{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.00893743793445879, 'fraction_numerical': 0.022840119165839126, 'mean_word_length': 4.508196721311475, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
The Date of Kanishka since 1960

The 1960 London Conference on the Date of Kanishka involved many leading scholars of Central and South Asian studies and had a profound impact on the field. This article examines the historiography of the central problem posed at the conference: In what year did the era of Kanishka commence? It traces the advances in evidence that led to the solution of AD 127 between 2000 and 2010. The complexity of this process is often omitted in historiographical accounts, which opens the final solution to criticism and also fails to address why the field polarised after 1960 and found it so hard to reconcile new evidence. The article suggests that the eventual solution was a result of the cumulative effect of new data. It also shows that the field as a whole arrived at a solution long before it arrived at a consensus. This suggests that the failure of new evidence to bring about a solution more quickly is a major challenge to South and Central Asian studies in the future.