Origin
The Kushans were a branch of the Yuchi tribe that originally came from Central Asia. They
established their rule in northwestern india.
The Kushans, also known as the Kuei-Shang, were one of the five Great Yueh-chi (tribe)
principalities. The Kushans were a nomadic people from the north Central Asian steppes
who lived near China. Their empire stretched from the Oxus to the Ganges, from central
Asia’s Khorasan to Bihar’s Pataliputra.
The Kushan empire was instrumental in shaping the region’s cultural, political, and
economic landscape. The Kushans were patrons of Buddhism and developed a unique
style of art known as Gandhara art.
About Kushan Empire
The Kushan Empire was a powerful Central Asian empire that lasted from the first to the
third centuries CE. Kushans played an important role in connecting different regions
through trade, diplomacy, and cultural exchange. They were contemporary to kingdoms of
the Western Satraps (Sakas), Satavahanas, and the first Gupta Empire rulers.
Kushan Empire History
The Kushan dynasty was the descendant of the Yuezhi, who ruled over most of the northern
Indian subcontinent, including parts of Central Asia, during the first three centuries of the
Common Era. In the second century BCE, the Yuezhi conquered Bactria and divided it into
five chiefdoms, one of which was the Kushans. A hundred years later, Kushan
chief Kujula Kadphises (Qiu Jiuque) achieved political unification of the Yuezhi kingdom
under his control.
They first occupied Bactria or north Afghanistan, displacing the Sakas. They gradually
moved to the Kabul valley and conquered Gandhara by crossing the Hindu Kush, usurping
Greek and Parthian rule in these regions.
They eventually gained control of the lower Indus basin and a large portion of the Gangetic
basin.
Many Kushan rulers adopted the title Devaputra, which means “son of god,” possibly
inspired by Chinese rulers who referred to themselves as sons of heaven.
Kalhana’s Rajatarangini describes in detail the Kushan kings’ rule and their benevolence
towards buddhism.
Kanishka I: Date of Accession
Kanishka was the greatest of the Kushana emperors, but there is no unanimity among
scholars regarding the date of his accession to the throne. According to Fleet, Kanishka
reigned before the Kadphises group and was the founder of that era which commenced in,
58 B.C. This view of Fleet was accepted by Cunningham, Dowson, Franke and Kennedy. But
the discoveries of Marshall and other information have demolished the old hypothesis. It
can be proved beyond the shadow of doubt that Kanishka did not start the Vikram era.
According to Hiuen-Tsang, Kanishka ruled over Gandhara. But according to other Chinese
evidence, Yin-mo-fu ruled over Gandhara about 50 B.C. Since the two could not rule over
Gandhara at the same time and the period of Yin-mo-fu is certain, Kanishka must belong to
some other period and not about 58 B.C. Hence, he could not have started the Vikram era
which started in 58 B.C.
The view of Marshall, Sten Konow, Smith, Van Wijk and other scholars was that the rule of
Kanishka began about 125 A.D. and ended in the second h”lf of the second century A.D.
The Junagadh inscription of Rudradamana says that Rudradamana was the ruler of the
lower Indus Valley. It is clearly stated that he was not under any ruler and he was the
sovereign who was elected by the people. The Sree Vihar inscription also says, that the
empire of Kanishka included the lower Indus Valley. As it is definitely known that
Rudradamana was the ruler between 130 and 150 A.D., Kanishka could not be the ruler at
the same time. His mastery over the lower Indus Valley cannot be reconciled with the
contemporary sovereignty of Rudradamana. Moreover, Kanishka’s dates 1-23, Vasishka’s
dates 24-28, Huvishka’s dates 31-60 and Vasudeva’s dates 74-98 suggest a continuous
reckoning. In other words, Kanishka was the originator of an era. However, we do not know
of any era which was current in North-West India and which commences in the second
century A.D.
Puri gives his views on this complicated question in these words: “We have considered the
information relating to the Kushanas, with particular reference to the date of Kanishka,
from all the available sources. Scholars have failed to reach an agreement on this point.
Unfortunately, nothing new has cropped up and it is only a re-examination and revaluation
of the known sources. The accidental scholars are more inclined in placing Kanishka in the
second century A.D. with, of course, a few exceptions, while those in India, again with a few
exceptions, are inclined to be conservative and credit him with the founding of the era of 78
A.D. Their main argument is that we know of no era in the second century A.D., and
Kanishka’s clash with Rudradamana was not a fact to be ignored in his Junagadh
inscription, if the two were more or less contemporaries. Further, Wima Kadphises,
succeeding an octogenarian father, could not have ruled for a longer time, and a period
between A.D. 64-78 is enough for him, and he was immediately succeeded by Kanishka.
