The date of Kaniska and Mr. Kimura
By Sten Konow
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
AI-assisted summary, not yet checked. Consult the original PDF before citing.
Conclusion
This analysis challenges Mr. Kimura’s proposed dating of Kaniska by identifying critical inaccuracies in his use of the *Hou Han-shu* account, particularly the misidentification of Su-le as Sakala and the erroneous attribution of An-kuo’s rule over Sakala. Despite these errors, the study underscores the significance of Chinese and Tibetan sources in reconstructing Kaniska’s chronology, highlighting the potential connection between the Khotan king Vijayasimha’s Buddhist influence and Kaniska’s subsequent military campaigns. The findings suggest a plausible timeline for Kaniska’s reign between 120–180 CE, emphasizing the need for rigorous source verification in historical interpretations. This critique refines Kimura’s arguments while affirming the value of cross-cultural textual evidence in resolving longstanding historical debates.