Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
.
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of
content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms
of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.
Artibus Asiae Publishers is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Artibus Asiae.
http://www.jstor.org
STUDIES
RECENT
INVOLVING
THE DATE
OF KANISKA
A Review article
BY ALEXANDER C. SOPER
340
ginning of the third. Thus Vima may be seen as drawing from Trajan; Kaniska from Hadrian; and Huviska
341
342
all the Western objects probably originated in Alexandria and were datable around the middle of the first
344
Thus in Narain's proposal it was Kaniska who intervened to place his favorite on the Kashgar throne. It
was Vima who dispatched his viceroy over the Pamirs
to meet defeat by Pan Ch'ao in AD 90; and it was
Vasudeva II, after the regime was on the downgrade,
who sent the embassy to China in AD 230. Kaniska's
coins are the most numerous of those of the Kushan
345
346
Nagirjuna,
347
Thediscussions:
The sessions at which the papers presented to the
conference were discussed, were summarized by
G. L. Adhya and N.K. Wagle. Further to boil down
this resume - to give for example even a list of the
topics discussed and the differencesof opinion revealed-would extend the present review to a wholly
unreadablelength. I propose instead to make a few
general observations and to call attention to a very
smallnumberof arguments.
To judge by the published summary,the discussions
rangedvery unevenly over the two dozen or so papers.
It should not surprise or sadden professional readers
of ArtibusAsiae to learnthat almost nothing was said
about the purely art historical problems raised.
Rosenfield's persuasivelyargued paper was available
to the conferees only in a r&sumeby Narain, at the
session on archaeology; and apparentlyevoked only
the commentby van Lohuizenthat "it provided useful
materialfor dynastic evidence". His proposal that the
Kaniskaerabegan between AD i i o and i 15 (basedon
the Mathurdmaterial),was reportedto the session on
epigraphy,without anyrecordedcomments.Bussagli's
contribution, again, was referredto only in passing,
as again assigning the "Kaniska casket" to Kaniska's
reign. Van Lohuizen spoke frequently; but only her
long-familiarclaim,thatthe earlyerausedin the Northwest was based on the Yiieh-chih conquest of Bactria
in AD 129 was noted (to be rejected by Narain and
Tolstov).
Eggermont also spoke frequently, and chaired the
session on Classicaland Iraniansource materials;but
out of the bewildering shower of yearsand hypotheses
in his paperonly the smallest,most tangibleitem in the
last postscript was extractedfor mention, his Roman
citation about the third (presumably Kushan) Scy-
of the unarguable question whether it was more reasonable to expect a minimum number of early eras (e. g.
two, the "Vikrama" and the "Saka"), or to view their
creation as a matter of political expediency, easily
repeated. As shown above, Narain's chronological
table was based on four eras, ranging from 155 BC
to AD o103,created in succession by four invaders.
Rosenfield preferred not to follow van Lohuizen's
theory that a second century of dedications in Mathurd
sculpture was dated consecutively with the first, with
the hundreds digit omitted. On the other hand he made
no suggestion as to the reason why or by whom a new
reckoning should have been started, only a few years
different from the Kaniskan. The most exotic intruder
into the era discussion was the "Bactrian Xsono era"
mentioned by Humbach. The least welcomed was
Majumdar's "Kalacuri era" started in 248-249,
proposed as Kaniska's under an Indian disguise.
Several conference members took an active interest in
the reliability of archaeological evidence, particularly
in the association of coin deposits and building periods
outlined by Allchin. The claims for a direct relationship between Roman and Kushan coinage provoked
a lively discussion. G6bl's citation of iconographic
parallels during the Great Kushan century, operating
with a time lag of about 25 years, was received with
respectful attention. Several references were made to
the importance for dating purposes of the nineteenth
from Kusina
prototypes.
349
Dr.MacDowall
mate durations to non-Kushan dynasties by the number of their rulers, known through coins or the Purdnas, giving an average number of years to each - I18by
Gupta, 8 by Majumdar-was strongly rejected by
Basham and Narain. It is worth noting that Majumdar's paper allotted a duration of "from three to four
hundred years" to the rules of the 40-odd Greek,
Saka, and Parthian monarchs in the Northwest; Narain
BIBLIOGRAPHIA
historians. With considerable courage and forthrightness, Dr. Barnhart decides emphatically in favor
of the first alternative and, while in this study of Tung
Yiian he is working with but one small part of a
much larger problem, he demonstrates the effectiveness of his approach.
The book is divided into three chapters: I. "The
350
.
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of
content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms
of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.
