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 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 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 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 era of c. 78 AD) and the 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 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 , 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 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 . 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 () 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, (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 . 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, 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 . 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 inscription of king Vakushana, who may be identified with Vasishka-Kushana, of the year 22 (of the Kanishka era) shows that eastern 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 . 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.

One of the most prominent incident associated with Kanishka is that in c. 86 or 87 AD, he sent presents to the court of Han empire of China and asked for the hand of a Han Princess in marriage. The demand or request, whatever it was, was refused and so his relation with the Han emperor became inimical. In 90 AD, he attacked China with a huge army but it was repulsed by Pan-chao, the great Han general. In any case, it is clear that Kanishka ruled over a vast empire. The Naqsh-i-Rustam record of Sassanian king Shapur I indicates that even in the fag end, the Kushana empire stretched in the north up to Kashgarh, Sogdiana, and area around Tashkent. In the west it included the whole of Afghanistan except Seistan, in the east it included the Xingjiang province of China and also a territory in to the north of Oxus river.

Kanishka’s Date of Accession

Though there have been mutually divergent views among scholars about the actual date of accession of Kanishka but the generally accepted date is 78 AD. He ruled for 23 years i.e., from the year 1 to 23 of the Kanishka’s era of 78 AD. This era was given the name of in a later age primarily because it was made popular by Shaka-Pahalava Satrapal rulers of and Deccan.

Kanishka : An Estimate

As we noted earlier, Kanishka was one of the most powerful monarchs and a towering personality of ancient India. His contribution to religion and art is immense. He was probably the first king in early India who incorporated north western India to his empire which extended up to central Asia. Hence the people of north-western part of Indian subcontinent got a unique exposure. Various diverse cultures started to intermingle. He gave protection to all religious communities like the Buddhists, Shaiva, Jains etc. The Bactrian, Gandhara and Mathura Schools of art flourished under him. He was associated with some prominent personalities of his age like Charak and Ashvaghosha. The fourth Buddhist council was also held under his patronage at Kundalavana (modern Harwan near Srinagar). In this council the Vibhashashastras were compiled. He established Kanishka vihara at Shah-ji-ki-dheri near in . This monastery was known world over for art and religion. The importance of Kanishka in encouraging trade and commerce cannot be ignored, Kushanas seem to have struck the largest number of gold coins.

The Kushana Empire After Kanishka

Kanishka was succeeded by Vasishka as the Kushana ruler. His rule has been mentioned from year 20 to 28 of the Kanishka era. But as Kanishka ruled up to year 23 of his own era, it seems that Vasishka was a co-ruler of Kanishka from year 20 to year 23. He in turn was succeeded by Huvishka who ruled from year 25 or 26 to year 60 of the Kanishka era, so he must have been a co-ruler of Vasishka from the year 25 or 26 to the year 28. They kept most of Kanishka’s possessions intact but in the east their rule must have been confined up to Mathura. According to the Hon Han-Shu, their empire stretched up to Sin Kiang province of China and in north west, it extended up to Merv in Turkmenistan. Vasishka, according to the Rajatarangini, was the founder of the town of Jushkapur, modern Zukur, to the north west of Srinagar.

Vasudeva I was the Kushana ruler who ruled from the year 64 to year 90 of the Kanishka era. The decline of Kushana empire started from his reign. It seems that in the early part of his reign, mahakshatrapa Rudradaman became an independent ruler of lower Sind and Suvira (areas of ). This must have happened around 150 AD, which is an authentic date of Rudradaman’s inscription. This was a shattering blow to the Kushana power. But apart from this loss the other dominions seem to have remained intact.

There are two more recorded rulers after , Kanishka III and Vasudeva II. The latter was the last Kushana emperor. According to Chinese sources he must have been reigning around 230 AD. The Kushanas up to the area of Peshawar in the east were supplanted by the Sassanian king by 262 AD. They were succeeded by the Naga kings in the area of Mathura and some neighbouring areas.

Elements of Kushana Polity and Administration

The two major forces which moulded the Kushana polity at least in their Indian possessions were the boom in trading activities which perhaps lured the Kushanas to annex the territories of north western India and the second was the problem to administer this alien territory. The Kushana administration was not as centralised as was the Mauryas, as not many officials are mentioned in their inscriptions and coins.

