Southern Bactria and Northern India before Islam: A Review of Archaeological Reports

Author(s): Gérard Fussman

Source: Journal of the American Oriental Society, Vol. 116, No. 2 (Apr. - Jun., 1996), pp. 243-
259
Published by: American Oriental Society
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/605700
Accessed: 17/11/2010 19:11

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available at
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unless
you have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and you
may use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use.

Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained at
http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=aos.

Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printed
page of such transmission.

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of
content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms
of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

American Oriental Society is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Journal of
the American Oriental Society.

http://www.jstor.org
 SOUTHERN BACTRIA AND NORTHERN INDIA BEFORE ISLAM:
A REVIEW OF ARCHAEOLOGICAL REPORTS*
GERARDFUSSMAN
COLLEGE
DEFRANCE
A discussion of the past twenty years of archaeological reports from the three major sites of Ai
Khanum (northeast Afghanistan), Butkara I (Swat) and Sonkh (Uttar Pradesh). Emphasized are the
contrasting approaches to the excavations and especially the differing methods and results of their
publication. Noted are the importanthistorical and cultural questions that still remain unanswered.
DESPITE
A HUGEANDEVER-INCREASING
bibliography,
the history of northern India from the death of Asoka
to the first inroads of the Moslem armies is still im-
perfectly known. About its social history we can only
state that new peoples kept coming from Iran and
Central Asia and were, in the course of time, integrated
into an Indian social organization about which we have
very little incontrovertible data.1Its economic history is
summed up by lists of commodities, some indications
about currencies and monetary policies, and imprecise
records of its trade with China and the Roman Empire.
Thanks to recently discovered inscriptions and sculp-
tures, the complex relationship between Buddhism and
early Hinduism now appears in a new light, but this
new data comes from widely separated places (mainly
Gandhara and Mathura) and its interpretation may be
* This is a review article of some
twenty-seven recent archae-
ological reports, those whose authorsare noted in small caps in
the bibliography.
1 We
may assume that, as in almost every society, Indian
society at that time was made up of a number of groups. But
we do not know whether these groups were knitted into a
fixed and hierarchized social frame bearing some resemblance
to the modern Hindu jati system or whether there was only
one system of ranking, incorporating the many groups of fol-
lowers of Hinduism, Buddhism, Jainism, and Iranianreligions
into one and the same scheme. If we can judge from some
stray inscriptions, social groups of foreign origin, especially
the ruling clans, kept to quite unshastric family systems and
rights of inheritance (Fussman 1980, 23). Brahmins could be
engaged in trade and their widows could act as family heads
(Fussman 1993, 115). This scanty data is enough to show that
around the Common Era, Indian society was still far from
functioning like the ideal Hindu society depicted in the proba-
bly much later dharmaSastras.
243
disputed.2 The political history of northern India still
consists of bare lists of names, with an often unsure
relative chronology and a still more unsure absolute
chronology. These chronological uncertaintiescannot but
have a bearing on the history of early Indian Art which,
despite some advances,3 has not yet been established on
a sure footing.
The extant Indian, Western, and Chinese literatures
have been so carefully sifted that new important revela-
tions are not to be expected. New inscriptions and coins
are published almost every year, but they are more of-
ten than not stray finds whose whereabouts are imper-
fectly known.4 Thus, the only hope for the historian of
early India lies in regular excavations. Indeed, as early
as 1903, (Sir) John Marshall planned to start excava-
tions in Taxila, partly because its location and history
reminded him of ancient Greece, but mostly because he
wanted to recover all kinds of data "on the political and
2 For Buddhism, see now the summary in Fussman 1994.
For Vaishnava bhakti cults in Mathura, the best overview is
still Srinivasan 1988, although dating back to 1981.
3 The chronology of early Mathuran art still rests on the
excellent, though now half-a-century-old, Ph.D. thesis by
Lohuizen de Leeuw (1949), conveniently summed up by
Sharma 1984, 173-242. For early Gandharanart, see Fussman
1987.
4
Stray finds bought on the antique market are very often
given a provenance which may or may not be true. Local deal-
ers, as a rule, never give the true provenance of artifacts they
sell either because they are intermediaries who have every rea-
son to keep the origin of the artifact secret, not to be bypassed
by other dealers, or because they got them from middlemen
who have the same reason for not divulging its source. Schol-
ars ignorant of the rules governing the antique market are very
often misled by such provenances.
244 Journal of the American Oriental Society 116.2 (1996)
religious history of the northwest . . and its material
culture during lengthy periods between 500 B.c. and
A.D. 500."5 The trend was followed by (Sir) Mortimer
Wheeler, who came to India in February 1944 with a
plan of systematic excavations for recovering India's
past.6 But he had to leave India (now Pakistan) without
being able to implement his plan fully. The Archaeo-
logical Survey of India and the Department of Archae-
ology of Pakistan did not follow in his steps. But his
ideas were taken up by three archaeological missions
whose heads had impressive academic backgrounds:the
Delegation Arch6ologique Francaise en Afghanistan
(DAFA), whose postwar director, Daniel Schlumberger,
had the same taste for history as its founder, Alfred
Foucher;7the Istituto Italiano per il Medio ed Estremo
Oriente (IsMEO), whose chairman, Giuseppe Tucci, in
1955, earmarkedplaces in the Swat valley of Pakistan
for excavations with the specific purpose of unraveling
the history of Buddhism in northwestern India and
discovering the sequence of the Hellenized Buddhist art
of Gandhara;8and the Archaeological Mission of the
Museum of Indian Art (Berlin) which began to dig at
Sonkh, near Mathura, in 1966 under the leadership of
Herbert Hartel, then director of the museum, a pupil
and heir of Professors Liiders and Waldschmidt, to
"collect material information on the early history of the
once-flourishing State of Mathura,one of the most im-
portant cultural centres of ancient India."9
This was how, during the sixties, three large excava-
tions were conducted in Afghanistan, Pakistan, and the
Republic of India which should have helped to solve,
but did not, the vexed questions of the origins of early
Buddhist art, the creation of the anthropomorphicrep-
resentationof Buddha, and the subsequentdevelopments
of early Indian art: Ai Khanumin northernAfghanistan
(1964-1978), started by D. Schlumberger but almost
entirely led by P. Bernard, which was to have given im-
portantclues to the Hellenization of northwesternIndia;
Butkara I in Swat, "chosen by Prof. Tucci after careful
study of historical sources continually checked by in-
spection of the ground,"1'entirely dug out by Dome-
nico Faccenna (1956-1962), where it was hoped that
careful stratigraphical excavations could help to estab-
lish on a sure footing the chronology of Gandharanart;
5 Marshall 1951, xv-xvi.
6 Wheeler
1955, 188.
