Date of Kaniska
By R. Kimura
Summary
The dating of Kaniska, a significant figure in Central Asian history, remains debated among scholars. Estimates range widely, from 58 BCE to 278 CE. Early theories, such as Cunningham’s initial alignment with the Vikrama Samvat (58 BCE), were later revised in favor of the Seleucid era (80 CE). Fleet and Kennedy proposed placing Kaniska around 68 BCE, arguing for a middle-1st century BCE date based on Buddhist texts like the *Abhidharma-Mahavibhasa-Sasiral*, which mentions two Kaniskas. This text, translated by Hiuen Tsang, refers to an older Kaniska from "ancient times" and a younger one contemporary to the fourth Buddhist council under Kaniska I. Asvaghosa’s *Sutralamkara* similarly mentions an older "Candra Kaniska," reinforcing the existence of two distinct rulers. Scholars generally accept Fleet and Kennedy’s chronology, though some, like Thomas, raised objections. The older Kaniska (c. 58 BCE) is linked to the Vikrama era, with subsequent rulers Huvishka (reigned 81–49 BCE) and Vasudeva (1–38 CE) following. The *Hau-Han-Chou* references a 100-year gap after Vasudeva, suggesting unrecorded Kushan conquests. Chinese sources like Pan-yong’s *Fan-ye-choen* (6th century CE) mention later Kushan kings (Kuzulo Kadphises, Kanishka II, and Vasudeva II) but omit Kaniska I, likely due to geographical distance or lack of firsthand knowledge. Similarly, early
Conclusion
This analysis resolves the longstanding debate on Kaniska's date by confirming the existence of two distinct Kanigkas, as evidenced by Buddhist texts referencing an older Kaniska from "ancient times" and a later one contemporary with Asvaghosa. The findings solidify the mid-1st century CE (c. 68 CE) dating for the Kanigka associated with the fourth Buddhist council and the Vikrama Samvat era, aligning with the Vibhasa-Vinaya's chronology of Buddha's death (485 BCE). By distinguishing between the two rulers and contextualizing Hiuen Tsang's conflicting accounts, this study clarifies discrepancies in earlier scholarship, offering a coherent framework for situating Kaniska within Kushan political history and Buddhist textual traditions. The evidence underscores the necessity of rigorous source analysis to resolve historical ambiguities in Indian chronology.