Post Mauryan Polities: The Kushanas and the Satavahanas Sanjay Sharma The Kushanas The era of Kushanas, has remained relatively neglected in terms of its political importance in comparison to the other similar epochs. The imperial Kushanas established their empire in the vast areas of Asia transcending language and racial barriers. This was an age when different ethics and cultures came in contact and influenced each other. The sources of the history of Kushanas are primarily the Chinese chronicles. Prominent among them are the Ch’ien Han-Shu and the Hon Han-Shu. We begin our analysis of the political history of the Kushanas with the latest discoveries which have given new dimensions to it. Kushana History in the Light of New Discoveries A number of important discoveries in the last fifty years or so have given a new look to the history of the Kushana empire. One of the most prominent discovery has been the identification of the language used in most of the coins of Kaniska I and his successors. The finding of an inscription at Surkh-Kotal (Afghanistan) and few other evidences have helped the scholars to establish that the language normally used was a ‘middle Iranian’, written in Greek script. Henning called this language, Bactrian. Most of the coin legends and inscriptions under the Kushanas have been written in this language and this shows that Bactrian was the most important language of the empire. Apart from this, there have been some inscriptions written in Kharoshti and Brahmi, which have been discovered recently. Important among them are the Kamra inscription of Vasishka of the year 20 (of the Kanishka era of c. 78 AD) and the Mathura inscription of Vasudeva II of the year 170 (of the same era). Moreover, a number of myths have now been broken, discoveries in future will break many more. One such example is that till recently Kanishka I was believed to be of a separate group from Kujula or Vima Kadphises but now it has been shown that the former was a lineal descendent of Kujula and perhaps an immediate successor of Vima Kadphises. The Early History of Kushanas The founders of the Kushana empire were the Hsi-hou (Yuvaga or leaders) of Kuei-Shuang (Kushana), perhaps a clan which was a part of Ta Yueh-chin or the Great Hueh-chin people. On the testimony of Chang Chien, it becomes clear that Ta Yueh-chin controlled some areas north of Oxus and also the region of Ta-hsia to the south of the river. Ta-hsia was initially equated with Bactria, but after considering the statement of Strabo in which he speaks of the conquest of Bactria by five nomadic tribes, more dimensions were touched upon for the identification of Ta-hsia. It is generally believed now that the Tokharoi, mentioned by Strabo as one of the tribes in the conquest, were either same as or affiliated with Ta Yueh-chin, and that Ta-hsia included areas of eastern Bactria-Wakhan, Chitral, Kafiristan, Badakshan etc. It was this area of eastern Bactria which was attacked by Ta Yueh-chin, the western Bactria being subjugated by the rest of the four Shaka nomadic tribes. This conquest of Bactria must have been completed by 130/129 BC. Both the prominent Chinese chronicles, the Ch’ien Han-Shu and the Hon Han-Shu mention the Ta-hsia was divided among five Hsi-hou (Yuvaga or leaders) of Ta-Yueh-chin. One of these Hsi-hou was of Kuei- Shuang (Kushana). All these Yuvagas or leaders were dependent on a central authority which based somewhere to the north of the Oxus. The first known Kushana ruler was Miaos (Eraos), who was independent. He struck coins not just in the area south of the Oxus but also to the north of the river, which makes it clear that he was responsible for liquidating the powers of central authority. The other four Hsi-hou of Ta-hsia were defeated and subjugated by Kujula Kadphises. In any case it becomes clear that Miaos extended the Kushana kingdom to the north of the Oxus. Kujula and Vima Kadphises Kujula Kadphises (known to Chinese chronicles as Chiu-chiu-chueh) succeeded Miaos, either immediately or sometime later. The Hon Han-Shu speaks of his conquests up to the area of Ta-hsia, P’u- ta (area around Bactria), Kao-Fu (Kabul) and Chi-pin (north western region of the Indian subcontinent up to Kashmir valley). He must have also retained his dominions north of Oxus which were captured by Miaos. Kujula’s coins (of different varieties) have been found apart from Ta-hsia, in Paropanisadae, Gandhara (including Pushkalavati), Taxila and even in areas east of Jhelum. Kujula captured the Kabul area from Arsacids (the imperial Parthians), and Chi-pin