7 See Olivier 1996.
8 Tucci
1958, 284.
9 Hartel1993,9.
10 Faccenna 1980, I:10.
and Sonkh, excavated by Prof. Hartel in eight seasons
(1966-1974), which should have been the counterpart
of Butkara I in the Gangetic valley. These were large-
scale excavations, backed by local authorities, conduc-
ted with great care by first-class scholars with relatively
important budgets and a good staff of technicians and
young promising scholars. We now know that they did
not solve the difficult problem of the sources and chro-
nologies of the Gandharanand MathuranBuddhist arts.
Despite the wealth of well-recorded finds, the new ad-
vances came mainly from stray finds," and the best
overviews are still Schlumberger 1960 and Lohuizen de
Leeuw 1949. There is no reason to blame this failure on
the excavators. Luck simply was not with them. They
cannot be held responsible for not having dug out in-
scriptions giving a genealogy of Bactrian kings or as-
cribing a fine sculpture to the reign of a Saka sovereign.
Although the problems of early Buddhist art were not
solved during these excavations, we know for sure that
Ai Khanum will remain for many years to come the
standardsite for Greek Bactria, that Butkara is the best
recorded Buddhist site in northwestern India and that
Sonkh will in the coming years be the great reference
site for Uttar Pradesh. These excavations are not fail-
ures. On the contrary,they are text-book instances of the
importanceof well-planned and well-conducted excava-
tions for our knowledge of the past of Central Asia and
India.
This is not the place to review the important data
they brought to light. They have been known for years
through many interim reports'2and exhibitions; the aca-
demic world has no doubts whatever about their impor-
tance. Now, when the final reports have been published,
or are being published, it would be interesting to com-
pare the strategies of excavation and publication adop-
ted by the leaders of these huge projects. Although I
owe a great debt to Gardin 1979 and agree with most of
his conclusions, this will not be a study in theoretical
archaeology. I have no taste nor skill for theory. This
will be an empirical study, made by a historian who
often needs to look into these reports and who is also
faced with the necessity of conducting such projects-
even if they are on a much smaller scale-and publish-
ing them in due time.
11 See above,n. 3. Ontheimportof thediscoveriesin Butkara
I fortheearlyBuddhistartof Gandhara, see below,pp.254-55.
12
Bibliography of the Ai Khanuminterim reportsby P. Ber-
nard in Guillaume 1983, xi-xii; of Butkara interim reports in
Faccenna 1980, 1:1-4 (footnotes); of Sonkh interim reports in
Hartel 1993, 471-72.
 FUSSMAN:Southern Bactria and Northern India before Islam
In its restricted sense, Ai Khanum is a Hellenistic
walled city located in northeastern Afghanistan, close
to the border of currentTajikistan, at the meeting point
of the Oxus (Amudarya)and Kokca rivers. It consists of
two parts, a natural acropolis, 60 m high, mainly used
for defensive purposes, and a lower town which was the
inhabited part of the city (1,800 x 1,500 m in all). Part
of the acropolis and more than one-third of the lower
town were excavated. The main buildings there are a
huge palace or administrativequarters,a large temple, a
mausoleum and a heroon, a gymnasium, a theater and
an arsenal. Great houses, with built-in courtyards or
gardens, were located south of the palace (in the south-
western part of the city) and outside the city, nearby its
northern wall. There were few such houses: it seems
that there were many empty spaces inside the walled
town, which was founded and built on virgin soil either
c. 329 or 305 B.C. and ceased to exist as a town c. 146
B.C. There is no doubt that Ai Khanum was one of the
main urban centres of Greek Bactria.
North and east of the city lies a small plain, 27 km
long, less than 9 km wide, 220 km2 in all, which French
scholars call "la plaine d'Ai Khanum."'3A survey, begun
on J.-C1. Gardin's initiative in 1974, with P. Bernard's
agreement, ten years after the first dig in Ai Khanum
city, demonstrated that this plain had been irrigated
since the bronze age and could even boast a mature
Harappansettlement (Gardin 1978, 130; Francfort 1989,
57-58). There were importantsettlements until the time
of the Mongol invasions. The existence of the Greek city
of Ai Khanum is thus only one important and, in any
case, the most spectacular episode in the long history of
the plain. It should have been studied accordingly, but
this did not happen, as can be clearly seen from the
scheme of publications adopted, a scheme quite incon-
venient both for readers and librarians. Apart from the
many interim reports, the results of the digs in Ai
Khanum city have been published in the lavish series
Memoires de la De'lgation Archeologique Franfaise
en Afghanistan, under the responsibility of P. Bernard;
the results of the surveys and excavations in the Ai
Khanum plain were first published, under the direction
of J.-C1.Gardin, in cheaply printed series of the Centre
National de la Recherche Scientifique (CNRS) or ltdi-
tions Recherche sur les Civilisations, now in a series
called Memoires de la Mission Archeologique Francaise
en Asie Centrale. There is almost no relationship be-
tween the two sets of publications. The puzzled reader
may wonder why one and the same French project is
published in two separate series. I often do.
13 More
often,now,"plainede Dasht-iQala."
245
It is easier though to discern the scientific differences
between the two series. The studies published in Mem-
oires de la De'legation Archeologique Francaise en Af-
ghanistan, as well as the interim reports by P. Bernard,
are almost entirely devoted to studies of the Hellenistic
architecture and the decorative art of the Greek city.