Artibus Asiae Publishers is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Artibus Asiae.
http://www.jstor.org
BIBLIOGRAPHIA
RECENT
STUDIES
THE DATE
INVOLVING
OF KANISKA
A Reviewarticle
BY ALEXANDER C. SOPER
II*
Sequelsto London:G'bl, Zeymal,Lukonin:
At London one of the most persuasivesupportersof
a mid secondcenturydatefor Kaniskaproved to be the
numismatist Robert Gbbl. Much of the wide experience and intensive study from which his very brief
paper was condensed, may be examined in the study
of Kushan imperial coinage he had published three
yearsearlier,as partof a book by severalspecialistson
LateAntique financialhistory.IThat too is a summary,
cut down to suit the dimensions of a chapter;but the
remarkablebreadth of its coverage, the precision of
its details, and its factual density make it a monograph of first importance.
For our present purpose the most interesting part of
this statementis its finale. Like almost everyone else,
Gbbl acceptedthe inscriptionalevidence that Kaniska
and his great successors ruled for approximately a
century. The coinage that immediatelyfollows indicates a division of the empire into two halves, with
Gandhira as a frontier region. To the north a ruler
who called himself Vasudeva, presumablythe second
of the name, continuedto mint gold and copper pieces
in the style of his probable father Vasudeva I: showing the king standing in armor before an altaron the
obverse and a frontal Siva standing in front of his
bull on the reverse. In the southern, more purely Indian realmthe first rulerwas anotherKaniska,whom
Gbbl calls KaniskaII. He too used the king-and-altar
design, and occasionallythe Siva-Nandicomplement;
but much more often the obverse of his coins shows
an iconographic novelty, the goddess of plenty called
to
* Part I see Artibus Asiae, vol.-33, 1971, fasc.4, PP.-339
350.
r R. G6bl, "Die Miinzprigung der Kusdn von Vima Kadand R. Stiehl,
phises bis Bahrdm IV", in F. Altheim
der
Frankfurt/Main
1957,
Spatantike,
FinanZgeschichte
chap. 8, pp.-173-2566.
Ioz
1o3
and the rivalry between his sons that was to split the
empire. On these grounds G'bl thought it plausible
to date the old emperor'sdeath bewteen AD 325 and
330."
As we have seen, Helmut Humbach in his contribution to the published London conference papers
spoke brieflyof two bilingual inscriptionsfrom Tochi
in Waziristan(West Pakistan)found by G-bl in the
Peshwar Museum. Through the use of the Islamic
Hegira dating system, it was possible to assign one of
these to a previously unnoticed Bactrian "Xsono"
era beginning in AD 23o. Humbach's decision was
that this can have had nothing to do with the Great
Kushans; G6bl naturallytook it as Kaniska's,and so
as a very welcome corroboration. (He explains that
"Xsono" means in theyear, as in the inscription at
Surkh Khotal.)14
Gbbl announced this new date quietly, disclaiming
any unseemly Hubris. He merely added that it now
lies with the other disciplines to reexaminetheir relationships with the central theme (of Kushan chronology)."s
At the Dushambe conference in 1968 a Russian delegate, E.V. Zeymal, returned to the initial Kaniskan
year, AD z87, proposed by D. Bhandarkaras long
ago as 1899. In that system the "Saka era" of AD 78
was identified with the pre-Kushan, unknown or
unnamed era which the London conferences had
linked to various dates before Christ,most frequently
to 58 BC. In that first era the dates may be traced in
inscriptions through two centuries; the Kaniskanera
followed immediatelythereafter,making a third century. Vasudeva's reign thus ended in AD 376, a date
with the
Zeymal's
which--in
proposal--agrees
known late fourth century
conquests of the Kushan
empire by Iran and Guptan India.
(Such is the substance of Zeymal's proposal as summarizedin the book KushanStudiesin U. S. S. R., Calcutta, I970.-6 In addition, according to a report by
RichardFrye, "Zejmal on the basis of a study of the
whole series of gold Kushan coins concluded that the
Roman parallels are found only in the third and
fourth centuriesA.D. According to him, the development of stylistic features of, for example, the
Diana figure, from a short dress to a long dress, and
13
164-65.
1s G6bl, ibid., II, p.-3o0.
16 Kusban Studies,
pp.-152-53.
Io4
..
.
.
w...li~i!
i4
Plate i
On the left, enlarged obverse and reverse views of gold medallion, British Museum
(re-photographed by courtesy of the Museum). On the right, illustrations reproduced from G6bl, Iranischen Hunnen, pl. 92. 1 shows the same medallion at original
size, and 1-e the same without border. 2, 3, 4 are coins of Constantine I; 5, 6, 7, 8, 9
are coins of Huviska showing the goddess Ardoxsho.
to
17
Wilson published an interesting rearrangementof familiar data, based on a new reading of the Periplusof
theErythraeanSea.21The crucialpassagewas the often
cited list of peoples lying inland from the west Indian
port of Barygaza: "... the races of the Aratrii, Arachosii, Gandarii,and those of Proclais ... and above
these the most warlike race of the Bactrians;all these
racesbeingundera
king, Heraios [italics mine].