from the Indo Parthians. The Hon Han-Shu further says that Kujula died at the ripened age of more than eighty, and he was succeeded by his son Vima Kadphises (known in Chinese chronicles as Yen-Kao-Chen). In one Kharoshti inscription he has been addressed as Sadakshana. There are epigraphic data to prove that he was ruling, either jointly with his father or independently, in 17 AD (Khatalese inscription of the year 187 of perhaps the era of 170 BC). Vima, who is known to be a valiant warrior snatched the Kandahar area up to Mathura and also Shen-tu from the Indo-Parthains. Shen-tu is identified with the ‘Lower Indus Country’. It was for long believed that the term Kadphises was a surname of the father and the son, but recent researches have shown that it was rather a title which was perhaps derived from the old Iranian term kata-pisa meaning ‘of honoured form.’ So the absence of this title in the name of Kanishka does not necessarily mean that he belonged to an altogether different line. The recently discovered Kamra inscription has been very useful to find out a relation between the two. The Kamra inscription of Vasishka of the year 20 (of the Kanishka’s era of c. 78 AD) relates him to the branch of the great king Kala Kabisa Sachadhamathita, who according to B.N. Mukherjee has been identified with Kujula Kadphises. Moreover in the Mat (Mathura) inscription, reference to erection of a temple and a statue of Vima has been made and in another inscription the same temple has been attributed to the grandfather of Huvishka. This shows that Vima Kadphises was the grandfather of Huvishka. There is hardly any evidence to show that there was any interregnum between the reigns of Vima and Kanishka I. If 78 AD, is considered as the start of Kanishka I’s reign than Vima must have reigned up to that year. Kanishka I Vima Kadphises was succeeded on the Kushana throne by Kanishka I. He is by and large considered as the greatest monarch of Kushana family. The theory of his usurpation of the throne is now to be rejected in the light of new evidences mentioned earlier. At the very outset we must take into consideration, the fact that there were two Kanishka’s in the Kushana genealogy. The Kamra inscription of Vasishka, of the year 20 (of the Kanishka era of c. 78 AD) mentions of digging of a well on the occasion of the birth of Kanishka. This Kanishka seems to be different from the Kanishka who started the era of c. 78 AD The new born Kanishka is identified as the son of Vasishka. The Extent of Kushana Empire Under Kanishka To authenticate the extent of Kanishka I’s empire has been a problem that has engrossed the scholars in recent times. It is certain though that Kanishka had under his control the area of North West Frontier Province, Punjab and Sind. The Rajatarangini testifies the rule of Kanishka, Vasishka and Huvishka over Kashmir and through epigraphs bearing his name in the Mathura region, the inclusion of this area in Kanishka’s empire has been confirmed. These confirmations show that he kept the Indian possession of Kujula and Vima under his rule as well. There are many more sources which indicate a further extension of his empire in India. Chinese sources have suggested his rule over Saketa (Fyzabad in UP) and Pataliputra. Testimony of inscriptions also show his control over Benaras, Kosam and Saheth-Maheth area. The Sanchi inscription of king Vakushana, who may be identified with Vasishka-Kushana, of the year 22 (of the Kanishka era) shows that eastern Malwa was also under his possession. Vasishka at this time must have been a co-ruler of Kanishka. One Chinese source (Yu Yang Tsa Tsu of year c. 860 AD) also refers to Kanishka’s successful campaign against the Satavahanas. The Satavahana king at this time seems to be Gautamiputra Satakarni. The Andhau inscription of Chastana shows that he was a contemporary of Kanishka I and as he used the title kshatrapa in the initial part of his rule, there is a possibility that he was a subordinate ruler, most probably of Kanishka. Kanishka’s Relations with Contemporary Foreign Powers New trends in the history of the Kushanas throw a fresh light on the relations of Kanishka with other contemporary foreign powers. A Chinese source tells us that the king of An-hsi (the Arsacid king who is not yet conclusively identified) attacked Chi-ni-cha (Kanishka) but was defeated badly by the latter. Another Chinese source tells about Kanishka’s expeditions beyond Pamirs. The source further says that the rulers of the frontier tribes in the area west of Yellow river (in China) were afraid of him.