The keywords of P. Bernard'spapers, as listed by him-
self (Guillaume 1983, xi), are: Hellenistic, Greek, city,
urbanism. History in the modern sense of the term al-
most never appears.'4The scope of the J.-Cl. Gardin's
series is much wider-Central Asia. There are often no
chronological limitations (Gentelle 1978); the emphasis
is mainly on non-Greek periods and never on art.
Now there is no epistemological conflict between
classical archaeology, with its emphasis on architecture,
art, and political history, and the so-called new archae-
ology which aims at solving clearly defined historical
problems through specific and fast procedures. We need
both, and each complements the other. One can be inter-
ested in history of art and at the same time one may want
to know about the everyday life of the artists and their
servants. Although the DAFA did not lack money and
although many scholars, with a wide range of interests,
were working under its umbrella, obviously classical ar-
chaeology could not be reconciled with the new archae-
ology. The two main series of Memoires, the one under
the editorial responsibility of P. Bernardfor the Ai Kha-
num volumes, and the other underthe editorship of J.-C1.
Gardin, mirror these scientific differences.
As far as I know, there is no preconceived publica-
tion plan for the Ai Khanum subseries of final reports
in Memoires de la Delegation Archeologique Francaise
en Afghanistan. The volumes follow each other treating
building after building in a haphazardway: propylons of
the main street, main temple, coins, fortifications, gym-
nasium, treasury.-5Indeed the excavations are published
14See below,n. 23, aboutBernard1985.
15 It
may be convenient for the reader to reproduce here the
list of the Ai Khanum volumes in this series:
XXI: P. Bernard,Fouilles d'Ai Khanoum,I (Campagnes
1965, 1966, 1967, 1968), 1973 (quarto)
XXVI: O. Guillaume,Fouilles d'Ai'Khanoum,II: Les propy-
lees de la rueprincipale, 1983 (folio).
XXVII: H.-P. Francfort, Fouilles d'Ai Khanoum, III: Le
sanctuaire du temple a redans, 2: Les trouvailles,
1984 (folio).
XXVIII: P. Bernard, Fouilles d'Ai Khanoum, IV: Les
monnaies hors trdsors; Questions d'histoire greco-
bactrienne, 1985 (quarto).
XXIX: P. Leriche, Fouilles d'Ai Khanoum,V: Les remparts
et les monumentsassocids, 1986 (folio).
246 Journal of the American Oriental Society 116.2 (1996)
as they were made, mound after mound, without any
systematic plan of studying the grid of streets, the func-
tion of the empty spaces, the zoning of the city, the rea-
sons for the location of buildings like the gymnasium or
the arsenal. It does not seem that a systematic study of
town-planning will ever be published.16 The only over-
view of the city-very good if somewhat brief-is a
comment on the often reproduced map of the Ai Kha-
num excavations (Bernard 1981, 110-14). There is no
detailed study of the aerial views, which now could be
supplementedby satellite imagery, and there was no sur-
face prospection nor soundings (or very few) made for
the specific purpose of ascertaining where the artisans
or the servants dwelt.'7 We do not even know whether
there was a market, or a bazaar, even less where it was
located.
We are given no demonstrativereasons about the pur-
pose of building such a city in such a location.'8Nobody
will blame the excavator for not being able to give the
Greek name of the city, for not having discovered any
sure evidence about the exact date of its foundation (al-
ready in the time of Alexander or under Seleukos the
First), nor for being unable to state whether the palace
was a royal residence or only administrativequartersin-
habited by a governor and his retinue. The excavations
were conducted with the utmost care, but no decisive in-
scriptionwas discovered. The walls had been razed to the
ground,and the buildings had been emptied of their con-
tents. But we could have expected some kind of geopo-
litical study.In its place we are only given a very short set
of unsupportedstatements.The first interim report (Ber-
nard 1973) does not even address the question. One year
later, an explanationis given: Ai Khanumwas located in
a strategic position and was used as a military outpost to
keep in check the inroads of nomad enemies. It also de-
rived some wealth "from direct farming colonization by
(Greek) gentlemen-farmers"(Bernard 1974, 102).
XXX: S. Veuve, Fouilles d'Ai'Khanoum,VI: Le gymnase;
Architecture,ceramique,sculpture, 1987 (folio).
XXXI: 0. Guillaume et A. Rougeulle, Fouilles dAt'
Khanoum,VII: Les petits objets, 1987 (folio)
XXXIII: Cl. Rapin, Fouilles dAi' Khanoum, VIII: La
tresorerie du palais hellenistique d'Ai Khanoum,
1992 (big quarto).
(Vol. XXXII is the second volume of the SurkhKotal final report
[1990] which has been readyfor publicationfor years.)
16 A study of the way Ai Khanum was provided with water
is nevertheless announced in a note by Gentelle 1978, 142.
17 Nevertheless see Bernard 1978b, 42.
18 See the motivations behind the survey of the plain of Ai
Khanum as related in Gardin 1976, 60.
When the first surveys of the plain of Ai Khanumby
Gardin'steam demonstrated that the land was irrigated
long before the advent of the Greeks, another set of ex-
planations was given, the final one as far as I know: the
city was established because it could use the produce
of a rich territory, well irrigated, well farmed, and in-
habited by large numbers of skilled peasants. It could
also derive some profit from the mineral wealth of the
high valley of the Kok6a river (or Badaxsan). Lastly,
located in a strategic position against both hill tribes
and steppe nomads, it was an indispensable fortified
support area against them.19
Ai Khanum was indeed a fortified city, but all Greek
cities were walled. I am not a general or a strategist,
but I find it hard to believe that Ai Khanum was mainly
a military outpost or fortress against the nomads. A
partly empty city with a wall too long to be effectively
manned is not a fortress. And if it had been a fortress,
why, as it seems, was it vacated even before the advent
of the nomads it was supposed to hold in check? The
mineral wealth of the hilly country could be tapped
anywhere in the plain, even north of the Hindukush (as
in modern times). It probably added to the resources of
the city, but it does not explain its location. The ex-
ploitation of farming possibilities on a well-irrigated
countryside, associated with the possibility of building a
large fortified town on a convenient site (two rivers, an
acropolis), is thus the best explanation. Trade could
also have played a role.20 But these explanations will
remain undemonstrated as long as the relationship be-
tween the countryside and the city is not explored.