One interesting feature of Kushanas has been a consistent use of grandiloquent titles by the rulers. This feature is evinced more from Kanishka onward as Kujula Kadphises, the founder of the Kushana empire in India, has been described with a title Yuvaga, leader or a small chief but as their power grew, the titles became heavier.

Interestingly ruled a vast territory but bore a title of - comparatively much simpler than the titles used by the Kushanas– and rajatiraja. Prof. R.S. Sharma says “These Kushana titles perhaps betray a tendency towards tributary arrangements rather than the real exaltation of royal authority.” These titles must have been used under the compulsion of a feudatory or tribute paying organizational structure which comprised of tributary states or chiefs, who used titles of kings or chiefs but at the same time showed their subordination to the central authority. This feudatory character of Kushana polity can be shown through some other titles like shahi which was used by them. Vima Kadphises used the title mahishvara meaning, the great lord. Kanishka used the title kaisar perhaps to challenge the Roman authority but it seems nothing more than a superficial imitation.

Nothing much is known about the administrative hierarchy of Kushanas. Perhaps the empire was divided into provinces, each ruled by a mahakshatrapa, assisted by a kshatrapa but how many provinces were there in the empire, is not known conclusively.

The details of the military organization are also not laid down in the records. The use of the term dandanayaka suggests that he was an important military officer. Sources tell that horsemen were bound under law to wear trousers while riding. The Mathura statue of Kanishka reflects the same. The strength and salaries of Kushana army are not known. According to Prof. R.S. Sharma, raja, maharaja, kshatrapa and mahakshatrapa were civilian authorities while dandanayaka and mahadandanayaka were military and sometimes semi-military in nature. (semi-military duties of dandanayaka were more in vogue in newly conquered territories where the civil administration was to be handled by military officers).

Let’s now move on to the territorial units of administration. Vishaya, which was used under Guptas to signify a territorial unit, has also been corroborated by a Mahayanist text for the Kushanas. It refers to a devaputra ruling in a vishaya. Nothing is known about the city or urban administration under the Kushanas except for references to nigamas and shrenis.

Village was undoubtedly the lowest administrative unit, with gramika as its head. The functions of the gramika under the Kushanas were quite different from the gramabhojaka of the pre-Mauryan period and gramika of the Mauryan age. Our major source to study about gramika in the post-Mauryan period is Manu. One significant difference between the gramika of Mauryan and the gramika of post-Mauryan period is that the latter was free from the duty pertaining to the defence of the village; it was now shifted to the gulma or military cantonments stationed by the king in two, three or five villages in the countryside. The second major difference between the two was that the gramika in the post-Mauryan age was paid through land grants rather than a cash salary as in the case of the Mauryans or through the fines gathered from the villagers. Prof. R.S. Sharma opines. “Thus the first decreased and the second increased the power of headman. But on the whole the hereditary character of the post coupled with the grant of land for the office tilted in favour of the growing importance of the village headman.”

Two other prominent features of the Kushanas were, first, the title of Devaputra used by the Kushana kings and second, the practice of Devkula. Though the Kushanas were apparently Buddhists but still used the title of Devaputra i.e., son of god. Erecting Devkulas was another popular practice under the Kushanas. Devkula, according to the Pratimanataka of Bhasha, meant “the place where the statues were erected in honour of dead potentates.”

The Contribution of The Kushanas

The Kushanas, because of their contribution to the various disciplines of life, occupy a special place in the ancient Indian history. Let us now explore some of these contributions. It is not established quite comprehensively that the political activities of the Kushanas were guided by their economic perspectives. The Hon Han-Shu says that the Kushanas became very rich after occupying lower Indus region which had quite flourishing trade relations with the . Also, as the Kushano-Roman maritime trade ended in around 150 AD, decline of Kushana empire started to gain impetus under Vasudeva I. This shows that they were highly dependent on trade for their survival. This was perhaps the reason, why Kushanas gave so much importance to trade. Agriculture was also given proper attention. A large scale irrigation networks have been discovered in north western India, Pakistan, Afghanistan which are datable to Kushana period. Such growth in trade resulted in the growth of trading centres and cities in the empire. Some traders shifted to the eastern part of India i.e., eastern Uttar Pradesh and Vanga and developed trading and commercial relations with the south east Asia.