The Periplusthey Ku.sd.a
now dated around AD ioo, a cutoff date being given by its reference to the Arab
monarch Malichas of Petra, the state conquered by
Rome in AD io6.
Heraios, or Heraeus, or Miaos, a king otherwise
known through silver coinage found chiefly in Bactria, had been only sporadicallymentionedat London.
MacDowall, who had then shown a specialinterestin
the other monarch known only through coins, Soter
Megas, now joined with Wilson in calling the two
one man. Though their issues differ in metal and in
second being represented
proven
distribution--the from the middle
very widely by coppers,
Gangetic
and they alone
region to Russian
Turkestan--they
used a design showing
on one side a head derived
from a BactrianGreek prototype, and on the other a
Saka-style horseman. By a remarkableexception to
the general Chinese practise of the time, the combination of these two motifs is noted in the FormerHan
History in its account of the kingdom of Chi-pin (or
Ki-pin, usually taken to be Gandhira), in the first
centuryB.C.22
Furtherdating aids are cited in: (a) the Periplus'mention of Roman gold and silver coins among the imports at Barygaza; by MacDowall's optimum metal
value criterion, a profitable exchange of these for
native currencieswould have been possible only after
Trajan returned to a reduced weight in AD 98/99.
(b) the Periplusin an obvious referenceto the Gangetic region speaks of gold mines and gold coins,
while the Nasik cave inscription of Saka 4znd [i.e.
AD izo] refers to an expenditure of zooo suvarnas,
gold pieces. The striking of a gold coinage in India
began with Vima.
The linking of Heraios and Soter Megas leaves unsettled their relation to the named Kushan figures.
MacDowall at London had suggested that the second
might be an epithet for Vima. Here he and Wilson
In Numismatic Chronicle, London, 1970, "The references
to the Ku?Ainas in the Periplus and further numismatic
evidence for its date", pp. 221 ff.
22 Han shu, 96a, p. lob (cf. Zircher, Papers,
p.-363).
21
1o7
be the 284th, and since the era used is one that began
in 1 BC (the "Yavana era" employed in Narain's
55
London paper), the actual date is AD 129. The Mamane Dheri sculpture of the year "89" should not be
reckoned in Kaniska's era, but by the same older
system; presumably the hundreds digits have been
omitted, the year should be the 289th, and the date
is AD 134. The sculptured Hdriti of Skarah Dheri has
a date that has been usually read "399", but by other
experts 179 or 291. Bivar prefers the last, since it
works out as AD 136. The Loriyan Tangai inscribed
Buddha of "318" becomes AD 163. Since Kaniska's
reign is here reckoned from AD 129, all these stones
must have been executed in his period or Huviska's.
To substantiate his proposal, Bivar has elaborated on
the Hdriti cult in the Northwest, attested by many
sculptured figures besides the Skarah Dheri statue.
The goddess in her initial role as an ogress who
devours children was probably the personification of
a fatal disease. The sudden appearance of her cult
suggests a terrible epidemic, which Bivar links to the
"great pestilence" that entered the Roman empire
from the east in AD 165. As the symptoms were
described they seem to indicate smallpox.
(Bivar might also have mentioned the surprisingly
elaborate statue of a throned Hdriti found by Dani in
his excavation of a Kushan period merchant's house
at Shaikhan Dheri in the Peshawar region.2s The
image was taken from a lower stratum datable by
coins to the reign of Kaniska.)
In 196 5 and 1970 J. Brough of the University of London published a running commentary on the history
of the small Central Asian oasis-state of Shan-shan closest to the Chinese froutier along the southern
the basis of the docubranch of the "silk route"
--on
in the area.26 In so
found
ments in Kharosthl script
doing he supported with some modifications and new
arguments, the claim made in the Papers by Pulleyblank that the Kushan empire had not only included
the Tarim Basin for a time, under the invincible
Kani~ska,but had even penetrated as close to the Han
frontier bases as Shan-shan. One new argument was
the wording of the title given the local king on
official documents, obviously based on Kushan practise, with all the familiar superlatives from Basileos
1,
1970,
pp.
2s Reported
no.33. I, 1970.
Ioff.
108
iog
203 years.
On the other hand the more volatile history of the
Six Dynasties period brought eight rulers to the
throne in the 57 years of Liu Sung, seven in the 32
of Southern Ch'i, and six in the 30 of Ch'en. In the
North each of the two last T'o-pa puppet emperors
was the nominal son of Heaven for a much longer
period, for 16 years in Eastern Wei and z2 in Western
Wei. In a Chinese situation roughly comparable to
that of the pre-Kushan far north, the Five Dynasties,
where the "legitimate" regimes followed each other
in rapid succession while local warlords seized power
wherever they could all over the south, no less than
58 men claimed royal status during a period of only
54 years. Suppose that in place of the precise Chinese
annals one had only groups of names, gathered from
more or less corrupt and half fabulous texts or from
accidental coin finds, and a vague racial memory of
endless turbulence and distress --the materials on
which one constructs a chronology for the preKushan period in north India and Afghanistan - one
might quite plausibly ask for a much longer period,
Narain's two centuries at least or even Majumdar's
three to four.