The reference to Po-tiao is explained as pointing to the later Kushana ruler Vasudeva II. On
the other hand, it can as well be presumed that Kanishka’s era might be only a regional one,
very probably with omitted hundreds, and this was continued by the later Kushana rulers as
well. We have not found any record of Kanishka and his successors in three digits. Further,
a period of 14 years is too short for Wima Kadphises. In fact there is hardly any evidence
except the indirect Inference from the Taxila record of 136, that the Kushana ruler with the
higher titles Maharaja, Rajatiraja, Devaputra could only be Wima and not his father Kujula.
Moreover, it is not improbable that the son of this octogenarian could be a young man of 30
to 35 years who enjoyed longevity like his father. Kanishka’s clash with Rudradamana need
not be a fact, if he is placed about 144 A.D. In that case be conquered upper Sindh after the
death of the Saka ruler. The Kushana hold over Malwa, particularly in the light of Vasishka’s
inscription at Sanchi in the year 28 of Kushana era, might be an event
Connected with the later Kushanas. The reference to Po-tiao in the Chinese source fits in
well with Vasudeva I whose coins were found at, Begram. The later Kushana ruler was
neither such an important one, nor his empire so vast as to call forties of alliance with the
Wei. We seem to be on a safer ground in placing Kanishka and his family from the middle of
the second century to the middle of the third century A.D., followed by the later Kushanas,
who were contemporaries of the early Guptas, the well known Daivaputra Shahi
Shahanushahi of the Allahabad Pillar inscription of Samudragupta. This would obviate the
possibility of a dark period between the Kushana and the Gupta periods. (India Under the
Kushanas, p. 49-50).
Majumdar thinks that the era found by Kanishka was the Traikutaka-Kalachouri-Chedi era
248-49 A.D. However, this view cannot be maintained. The catalogues of the Chinese
Tripitika state that An-Shih-Kao (148-170 A.D.) translated the Margabhumi Sutra of
Sangharaksha who was the chaplain of Kanishka. This shows conclusively that Kanishka
flourished long before 170 A.D. and hence, the view of Majumdar is untenable. The same
criticism applies to the view of Sir R.G. Bhandarkar that Kanishka’s accession took place in
278 A.D.
The view of Fergusson, Oldenberg, Thomas, R.D. Banerjee, Rapson and many other
scholars like Raychaudhuri is that Kanishka was the founder of the Saka era and
consequently he ascended the throne in 78 A.D. Some objections have been raised against
this view but, on critical examination, those do not seem to hold the ground. It is
contended that if we admit that Kadphises I reigned about 50 A.D. and Kanishka founded
the Saka era in 78 A.D., we are left with only 28 years for the rest of the reign of Kadphises I
and the whole of the reign of Kadphises II. In the first place, the date 50 A.D. for Kadphises I
is not certain. Even if the same is accepted as correct, the period of 28 years is not too
short in view of the fact that Kadphises II succeeded an octogenerian. When Kadphises I
died “at the age of more than eighty”,his son must have been an old man. It is, therefore,
improbable that “his reign was protracted.”
Hence, the date 78 A.D. for Kanishka’s succession is tenable.
It is contended that Sir John Marshall’s discovery of the inscription from the Chira Stupa of
Taxila is dated 136 which in the Vikram era, corresponds to 79 A.D. Probably the king
mentioned is Kadphises I and certainly not Kanishka. But it might be pointed out that the
use of the word “Devaputra” in the inscription in question does not necessarily imply that it
refers to Kadphises I. This title is characteristic of Kanishka group and not the Kadphises
group. The omission of the personal name of the Kushana king does not necessarily imply
that the first Kushana king is meant. In several inscriptions of the time of Kumaragupta and
Buddhagupta, the king is referred to simply as Gupta Nripa. Likewise, the title of Devaputra
can also apply to Kanishka.