The healthy state of economy, under Kushanas is also indicated by the coins that they struck. A Mathura epigraph of year 28 (Shaka era of 78 AD) indicates that even private agencies were allowed to struck and circulate coins in Kushana dominions. One important aspect of Kushana coinage is that their gold coins (dinaras) and copper coins (drammas) were meant for circulation in the whole empire, a system which was different from the coins of the pre-Kushana period in which a coin circulated in one area was typologically different from the other one. To explain in simpler terms, in pre-Kushana period, a coin struck in Gandhara region by a ruler was different from the one struck by the same ruler in the area of . Thus it seems the Kushanas issued the first Imperial coinage. Silver coins of the Kushanas are found only in the area of the lower Indus. They issued the largest number of copper coins and the quality of their gold coins was very good.

New discoveries made in the area of central Asia have shown some startling examples of the Kushana architecture and art. Some discoveries of central Asia and Afghanistan have shown sculptures with stylistic features different from Gandhara, Mathura and other Hellenistic school. Scholars have named this schools as the Bactrian school. Prof. B.N. Mukherjee, while explaining the stylistic patterns of this school, says, “The sculptured human figures, which are some what frontal in treatment, show oval faces with open, somewhat bulging, or half closed eyes. Their hair is indicated by deep incisions or by curls looking like buttons.” He further says that, “Scholars have also been able to discern recently the feature of an imperial art as betrayed by royal sanctuaries and coinage of the Kushanas.” And finally, in the field of building architecture, they built a number of Devkulas, very similar to a Hindu temple, which were erected in commemoration of their predecessors. Even in literature and medicine India made progress with scholars like Charaka and Ashvaghosha etc.

The Satavahanas

The Satavahanas, who came to the forefront in the Indian political scene sometime in the middle of the first century BC, are one of the most prominent dynasties of ancient India. The Matsya Purana lists thirty Satavahana kings who ruled in Deccan, though their geographical extent kept changing. The Satavahanas were probably of Andhra origin. The historicity of some of the kings mentioned in the has been confirmed by the numismatic and epigraphic data. The historicity of others is still not clear.

The Early Satavahana Rulers

The founder of the was one . He laid the foundation of his empire after destroying the Kanva power. He also erased the remaining traces of the Sungas. One of the Nanaghat inscriptions testifies his historicity. His coins have been reported from Kotalingala in the district which proves his domination over central Deccan. Numismatic sources also show his control over Apranta in western Deccan. According to the Puranas he ruled for 23 years. Simuka was succeeded by his brother (Kanha). He is identifiable with king Kanha of satavahanakula of the Nasik inscription. This inscription shows that Nasik in western Deccan was a part of his kingdom. He ruled for 18 years. He was succeeded by his son, Sri Satakarni. Discovery of his coin types in the area of and Tripuri shows that he conquered new territories of central India (Vidisha area). The seventeenth king of the line was king Hala who is known as the author of Gatha Saptasati. The Periplus of the Erythean Sea and Ptolemy both indicate good trading relations between the Romans and the Satavahanas. Strabo also refers to an embassy sent by a king Poros (identified with Purnotsanga, the 18th Satavahana king or Pulomavi, the 15th king in line) to the Roman king extolling their friendship and the trading relations between the two. So, it seems that the Satavahanas consolidated their position because of this flourishing trade. But a serious setback to the Satavahanas in the region was the loss of northern part of their kingdom lying to the north of Bharuch and other parts of and Gujarat to , the Kshaharata mahakshatrapa. The Satavahana king at this point in time is believed to be Sandanes or Sunandana or Sundara Satakarni.The Puranas identify him as the 20th Satavahana king.

Gautamiputra Satakarni

The eclipsed Satavahana power was rejuvenated by the 23rd Satavahana ruler of the Puranic list, . He is credited as the liberator of the Satavahana areas captured by Nahapana. One of the Nasik inscription datable to his eighteenth regnal year refers to the regranting of a land which, till that day, was under the control of Ushavadatta. From the epigraphic data it seems that the fight between Nahapana and Gautamiputra for political supremacy was a protracted one and it started probably in the fourteenth regnal year of the great Satavahana king. The Jogalthambi hoard of coins indicates that Gautamiputra overstruck a large number of coins originally issued by Nahapana.

