buddhism in gandhra 57
(modern Peshawar) in Gandhra. This strong political power, reigning
over such a vast territory and ensuring wealth, security and stability,
was favourable to the exchange of material and cultural goods along
the trade routes throughout this empire which in turn facilitated the
spread of Buddhism. The most important trade route was the so-called
Silk Road, actually a wide-spread network of trade routes that in its
East-West axis connected the Roman Empire with the Chinese Empire
while linking both empires via Balkh, Bamiyan (Bmiyn), Peshawar
and Taxila with the Indian subcontinent. It was along these routes that
Buddhist tradesmen and monks spread their religion.
The greatest emperor of the Kuas was Kanika.^51 According to the
Buddhist tradition he is recognised as a second Aoka. The Buddhists
claimed him as a royal patron. But, as G. Fussman has shown,^52
Kanika, like Aoka, dedicated temples to quite a number of other gods
as well. However, he built large stpas near Puruapura, which were
much admired by the Chinese pilgrims,^53 and a monastery at Kap
(Begram).^54 The tradition which maintains that he patronised the fourth
Buddhist council as a result of which missionary activity was accelerated
and Buddhist missions were sent to Central Asia and China is histori-
cally doubtful as is the tradition concerning the triumphant spread of
Buddhism into Bactria during his reign. Only few of the monasteries
excavated in Afghanistan go indeed back to the early Kua period.
Thus it appears that, at the time of Kanika, institutionalised Buddhism
was not as widely spread as was once believed.
(^51) The date of Kanika has been debated by scholars for more than 100 years.
For much of the 20th century, an early dating to 78 AD was favored. Cf. Fussman
1998, pp. 571f., 627ff.; Fussman 1987, p. 68. Recent discoveries have led to signi cant
improvements in the chronology of this period and scholarly debate has largely shifted
to considering a date in the late 120s AD most likely. Cf. Sims-Williams 1995/1996,
p. 106: “Kanishka I: 100–126 or 120–146”. Some scholars go further and speci cally
assign the date to 127/ 128 AD. Cf. Falk 2001; 2004. A date in the late 120’s is supported
by a radiocarbon test of the Senior Kharo h manuscripts, see note 100 below.
(^52) Fussman 1998, pp. 590ff.
(^53) Cf. Xuanzang in Beal 1884, vol. 1, pp. 99ff.
(^54) Watters 1904, p. 124.