Sten Konow has shown that the inscriptions of the Kanishka era and those of the Saka era
are not dated in the same fashion and consequently Kanishka cannot be said to have
started the Saka era. However, the same scholar himself admits that all the inscriptions of
Kanishka’s era are not dated in the same fashion. There is always a variation to suit the
needs of the locality and the time. In the Kharoshthi inscriptions, Kanishka and his
successors recorded the dates in the same way as their Saka-Pahlava predecessors, giving
the name of the month and the day within the month. On the other hand, in their Brahmi
records Kanishka and his successors adopted the ancient Indian way of recording dates.
We cannot conclude from this that the Kharoshthi dates of Kanishka’s inscriptions are not
to be referred to the same era to which dates of the Brahmi records are to be ascribed. If
Kanishka adopted two different ways of recording dates, he also could have adopted a third
method to suit the local conditions in Western India. It is not improbable that just as
Kanishka in the border land used the old Saka-Pahlava method and in Hindustan proper
used the ancient Indian way prevalent there, likewise, in Western India his officers added
the Paksha to suit the custom in that part of the country.A.L. Basham points out that
the strongest argument in favour of the date A.D. 78 for Kanishka, against
those who place him towards the middle of the 2nd century, is the fact that
otherwise he will be a contemporary of Rudradaman. The Girnar Inscription of
Rudradaman was composed in A.D. 150. According to the chronologies of Sten
Konow and Ghirshman, Kanishka was firmly established on the throne at that
time. In spite of that, Ruddradaman does not mention the name of any
overlord. The era employed by Rudradaman is the Saka era or A.D. 78.
Although he took the humble titles of Raja Mahakshatrapa, he was not a
vassal, but a very powerful independent monarch. Rudradaman claims victory
over the Yaudheyas who occupied the southern bank of the river Sutlej which
was in the heart of a territory under Kanishka. There was absolutely no room
in India for two contemporary monarchs of the status of Kanishka and
Rudradaman and hence Kanishka must have ascended the throne in A.D. 78
and not in the second century A.D.
It Is clear from above that Kanishka was the founder of the Saka era which
started in 78 A.D. and also ascended the throne in 78 A.D. and not in about
120 A.D. as maintained by other writers.
Geographical Expanse
Origin: Originating from north Central Asia near China, they
occupied Bactria (North Afghanistan) by displacing the Shakas.
Expansion: Their empire encompassed territories from the
River Oxus (Amu Darya) to the Ganges, spanning Khorasan
(Central Asia), Iran, Afghanistan, Pakistan, and northern India.
Northern extent:
Parts of Central Asia, including Bactria (in present-day Afghanistan and
Tajikistan).Territories around the Oxus River (Amu Darya).
Western extent:
Gandhara region (modern-day northwest Pakistan and eastern Afghanistan),
including cities like Peshawar (ancient Purushapura), which was his capital.
Parts of Parthian territory (through influence or conflict).
Eastern extent:
Extended into the Gangetic plains up to Varanasi in northern India.
Some sources suggest influence as far as Patna (ancient Pataliputra), though
direct control is debated.
Southern extent:
Controlled parts of Madhya Pradesh and Malwa.Did not reach deep into
peninsular India, but exerted cultural influence through trade and religion.
Cultural achievements of kanishka first
Kanishka I, the great ruler of the Kushan Empire (reigned c. 127–150 CE), is
renowned for his significant cultural achievements that had a lasting impact on
South and Central Asia. Here are some key cultural contributions:
1. Promotion of Buddhism
Kanishka was a devout patron of Mahayana Buddhism.
He convened the Fourth Buddhist Council in Kashmir, which helped formalize
and spread Mahayana teachings.His reign marked the expansion of Buddhism
into Central Asia and China, influencing the Silk Road transmission of the
religion.
2. Art and Architecture
The Gandhara School of Art flourished under his rule, blending Greco-Roman
artistic techniques with Indian themes.Numerous Buddhist stupas, monasteries,
and sculptures were built, especially in the Gandhara and Mathura regions.
3. Kanishka Stupa
A massive and architecturally significant stupa was built near Peshawar
(modern-day Pakistan), known as the Kanishka Stupa, which was one of the
tallest structures of the ancient world.
4. Language and Literature
Kanishka's empire used multiple languages and scripts, including Bactrian
(written in Greek script), Prakrit, Sanskrit, and Greek.
He supported translation efforts of Buddhist texts into various languages, aiding
cultural exchange across Asia.
5. Coins and Iconography
He issued a wide range of coins that depicted deities from multiple religions:
Greek, Persian, and Indian, reflecting a syncretic religious and cultural outlook.
These coins are valuable historical records of Kushan art and religious
pluralism.