Extent of Gautamiputra Satakarni’s Empire

The Nasik inscription of Balashri and of Vashishthiputra Pulamavi of his nineteenth regnal year, mentions that Gautamiputra Satakarni destroyed the Shakas, Pahalavas and yavanas, attained success against Nahapana and crushed the power of the Khatiyas who are perhaps identifiable with the Khatriaroi mentioned by Ptolemy. His kingdom extended to Asika (river Krishna), Asaka ( on Godavari) and Mulaka (the district around ). It also included south Kathiawar, Kukura (near Pariyatra or western Vindhyas), Apranta (north ), Anupa (near or Narmada), Vidharbha and east and west Malwa. There is an indication in the Nasik inscription of the 18th year of his control over Vejayanti in Kanarese country. If we consider all epigraphic and numismatic sources, southern and the eastern Deccan may be added to the list of his dominions.

Gautamiputra was the metronymic generally associated with the king Satakarni though it is sometimes missing. The Nasik inscription of 24th year also mentions a command given jointly by the king and his mother. Whether the latter had any role in administration is yet to be established. Gautamiputra was also perhaps involved in a war with Kanishka I, the result of which is not known. In the last decade of the first century AD, the Satavahanas were threatened by a serious danger from the side of Kachchh. According to the Andhau inscription of Chastana (of 11th regnal year), he had, by that year, Kutch under his control.

Date of Gautamiputra Satakarni Copius epigraphic and literary data has been used to explain the approximate date of the reign of Gautamiputra. B.N. Mukharjee’s explanation in this regard seems quite plausible. Ptolemy calls Chastana the ‘only ruler’ of Larike which included, inter-alia Barygaza (Bharuch), Minnagara (Mandsaur), Nasika (Nasik) and Ozene (). Chastana captured these areas from the Satavahanas. The Andhau inscription of Chastana, of the year 52, refers to a cojoint rule of Chastana and his grandson Rudradaman, and so we must place Ptolemy’s information before the 52nd year of the Shaka era (AD 78) i.e., AD 129/130. Vashishthiputra Pulamavi (the son and successor of Gautamiputra) held Nasik up to his 22nd regnal year. If we believe that Chastana occupied Larike just before 129-130 AD, then Pulamavi ascended the Satavahana throne in 107/108 AD (AD 129/130–22). So Gautamiputra’s reign of 24 years must have ended around that time. This shows that Gautamiputra came to the throne in around 83/84 AD, and his victory over Nahapana (in his eighteenth regnal year) must be placed in 101/102 AD.

Vashishthiputra Pulamavi

He was the son and successor of Gautamiputra Satakarni and, as shown above, ascended the Satavahana throne in around 108/109 AD. Numismatic and epigraphic data indicate his control over most parts of the Deccan including south western and upper . But he seems to have lost northern and western parts of the Deccan to Chastana who was probably a subordinate of the Kushanas. Chastana’s control over Larike, as referred to by Ptolemy, has already been mentioned. Pulamavi lost these areas just before the year 52 (AD 129/130). Ptolemy also says that Siri Polemaios (identifiable with Vashishthiputra Pulamavi) had Baithan (Pratishthanapura) as his capital. Epigraphical data tells us that he reigned for 24 years i.e., from 107/108 AD to 131/132 AD.

Vashisthiputra Satakarni

Vashishthiputra Satakarni was the successor of Pulamavi and a contemporary of mahakshatrapa Rudradaman. If we compare the Nasik inscriptions of Gautamiputra Satakarni and Junagadh inscription of Rudradaman, we find that quite a few of the former’s dominions were now captured by the family of Rudradaman. Important epigraphic sources of Vashisthiputra Satakarni are the Kanhari inscription, the epigraph and an inscription at Nanaghat. Kanheri inscription mentions the queen of Vashisthiputra Satakarni as belonging to karddamakakula (the family of Chastana), and also as the daughter of . Junagadh inscription of Rudradaman corroborates this evidence. According to the inscription, Rudradaman I twice defeated Satakarni (identifiable with Vashsthiputra Satakarni) but spared him because of the nearness of relationship. In the light of this evidence, the theories referring to Vashisthiputra Pulamavi as the Satavahana king defeated twice by Rudradaman can be rejected. The Nanaghat inscription of Vashisthiputra Satakarni (of the 13th regnal year) calls him a Chatrapana which in some way connects him to the family of the kshatrapas. Vashishthiputra is known in his coins as Vashishthiputra-Sri-Satakarni or Vashsthiputra Satakarni. His coins found in the area of Junar refer to him as a mahakshatrapa which shows that he must have ruled in the northern and western Deccan as a subordinate ruler of Rudradaman.