Who were the farmers? Were they affluent? Did they
use the same kind of pottery as the citizens? Were there
artisans and traders in the city?
These questions cannot be answered because they
were never addressed. No use was made of Gardin's
surveys for initiating a study of this kind. In confirma-
tion I can adduce two facts. The maps published in the
Memoires de la Delegation Archeologique Francaise
en Afghanistan, even in their latest issue (Rapin 1992),
never show Ai Khanum within its territory (either the
19 ... un pointd'appuimilitaireessentielpourla d6fense
des marches orientales de la Bactriane" (Bernard 1981, 109-
10); "a military outpost... to control the eastern marches of
Bactria and block a potential invasion route..." (Bernard
1982, 148).
20 The discovery of the Harappanoutpost of Shortughai and
of Sogdian inscriptions on the banks of the Indus river show
that there existed* a direct link between Central Asia and
northern India through the Kok6a valley and Chitral. But we
have no evidence that it was used in Greek times.
 Southern Bactria and Northern India before Islam
FUSSMAN:
plain of Ai Khanum or a larger part of northeastern
Bactria). They are either large maps of Bactria, or a
plan of the city which stops at the northernmost ex-
cavated buildings, i.e., 300 m north of the northern
wall. Moreover, very few people know that two km
north of the northern wall of the city lies a walled cir-
cular establishment, large enough to be called "circular
town," and which, to my knowledge, is almost never
mentioned by P. Bernard,21although sherds ranging
from Achaemenid to Islamic times were collected from
its surface.22If this town was a provincial headquarters
before the advent of the Greeks, the historical and geo-
political problemof the location and function of Ai Kha-
num city should be addressed in a very different way.
This long discussion is not intended to deny the value
of the Ai Khanum excavations. They were well done
and they produced outstanding results. Without them,
what would we know of Greco-Bactrian planning, ar-
chitecture, sculpture, pottery, etc.? Without them, Gar-
din's surveys would not have been as successful as they
were. These excavations brought to light a new world
which the French archaeologists had relentlessly sought
after for forty years. One cannot complain that the
emphasis was on art history and traditional historio-
graphy.23This is what I do myself most of the time and
it is necessary. It is indeed often a prerequisite. But it is
to be regretted that, although there was no lack of fund-
ing or manpower, the excavations in Ai Khanum city
were not planned in a way which perhaps (i.e., with
21 Referredto in Bernard1978b, 15: "L'organisation ad-
ministrativeet la s6curit66taientassur6sparune autorit6dont
le siege 6tait une place forte importante.... Entreles deux
rempartscirculairesqui entourentla citadelleproprement dite
a pu 6galements'abriterune petite agglomerationurbaine,
lieu d'6changepourles produitsde la terreet ceux d'unarti-
sanatlocal."
22 Gardin 1976, 78-79, pl. xix-xxiii, who, using the evi-
dence from these surfacecollections of ceramics,surmises
that"in Persiantimes, the circulartown was the mainsettle-
ment in the Ai Khanumplain."Also Gentelle 1978, 12-13,
and 31(c) for a map;Gentelle 1989, 144 and frontand back
coversfor a satelliteimage(commentedon in Gentelle1978,
28). The same satellite image in color in Francfort1989,
oppositethe title-page.
23 The historical questions addressedin Bernard 1985
(Questions d'histoire greco-bactrienne) are: Greek Arachosia
andtheMauryas(a problemsolvedin themainsinceFoucher's
times);the era of Eucratides;the Branchidesin CentralAsia;
the causesof the revoltof the Greekmercenariesin 323; Bac-
tria and Menander'sSamian;EuthydemosI and Magnesiaon
the Meander.
247
some amount of luck) would have also allowed us to
solve questions which are at the heart of contemporary
historiography, such as demographic history, economic
history, social history, agrarian history, etc. The Ai
Khanum excavations demonstrate the truth of the old
adage: you only find what you search for.
The final reports published in the Ai Khanum sub-
series, Memoires de la Delegation Archeologique Fran-
raise en Afghanistan, are of a very high scholarly
standard, with a wealth of maps, plans, drawings and
photographs. But there is a bewildering lack of con-
sistency, even in the format.24I have already noted the
absence of an overall plan. There is no introductoryvol-
ume, no historical account of the excavations, no volume
on town-planning proper and, worst of all, no overall
chronology. So most authors feel compelled to give
their own chronology, either in a few lines (Francfort
1984, 2-3; Veuve 1987, 100-101) or in a long chapter
(Rapin 1992, 281-94). This would be of no conse-
quence if there were no discrepancies. But this is not so.
It is generally agreed that the town was vacated by
the Greeks c. 145 B.c. under pressure from the nomads,
although no incontrovertible evidence that it was at-
tacked, burnt, or sacked by these nomads was ever
found.25P. Bernard only made the noncommittal state-
ment: "the Greeks of Ai Khanum were driven from
their city by nomad invaders" (Bernard 1982, 148).26
After a while the deserted city was pillaged by later
inhabitants who settled in some of the ruined build-
ings (Bernard 1982, 110; Francfort 1984, 2), but Ai
Khanum no longer existed as a town. So one is puzzled
to learn that the town was probably vacated after an at-
tack (Leriche 1986, 57); that it was destroyed by Yuezhi
nomads (Rapin 1992, 291) and that there was a Kushan
occupation (Leriche 1986, 99-101). What is P. Bernard's
own opinion? Is there any evidence of these facts in
other excavated buildings? And why are we not given
the possibility of judging whether the arrowheads dis-
covered against the northern wall belonged to Greek
troops (who could have enlisted CentralAsiatic archers)
or to nomadic tribes?27 Can we not know from the
24 See n. 15.
25 The only evidenceof an attackwouldbe five arrowheads
andtwo lance-headsfoundagainstthe northernwall (Leriche
1986, 56-57). See below n. 27.
