The date of Kaniska and Mr. Kimura

Summary

The discussion revolves around determining the date of the Indo-Scythian emperor Kaniska, with a critical examination of Mr. Kimura’s arguments based on Chinese and Tibetan sources. Kimura cites a passage from the *Hou Han-shu* describing the installation of Pan as king of Sakala (identified as Kashgar) by the Yueh-chi, which he correlates with Hiuen Tsang’s accounts linking Kaniska to Sakala. He concludes Kaniska’s reign must fall between 140–180 CE. However, the author challenges Kimura’s interpretation, noting errors in the *Hou Han-shu* excerpt: the misidentification of Sakala’s king as Ankon (correctly An-kuo) and the incorrect assertion that An-kuo ruled Sakala. The author argues that Su-le (Kashgar) in the *Hou Han-shu* should align with Yarkand, not Sakala, and highlights Tibetan sources mentioning Vijayasimha, king of Khotan (identified with Su-le), who promoted Buddhism around 120 CE. A Tibetan account further links Vijayasimha’s son Vijayakirti to Kaniska’s expedition to India, suggesting Kaniska’s reign post-dates 122 CE. The author also critiques Kimura’s claim of two distinct Kaniskas (separated by centuries), arguing instead for a single Kaniska or closely related rulers within a narrower timeframe. While acknowledging Kimura’s evidence for Kaniska’s Khotan origins and Iranian linguistic ties, the author emphasizes inconsistencies in Chinese sources and skepticism toward uncritical acceptance of Buddhist textual claims. The conclusion supports a revised date for Kaniska between 120–180 CE, aligning with Kh