The reference to Po-tiao is explained as pointing to the later Kushana ruler Vasudeva II. On the other hand, it can as well be presumed that Kanishka’s era might be only a regional one, very probably with omitted hundreds, and this was continued by the later Kushana rulers as well. We have not found any record of Kanishka and his successors in three digits. Further, a period of 14 years is too short for Wima Kadphises. In fact there is hardly any evidence except the indirect inference from the Taxila record of 136, that the Kushana ruler with the higher titles Maharaja, Rajatiraja, Devaputra could only be Wima and not his father Kujula. Moreover, it is not improbable that the son of this octogenarian could be a young man of 30 to 35 years who enjoyed longevity like his father. Kanishka’s clash with Rudradamana need not be a fact, if he is placed about 144 A.D. In that case be conquered upper Sindh after the death of the Saka ruler. The Kushana hold over Malwa, particularly in the light of Vasishka’s inscription at Sanchi in the year 28 of Kushana era, might be an event connected with the later Kushanas. The reference to Po-tiao in the Chinese source fits in well with Vasudeva I whose coins were found at, Begram. The later Kushana ruler was neither such an important one, nor his empire so vast as to call forties of alliance with the Wei. We seem to be on a safer ground in placing Kanishka and his family from the middle of the second century to the middle of the third century A.D., followed by the later Kushanas, who were contemporaries of the early Guptas, the well known Daivaputra Shahi Shahanushahi of the Allahabad Pillar inscription of Samudragupta. This would obviate the possibility of a dark period between the Kushana and the Gupta periods. (India Under the Kushanas, p. 49-50).
Majumdar thinks that the era found by Kanishka was the Traikutaka-Kalachouri-Chedi era 248-49 A.D. However, this view cannot be maintained. The catalogues of the Chinese Tripitika state that An-Shih-Kao (148-170 A.D.) translated the Margabhumi Sutra of Sangharaksha who was the chaplain of Kanishka. This shows conclusively that Kanishka flourished long before 170 A.D. and hence, the view of Majumdar is untenable. The same criticism applies to the view of Sir R.G. Bhandarkar that Kanishka’s accession took place in 278 A.D.
The view of Fergusson, Oldenberg, Thomas, R.D. Banerjee, Rapson and many other scholars like Raychaudhuri is that Kanishka was the founder of the Saka era and consequently he ascended the throne in 78 A.D. Some objections have been raised against this view but, on critical examination, those do not seem to hold the ground. It is contended that if we admit that Kadphises I reigned about 50 A.D. and Kanishka founded the Saka era in 78 A.D., we are left with only 28 years for the rest of the reign of Kadphises I and the whole of the reign of Kadphises II. In the first place, the date 50 A.D. for Kadphises I is not certain. Even if the same is accepted as correct, the period of 28 years is not too short in view of the fact that Kadphises II succeeded an octogenerian. When Kadphises I died “at the age of more than eighty”,his son must have been an old man. It is, therefore, improbable that “his reign was protracted.”
Hence, the date 78 A.D. for Kanishka’s succession is tenable.
It is contended that Sir John Marshall’s discovery of the inscription from the Chira Stupa of Taxila is dated 136 which in the Vikram era, corresponds to 79 A.D. Probably the king mentioned is Kadphises I and certainly not Kanishka. But it might be pointed out that the use of the word “Devaputra” in the inscription in question does not necessarily imply that it refers to Kadphises I. This title is characteristic of Kanishka group and not the Kadphises group. The omission of the personal name of the Kushana king does not necessarily imply that the first Kushana king is meant. In several inscriptions of the time of Kumaragupta and Buddhagupta, the king is referred to simply as Gupta Nripa. Likewise, the title of Devaputra can also apply to Kanishka.
Sten Konow has shown that the inscriptions of the Kanishka era and those of the Saka era are not dated in the same fashion and consequently Kanishka cannot be said to have started the Saka era. However, the same scholar himself admits that all the inscriptions of Kanishka’s era are not dated in the same fashion. There is always a variation to suit the needs of the locality and the time. In the Kharoshthi inscriptions, Kanishka and his successors recorded the dates in the same way as their Saka-Pahlava predecessors, giving the name of the month and the day within the month. On the other hand, in their Brahmi records Kanishka and his successors adopted the ancient Indian way of recording dates. We cannot conclude from this that the Kharoshthi dates of Kanishka’s inscriptions are not to be referred to the same era to which dates of the Brahmi records are to be ascribed. If Kanishka adopted two different ways of recording dates, he also could have adopted a third method to suit the local conditions in Western India. It is not improbable that just as Kanishka in the border land used the old Saka-Pahlava method and in Hindustan proper used the ancient Indian way prevalent there, likewise, in Western India his officers added the Paksha to suit the custom in that part of the country.
A.L. Basham points out that the strongest argument in favour of the date A.D. 78 for Kanishka, against those who place him towards the middle of the 2nd century, is the fact that otherwise he will be a contemporary of Rudradaman. The Girnar Inscription of Rudradaman was composed in A.D. 150. According to the chronologies of Sten Konow and Ghirshman, Kanishka was firmly established on the throne at that time. In spite of that, Ruddradaman does not mention the name of any overlord. The era employed by Rudradaman is the Saka era or A.D. 78. Although he took the humble titles of Raja Mahakshatrapa, he was not a vassal, but a very powerful independent monarch. Rudradaman claims victory over the Yaudheyas who occupied the southern bank of the river Sutlej which was in the heart of a territory under Kanishka. There was absolutely no room in India for two contemporary monarchs of the status of Kanishka and Rudradaman and hence Kanishka must have ascended the throne in A.D. 78 and not in the second century A.D.
It is clear from above that Kanishka was the founder of the Saka era which started in 78 A.D. and also ascended the throne in 78 A.D. and not in about 120 A.D. as maintained by other writers.