26 For more
details,see Bernard1973, 110-11 and Gardin
1976,61.
27 These arrowheadswill be
publishedlater (when?) by
F Grenet(Leriche1986, 117). Accordingto Francfort1984,
54, I, who quotes Grenet,the five arrowheadsfound in the
templecouldbe Saka.butthe sameFrancfortrightlyaddsthat
248 Journal of the American Oriental Society 116.2 (1996)
ceramic finds whether the city was inhabited in Kushan
times or not?28
This is only one instance of the inconsistencies be-
tween the series. Apparently no guidelines were given to
the authors, so that some reports are quite matter-of-fact
(Guillaume 1983, Guillaume 1987, Veuve 1987), others
look like a demonstration of classical erudition (Franc-
fort 1984). The classification of finds in Guillaume 1987
is not the same as in Francfort 1984. Some volumes are
Ph.D. theses (Bernard 1985, Rapin 1992)-which is a
nice way of publishing archaeological reports, if the
Ph.D. dissertation is shortened before publication. But
this was not the case. In a series of final reports, it would
have been more useful to reprint the coin hoards rather
than to annex long disquisitions which are understand-
able in a Ph.D. thesis but have no connection whatever
with the Ai Khanum excavations.29
Similarly, Rapin should have avoided publishing in
this series, well after D. Schlumberger and P. Bernard,
his own history of the Hellenization of Bactria, pro-
pounding little that is new30 and encumbering it with a
arrowheads of the same shape were found in the Ai Khanum
arsenal and even in Greece proper.
28 A first study of the ceramics was published by Gardin in
Bernard 1973, 121-88. At that time, apparently, no Kushan
pottery had been discovered. A refined chronology of ceram-
ics was made by B. Lyonnet and J.-C1. Gardin in 1978: it was
never published, but was used as a working hypothesis by
most of the scholars involved in the publication of the Ai
Khanum volumes. According to that document, the bulk of Ai
Khanum ceramics should be dated between 330 and 125 B.C.
(Leriche 1986, 105-6). There were also some Bronze Age ce-
ramics, discovered in early burials, but there is no evidence
whatever of Kushan pottery as far as I know. Indeed, it is a
pity that the Greek and post-Greek ceramics of Ai Khanum
have not yet been published in full, no more than the Kushan
ceramics from Surkh Kotal and the Kushano-Sasanianceram-
ics from Kohna-Masjid (of which there is a manuscript by
S. Veuve). This pottery was on display in the Kabul Museum
depot, which J.-C1. Gardin and his colleagues organized from
1978 to 1982, and this depot was worth more than any publi-
cation: to study pottery, you need to handle it. But the Kabul
Museum has burnt down, and as the Soviets are not respon-
sible, nobody cares. See now Lyonnet 1996 (below, p. 250).
29 Bernard 1985. See n. 23.
30 The
only thing new is the "discovery," quite unsubstanti-
ated in my opinion, of evidence of two invasions by nomads
(Rapin 1992, 287-94), which actually comes from a hint by
B. Lyonnet (see now Lyonnet 1996). See above, p. 247, and
below, p. 251.
profusion of useless over-erudite footnotes.31He should
have shortened-among others-his Sakuntalastory (pp.
192-97), found in all histories of Indian literature, and
I would have expected him to have been much more
cautious in discovering a depiction of this same Sakun-
tala story in the so-called "plaque indienne."32Greater
concision would have made this excellent volume much
better and less expensive.
One can also wonder what logic explains that the ex-
cavations of some buildings are published with their as-
sociated finds (Rapin 1992), some without them (Veuve
1987, Leriche 1986), some with only a few associated
finds (Guillaume 1983, 41-42). One also wonders why
some finds were published long before the publication
of a detailed description of the dig (Francfort 1984), a
situation that makes it difficult to check the impor-
tant-and indeed very useful-references to the stra-
tigraphy, and why other, quite similar artifacts were
published with minimal indications of their provenance
(Guillaume 1987, 84). Will these last finds be pub-
lished anew when the building they came from is pub-
lished? And will these buildings ever be published?
Seventeen years after the end of the excavations, we
are still awaiting a full publication of the palace, the
two temples, the houses, the arsenal, the theater, the
cemetery....
* * *
The surveys and excavations made by J.-C1. Gardin
and his team in eastern Bactria during the very short
period (1974-78) when it was still possible to travel in
Afghanistan are published in a new series called Mem-
oires de la Mission Archeologique Francaise en Asie
Centrale. As far as I know, the reasons for creating a
new series are never given. Apart from the obvious fact
that the field work was financed by specific grants, not
by the main budget of the DAFA, the substitution of the
31 E.g., Rapin 1992, 186, n. 655.
32
The identificationrests on the fact that this muchdam-
aged object depicted a king, standing on a chariot with two
standing attendants (probably the charioteer and a woman),
entering a forest or a pleasure grove, and that a terra-cotta
medallion from Bhita depicts perhaps the Sakuntala story. But
what is to be seen in the poor remains of the Ai Khanum
plaque (now well fitted and otherwise perfectly studied) is
consistent with so many stories we read in the Jatakas, in the
Epics, the narratives, etc.: Indian literatureis replete with sto-
ries relating how a king went hunting or went into an adrama
or a pleasure grove.
 FUSSMAN:Southern Bactria and Northern India before Islam
words Delegation and Afghanistan by Mission and Asie
Centrale has some significance. The disappearance of
the word Delegation obviously implies a break with the
French tradition of the DAFA, i.e., a permanent estab-
lishment with a permanentstaff (it was founded in 1922,
when the journey from France to Kabul took about three
months), having a special relationship with the Afghan
government, and smacking of imperial times.