Gautamiputra Yajnasri Satakarni

He was the last great monarch of the Satavahana dynasty. His reign can conclusively be placed partly in the last quarter of second century AD, and partly in the first quarter of the third century AD. He ruled for at least 27 or 28 years. The main source of his history are the Nasik inscription (of the 7th regnal year), Kanheri inscription of 16th regnal year and Chinna Ganjam inscription of 27th regnal year. According to epigraphic and numismatic data his empire included north western (including north Konkan), south western, central (including ) and north eastern Deccan and also perhaps the Pradesh in the upper coastal areas. There is also no evidence of his losing the southern part of the Deccan. Both his Nasik and Kanheri inscription indicate that he carried out successful campaigns against the Satrapal family of western India.

End of Satavahana Rule

The main line of Satavahana kingdom was wiped out in the first quarter of the third century AD. A number of dynasties emerged on the ruins of the Satavahana empire. A branch of the Abhiras succeeded them in the north western Deccan. In the Krishna- region, Chantamula supplanted the Satavahana power and laid the foundation of the Ikshavaku rule. This dynasty ruled for at least four generations. The family of the Chutus succeeded them in the area of Maharashtra and Konkan.

Elements of Satavahana Polity and Administration

The Satavahanas probably beloned to the non-Aryan speaking stock with matrilineal descent. They claimed to be brahmanas who gave a lot of importance to the varna system. They also gave a number of grants to Buddhist monks and the brahmanas.

The Satavahana kingdom was divided into aharas or rashtras meaning districts. The ahara of the Satavahanas was thus comparable with the under the Mauryas but the latter was a much larger unit. Amatya was the most important position under the Satavahanas after the king. The amatyas were perhaps ministers or advisors of the king. They were comparable with the mahamatras of Ashokan Inscriptions. In fact there is a mention in a Satavahana inscription, of a mahamatra incharge of Buddhist monks, who may be compared with Ashoka’s dharmamahamatras.

There was no specific official in charge of drafting the land grants. It could be done by an amatya or a pratihara or even a mahasenapati. Prof. R.S. Sharma says that the Satavahanas also maintained keepers of land charters, known as pattika paalaka. Payment to officials was generally made in cash. The Satavahanas minted huge amount of currency. In fact they surpassed every other post-Mauryan dynasty in terms of the coins issued. Nanaghat cave inscription of Naganika refers to a long list of various figures in karshapanas. The land which was granted for religious purposes was also given concessions in revenue collections. Deya-meya and bhoga were some of the terms used for royal share of the produce. Most of the mining activities were directly under the royal control. Karukara was a tax imposed on the artisans. Revenue was collected both in cash and kind but more emphasis was given on cash and this is highlighted by the use of the term hairanyaka (keeper of gold) for treasurer.

One of the most important aspect of Satavahana polity is their matrilineal inheritance which is evinced by the use of metronymics by some of the Satavahana kings. Gautamiputra Satakarni has been extolled as the “king who rendered uninterrupted service to his mother” (avipanamatususuka). Some of the examples of the names with metronymics are Gautamiputra Satakarni, Vashishthiputra Pulamavi, Vashishthiputra Satakarni, Gautamiputra Satakarni, and Gautamiputra Sri Satakarni. It is generally believed that use of metronymics and matrilineal practices started only with the later Satavahanas, but there are examples to prove that this practice was in vogue even before the Satavahanas. Prof. R.S. Sharma shows on the basis of the stratigraphical position of the coins that the rulers even before Satavahanas used metronymics. Similar was the case with the Maharathis who were a contemporary of the Satavahanas. The lowest level of administration was a gama which was under the charge of a gamika.