Sakas and Kusanas in the I and II centuries
Summary
The Mauryan Empire, founded by Chandragupta in 325 B.C., collapsed in 191 B.C. with the murder of Brhadratha by Pusyamitra Suniga. The Sungas, originally from Vidied-Eran-Pabhosi, initially held territories in northern India but faced challenges, including the loss of Malava to Andhras. Pusyamitra’s reign ended with the murder of Devabhuti by a Kanva Brahmin minister, leading to further fragmentation. The Andhras, under Lambodara and later Satakarni, expanded from Paithan to Kalyan. Contemporary powers included the Indo-Greeks (Amyntas in Kabul), Indo-Parthians (Spalirisha and Azes in Taxila and Punjab), Sakas (in Surastra and Malava), and Andhras. The Sakas’ origins are debated, with scholars like Konow and Jayaswal referencing the *Kalakacaryakathinaka* and Puranas. Jayaswal claims Nahavana (Nahapina), a ruler of Bharukaccha, was defeated by Satakarni in 57 B.C., but this lacks archaeological or literary support. The Puranas and *Pattavali* list Nahavana as a Sunga predecessor, distinct from the Sakas, with Gardabhilla preceding them. Nahapina’s coins feature Indian symbols (Discus, Lion-capital), suggesting indigenous origins rather than foreign ties. His father Bhamaka’s copper coins and territorial conflicts with Satakarni indicate a local chieftain’s rise amid post-Mauryan fragmentation. The *Avasyaka-sutra* and other texts do
AI-generated summary, automatically checked against the article text.
Conclusion
This analysis challenges prior scholarship by re-examining the origins and chronology of Saka rule in western India, demonstrating that Nahavana's identity remains unproven despite claims linking him to foreign origins. The evidence instead suggests a continuity of Mauryan administrative traditions, with Nahavana emerging as a regional leader rather than an outsider. The study emphasizes the importance of harmonizing Puranic, epigraphic, and archaeological data to reconstruct accurate historical sequences, particularly regarding the transition from Sunga to Saka dominance. By highlighting discrepancies in earlier interpretations, the findings contribute to a more nuanced understanding of power dynamics in post-Mauryan India and the complex interplay of local and external forces during this period.