Asie Centrale implies a shift in scholarly interests. It
denotes a temporary break with the Indian tradition of
the DAFA, and an emphasis on a geographic, cultural,
and geopolitical entity (Central Asia) whose existence
is longer and historically more significant than that of
recent states like Uzbekistan or Afghanistan. It implies
also that the same problematics could be used in other
parts of Central Asia. Indeed, the same French research
team was and is still conducting explorations and digs
in Tajikistan,Kazaxstan and Chinese Turkestan(or Xin-
jiang). For its Afghan irrigation surveys, it follows a
trend first set by Soviet archaeologists.33
There are other obvious differences with former
DAFA practices. The surveys were meant to be rela-
tively cheap. They were made by a restricted team (four
French scholars,34three to four Afghan assistants), act-
ing on a written agreementwith the Afghan government.
This agreement stipulated the scientific objectives, the
methodology, the relatively short duration (four years)
of the project and insisted on early publication of the
results.
The scientific objectives, the methodology, and the
epistemological hypotheses are clearly stated in the first
pages of the interim and final reports.35The purpose of
the surveys, and of the consecutive dig of Shortughai, is
clearly historical. The concern is not with art history,
nor political history; it is not a search for the footsteps
of Cyrus or Alexander. The historical questions J.-C1.
Gardin and his team address are the same as those
which the Annales school tries to answer, along with
more contemporaryprehistorians.When did people settle
in eastern Bactria? Why, i.e., for which ecological, geo-
graphical, economic reasons, did they settle there? How
and to what extent did they modify the landscape? How
did the population increase or decrease, and why? No
time limit is set; that is to say, each so-called historical
period is as valuable as any other for the historian,
33 E.g., Lisitsina1969 andZejmal'1969.
34 B. Lyonnet(ceramologist),J.-C1.GardinandH.-P.Franc-
fort(archaeologists),P. Gentelle(geographer).
35 Gardin1976,59-63; Gentelle1978,3-7; Gardin1978,99-
108;Gardinin Gentelle1989, 11-15; Francfort1989, 13-14.
249
whether times of "barbarity"or times belonging to the
"Greek miracle." To solve such problems, no artifact is
more "noble" than any other: a sherd may tell us more
than a long inscription.
The means used for solving these problems owe much
to contemporary prehistory: surveys backed by a good
knowledge of local geography, paleogeography, and
even geology; collection of surface artifacts; limited
soundings; the use of modern technology (satellite im-
agery,36physical and chemical analyses, paleontology
or paleozoology, etc.). The working hypotheses were
the following. There had been no substantial change
in the climate since neolithic times. Accordingly, in an-
cient times (as in modern ones) agriculture was only
possible with the help of channel irrigation. Tracing and
dating old channels is therefore equivalent to tracing
and dating old agricultural settlements.
Tracing old and dry channels depends on the ability
and the eye of the surveyor, who should be also skilled
in reading maps and aerial photographs. The method,
experimented with in 1974 and 1975 during the surveys
of the plain of Ai Khanum (Gardin 1976; Gentelle
1978), was developed to enable a very fast survey of
the major part of eastern Bactria (Gardin 1978; Lyonnet
1995). It is specific to northernAfghanistan, which was
still thinly populated and where wide tracts of arable
land were no longer cultivated or only sporadically sown
when the rains were good (lalmi, dry cultivation). As
for the dating of the channels, it should be consistent
with the date of the sherds collected on the ground of
settlements whose economic activity was dependent on
the functioning of these same channels. The validity
of this postulate was demonstratedby a limited number
of small digs and by the Shortughai excavations.
The results of these well-planned surveys are impres-
sive. They demonstratedthat, as postulated, the climate
had not changed much during the past 5,000 years; that
agriculturists had been settled in Bactria at least since
the early third millennium B.c.; that channel irrigation
was practiced on a large scale, and sometimes under
very difficult technical conditions, long before the Greek
conquest; that Ai Khanum was built on an already
densely populated territory;that some changes in popu-
lation could be inferred from the distribution of chan-
nels and sherds, and possibly correlated with previously
known historical data.37They were also a very successful
36 SPOT satellite
imagery, which did not exist in 1974,
would have helped much, but at a much greater cost.
37 See below, p. 251.
250 Journal of the American Oriental Society 116.2 (1996)
exercise in new archaeology,showing how a well-devised
plan of surveys and excavations could solve historical
problems at a cheaper cost, if these problems were pre-
cisely worked out beforehand.38
Early publication was an important part of Gardin's
"new archaeology" challenge. Two main interim reports
were published quickly, before the forced cessation of
the surveys (Gardin 1976 and 1978). Four final reports
have now been printed (Gentelle 1978, Francfort 1989,
Gentelle 1989, Lyonnet 1996). A fifth and last is prom-
ised for the not too distant future.39These publications
are also a challenge for J.-C1. Gardin and his team,
insofar as they have been advocating for years a more
formal (logicist) argumentation in drawing historical
conclusions from archaeological data and changes in
publication practices.40 As there are some acknowl-
edged discrepancies in the historical conclusions of the
interim and final reports,41I shall only review these.
The survey of the plain of Ai Khanum (1974-76)
was published quite fast (Gentelle 1978).42It is a clas-
sical and matter-of-fact study. Starting from the as-
sumption that there had been no major changes in
climate, P. Gentelle first made a study of the geography
38 The
surveysweremadeunderespeciallyfavorablecondi-
tions:J.-C.Gardinhadtraveledin Afghanistanfor twenty-five
years;he spokefluentPersian;he hadverygood local connec-
tions;he was the best specialistin Afghanceramics;he could
makeuse of detailed(1:10.000and1:50.000)mapsandhe was
workingin a sparselypopulatedcountrywherelargetractsof
arablelandlay little cultivated.But the formerDAFAalmost
nevertook advantageof these conditionsfor makingsurveys
and previoussurveysby otherscholarswere muchless suc-
cessful (Gardin,in Gentelle 1989, 12-13). Nor are luck or
favorableconditionsresponsiblefor the choiceandtrainingof
the scholarswho participatedin this research,the methodol-
ogy elaboratedfor tracingand datingthe channels,and the
way the fielddatawereworkedout for publication.
39 Now announcedas Gardin(forthcoming)(witha slightly
differenttitle in Gentelle1989, 12).
