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.

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 central Asia 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 Shaka era in a later age primarily because it was
made popular by Shaka-Pahalava Satrapal rulers of western India 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 Peshawar in
Pakistan. 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 Gujarat). This must have
happened around 150 AD, which is an authentic date of Rudradaman’s Junagadh 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 Vasudeva I, 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 Ashoka ruled a vast territory but bore a title of raja- comparatively much simpler than the
titles used by the Kushanas–maharaja 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 Roman empire. 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
Arachosia. 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 Puranas 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 Satavahana dynasty was one Simuka. 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 Karimnagar
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 Krishna (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 Vidisha 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 Madhya Pradesh and Gujarat to
Nahapana, 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,
Gautamiputra Satakarni. 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 (Asmaka on
Godavari) and Mulaka (the district around Paithan). It also included south Kathiawar, Kukura (near
Pariyatra or western Vindhyas), Apranta (north Konkan), Anupa (near Mahishmati 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 Rajasthan 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 (Ujjain). 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 Maharashtra and upper Karnataka. 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
Sannati 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 Rudradaman I. 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 Vidarbha) and north eastern Deccan and also perhaps the coastal Andhra
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-Guntur 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 janapada 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 Srivijaya Satakarni, and Gautamiputra Sri Yajna 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.