As we have seen, Ghirshman's starting date of AD
31 Narain, Papers,p.
237.
32 Papers.,p.-154.
IIO
144cameunderattackfromseveraldirectionsduring
the London and Dushambeconferences.The Russiansrejectedthe chronologicalparallelswiththe fate
of BegramGhirshmanhad drawnfromthe city sites
in RussianTurkestan.Maricqdeniedthatthe destruction of BegramII hadanydemonstrable
relationto a
Sassanianpusheastward.One of the crucialelements
of Ghirshman'sargument,the allotmentof 98 years
to the Great Kushanera on the basis of its dated
inscriptions,was acceptedby the scholarswhoseown
theorieswere supportedby so shorta term.I wish
here to registeragreementwith the otherswho for
one reasonor anotheracceptedit as no morethana
minimum(Majumdar)or as of merelylocal application.
Almost all the inscriptionshave been taken from
privatelydedicatedBuddhistor Jainsculpturesfound
at Mathurdor belonging to the Mathuranschool.
Even were thereno more than one series,similarly
phrasedandendingwith a 98thyear,its valuefor the
history even of NorthernIndia would be limited.
Mathurdwas one of the southernmost
bastionsof the
Kushanempire,andmayhavebeenabandonedin the
face of native pressurelong before Gandhara,the
heartland.It is surelynot impossiblethat the date
shouldbe takenin an even morelimitedsense.24 out
of the z9 Jainimagesin the groupwerefoundat the
KankallTildsite.In the lasthalfof the 98-yearperiod
the overwhelmingmajorityof the dedicationsare
Jain, only seven coming from scatteredBuddhist
finds.SystematicexcavationaroundMathurd
hasuntil
very recentlybeen almostnon-existent;noonetoday
canbe surethata methodicalsearchmightnot reveal
one or more late Buddhistmonasteriescomparable
to thosearoundTaxila,withdatedinscriptionsfalling
well after98.
Thepointis actuallyanacademicone,sinceaccording
to the studies of van Lohuizenand Rosenfielda
secondseriesof inscriptionsfromMathurddoes exist
already,differingin importantwaysfromthoseof the
GreatKushancenturyandpresumablylateron paleographicandstylisticgrounds.In the 1967versionof
Rosenfield'scataloguethereare 30 of these,terminating in a 57th year.Van Lohuizenwould makethis
the x57th. Rosenfield,as we have seen, is not fully
convincedby the theory of the omitted hundreds
digit, and so not preparedto make the two series
exactly continuous;but his own preferencewould
producea datein the samegeneralperiod.
Muchof the initialconfusionat the conferencewas
causedby ignorance,misunderstanding,
or deliberate
disregard of the Chinese historical evidence. In the
two papers contributed by Sinologues, the shorter
and more assertive, by Pulleyblank, compounded the
difficulty. The longer, more objective presentation by
Z ircher left a central question still unanswered. Most
of the arguments advanced by others to claim an expansion of Kushan rule over the Pamirs into the
Tarim Basin seemed to him unsound in view of the
Chinese data. He stopped just short of complete denial
because the case for a conquest by Kaniska, made with
III
lizJ
of Asia Minor- may be cited as prototypes for Kushan imperial iconography, disagrees flatly with
G*bl's opinion as registered in the Papers,based on
prolonged study of the Roman types two centuries
earlier, and particularlythose of Alexandria. What
likeness exists to support Zeymal's comparisons is
due to the common deviation of the two coin series
from the Greco-Romanideal, a stubby awkwardness
explainable in the Kushan case largely by distance
measuredin miles, and in the Late Antique by distance
in time. A similar explanation accounts for much of
the likeness between the Buddhist sculptures of
Gandhara and Early Christian sculptures in Rome
and Provence.
G6bl's "r6misch-kusdnischesMischmedaillon" is a
much more curious problem with which to deal. My
plate reproducesthe right half of his plate 9z, substituting somewhat clearerenlargedphotographs on the
left provided by the British Museum. It will be seen
that what remains of his original illustrationattempts
to show as much as possible of his argument.The two
views marked I give the piece at its actual size. ie
shows the medallion without its ornamentalborder
and suspensionloop. 2, 3, 4 areConstantinianparallels
to the portrait;while 6, 7, 8, 9 show coins of Huviska
with typical renditions of Ardoxsho and her cornucopia.
I find it impossible to imagine circumstances that
would explain such a mixture, or a believable place of
113