40 Gardin1992, 100. Full bibliography on p. 103.
41 See, area necessary
e.g., below,n. 54. Suchdiscrepancies
consequenceof scientificresearch:if we could publishfast
resultsof surveysor digs withoutfurtherresearchanddetailed
studies,therewouldbe no needof elaboratefinalreports.
42 P. Gentelle,who is a professionalgeographer,was re-
sponsiblefor the biggest partof the field-work.He adapted
and improvedthe methodologyfor tracingformerirrigation
channels.The collectedartifactsweresortedout anddatedby
J.-C1.GardinandB. Lyonnet,who wereat the sametimebusy
studyingthe potteryof the Ai Khanumexcavations.
and modern agriculture of the plain. He thus learned
what were the preconditions for cultivation of the soil
and for irrigation, whether in antiquity or today. He was
then able to trace the former canals and even discover
the remains of former fields and farms. As a result, we
are given a full study of the hydro-history of the Ai
Khanum plains, from ancient times to 1974, illustrated
by many maps and photographs, including a first dating
of the irrigation channels and a first estimate of the
extent of the cultivated areas. The dating of the sherds
found in the old channels or in associated archaeologi-
cal sites made it possible to date these channels and to
demonstrate that the plain was well cultivated before
the coming of the Greeks, even in Harappantimes. The
irrigated areas were largest in Greek times, but as some
channels were probably in use in pre-Greek, Greek, and
post-Greek times, it was not possible to say whether
there was an increase in cultivation in Greek times. A
preliminary study of the former settlements suggested
that in many parts of the surveyed area the population
inhabited scattered large farmhouses.43
There is nothing specific in the outward appearance
of the publication. It is cheaply produced (offset print-
ing), with many maps and drawings (fifty-six in all)
and good photographs.Compared with other archaeolo-
gical publications, e.g., the Memoires de la Delegation
Archeologique Francaise en Afghanistan, the most per-
ceptible improvements are cautious wording, a minimal
use of conclusive hypotheses, and the absence of use-
less pseudo-erudite footnotes.
The experience gained during this first survey was
used for a much larger survey of all the arable lands
east of the Kunduz river.44New heuristic hypotheses
were formulated and tested in the field to take into ac-
count the much greater expanse of the surveyed area
and the differences in population and cultivation.45The
43 Gentelle 1978, 117-29. Gardin 1978, 103 2.3.c, ex-
presses some disappointments at these specific results, appar-
ently because it was not possible at that time to date with
precision the surface remains of fields. But the last word has
not been said: a successful trench (when and if it is ever pos-
sible to go back to Ai Khanum) or new physical methods may
in the future help to date these remains which are the only evi-
dence we have for making an estimate of the types of property
and the size of the economic units.
44 The main surveyors in this second phase were J.-C1.
Gardin and B. Lyonnet. The survey also included a patch of
land on the left (western) side of the Qunduz river: Gentelle
1989, 102-5.
45 Gardin 1978, 104-8. Gardin, in Gentelle 1989, 13-15.
 FUSSMAN:
Southern Bactria and Northern India before Islam
survey was planned for a four-year period (1977-80). It
had to stop after two years. The traces of ancient chan-
nels are mapped in Gentelle 1989, which is very similar
to Gentelle 1978, only better, with good studies of the
geology and geography of the surveyed area. It is the
indispensable geographical preliminary to the historical
studies which are to follow. The differences with the
former volume are improved printing (computer-aided),
much better (three color) maps and photographs, and
a series of studies by specialists on ancient vegetation
and soils. These specialized studies establish, with great
profit, a link with prehistoric archaeology, where such
studies are systematically used.
The first set of historical studies relative to this sur-
vey is now in print.46It is a chronological study of the
ceramics collected along the ancient irrigation channels
and in associated archaeological areas (25 tons). The
study of these surface artifacts is made according to
Gardin'smorpho-technological criteria.47The time con-
tinuum is divided into a number of historical periods
for which a specific sample (assemblage) of ceramics
is selected.48The ceramics are correlated with other ce-
ramics found in other parts of Eurasia (mainly Soviet
Central Asia), thus enabling the author to draw some
conclusions about their date and provenance. Dated ce-
ramics date the channels and the associated areas where
they were found. It is thus possible to draw a map of
irrigated cultivation for each selected period. Some
changes in shape may indicate changes in population.
There are four main prerequisites for such a study.
The first one is that the survey have value. J.-Cl. Gardin
has often explained very convincingly how his proce-
dure producedrepresentativesamples49and we may trust
him. The second is that the technical study of ceramics
have value. I am no specialist but have no doubt what-
soever that it is one of the best ever produced in that part
46
Lyonnet1995. This is a Ph.D.thesis whichI was able to
consultbeforepublication,thanksto Mme.Lyonnet.I am not
able to referto the pages of the printedpublicationandthere
may be some differencesin contentbetweenthe manuscriptI
readandthe booknow beingprinted.
47 E.g., in the category"open-mouthed
pots,"a firstsubdivi-
sion is madebetweenplates,dishes,bowls,etc., calledgroups.
Thenfurtherdistinctions(series) are madewithineach group
accordingto specificcharacteristics of shape,decoration,etc.
48 These samplesdo not claim to show every shape used
duringthat period:shapes which were in continualuse for
more than one historicalperiod were deliberatelyexcluded
fromthese synthetictabulations.
49 See above, n. 45.
251
of the world. Thanks to Lyonnet 1996, we will have the
first systematic conspectus of northernAfghanistan ce-
ramics. Lyonnet 1996 will become the reference work
for any new Afghan or Central Asiatic (in the former
Soviet sense) survey, or for any comparative study of
the ceramics of that area.50The third prerequisite is a
perfect knowledge of the scientific literaturerelative to
ceramics. The bibliography of Lyonnet 1996, and espe-
cially the way she uses it, does not leave any doubt as
to the excellence of her knowledge. Indeed, now that the
eastern Bactria ceramics are well dated by the compara-
tive studies she made, her book will be used as a cri-
terion for dating ceramics everywhere in Central Asia,
even the ones she used for comparison.
The last prerequisite is sound historical reasoning
and cautious wording. Indeed every caution is taken
when discussing remote periods about which we have
no written evidence. It is shown that in the third millen-
nium B.C., eastern Bactria belonged to a Baluc cultural
sphere, without implying that it was a political entity or
that there was any ethnic unity. The same is said about
the Harappanperiod (2500-1500), at a time when close
contacts with the Indus civilization are attested by sur-
veys and the consecutive Shortughai dig (Francfort
1989, below): B. Lyonnet expresses some reservations
about any explanation founded upon economic or ethnic
colonization. She clearly says that the eastern Bactria
surveys do not help to solve the vexing problem of the
relationshipbetween Turkmenia,Bactria, and Balucistan,
and that there is no field evidence for the historically
sure arrival of Indo-Iranianor Indo-Aryan tribes. In the
same way there is no ceramic evidence for the inclusion
of Bactria in the Persian Achaemenid empire, although
the existence of a Bactrian Achaemenid satrapy is a
well-known fact.
For later periods, B. Lyonnet did not always resist
the temptation to correlate political and cultural events
or areas. The chronological periodization she adopted
suggests this at first glance. I am quite confident that
she has every reason to see changes or intrusions in the
ceramics tradition c. 330 B.C., c. 145 B.C. and c. 270 A.D.
But she gives political names to these divisions: Helle-
nistic period (330-145); age of nomad invasions (145-
40); Kushan period (Yueh-chi-Kushan, mature Kushan,
Kushano-Sasanian and later), although the correlation
may be less than evident.
The notion of nomadic invasions is a complex one.
According to Chinese sources, Bactria at that time was
50 With the reservation
that it does not include all the
ceramicsin use at one time:see n. 48. See also n. 28.
252 Journal of the American Oriental Society 116.2 (1996)
a kind of patch-work of autonomous towns paying trib-
ute to the invaders,5' so that it cannot be believed that
Hellenistic pottery came to a sudden end in 145 B.C.
This is rightly said by B. Lyonnet herself. But it fol-
lows that some sites where only Hellenistic sherds have
been found might date from Yuezhi times, so that the
political denomination of the ceramics series is some-
what deceptive. In the same way, sherds from Kushan
times may be found in places which never belonged to
Kushan dominions. This is true of many Indian prov-
inces (which are outside the scope of B. Lyonnet's
book), but could also be true of some places in western
Bactria. Moreover, economic trends during the Kushan
period do not exactly follow political trends. There was
a high phase of the monetary cycle apparently begin-
ning with the last period of Wima's reign and ending
sometime during the reign of Huviska, and economic
trends for ceramics may be more important than politi-
cal ones. "Kushano-Sasanianand later" mixes together
very different times, among them many invasions of
eastern tribes (Huns, etc.).
A better use of logic(ism) would have prevented
B. Lyonnet from correlating the phases in Hellenistic
potterywith political events, Alexander'sconquest (white
ceramics) and Seleukos I's reconquest (grey-black ce-
ramics). One may believe that the difference is rather
between unsettled and settled conditions, as unsettled
conditions are not very conducive to big changes in
fashion or culture. I do not believe either that a study of
ceramics would help to solve the difficult problem of
the borders of the Bactrian kingdom or of its adminis-
trative units (Bactria and Sogdia). The extent of these
political entities changed from time to time, and with-
out furtherevidence it is always risky to correlate long-
standing cultural areas and fast-changing political units.
This was demonstrated long ago by J.-C1. Gardin (and
now by B. Lyonnet) for Achaemenid times (Gardin
1977). In the same way, B. Lyonnet is probably right
in ascribing some shapes (gobelets a piedouche and
bottled-shapedpots) to nomad invaders, less so in attrib-
uting them respectively to the Saka (Sai) and Yuezhi,
because Sai and Yuezhi are Chinese names for shifting
confederations of tribes without any linguistic, ethnic
(i.e., racial), and probably cultural, unity. These con-
federations no longer existed as political entities when
they reached Bactria. This fact explains why Greek au-
thors, who name four groups of tribes, do not know
them. Perhaps there were more, among them some who
never belonged to the former Sai or Yuezhi confedera-
51 Fussman 1993, 123-24.
tions.52So that the addition of new and specific shapes
to the former characteristic Hellenistic ones, although
denoting in this specific case (where we can use some
written evidence) the arrivalof new populations, cannot
be correlated with historical names, be it only because
the written evidence is patchy.53
These are the only flaws in an otherwise remarkable
book, whose importance for the historian lies in the
huge amount of economic and demographic data it sup-
plies. We have for the first time a history of Bactria
spanning a long stretch of time. The main economic im-
pulse dates back to the second millennium B.c.: neither
the Achemenids nor the Greeks were responsible for the
irrigation of the larger part of Bactria, and the probable
increase in population which ensued. There was no
decisive increase in cultivation with the advent of the
Greeks. Hence Greek colonization was not responsible
for the proverbial agricultural wealth of Bactria. The
second-century B.c. conquest of Bactria by eastern no-
mads apparentlymeant a decrease in cultivation,54which
was never entirely remedied, even in later (Kushan)
times. Further research will help to explain these bare
facts or their consequences. Given the fact that there
was no major increase in Greek times either in the cul-
tivated areas or in agricultural techniques, and conse-
quently no major increase in agricultural revenue, one
might assume that the construction of huge monuments
in Ai Khanum before any Indian conquest meant that
the Greek officials or landlords took a much bigger
share of the local agriculturalproduce than their prede-
52
Obviously,some Sakatribeswhich invadedBactriaand
butthereis no rea-
Iranhadbelongedto the Sai confederation
son to equateentirelySakawith Sai or with Scythian:these
tribes were even able to adopt a new language quickly, like
the formerYuezhi(or some of them)who took up Bactrian.
53 See alreadyGardin1990.
54 This contradicts a previous assessment: "on n'aperqoit
aucune r6cession au moment de la conquete nomade et de
l'6viction des Grecs" (Gardin 1978, 140-41). See above, n.
41. I am told that J.-Cl. Gardin still adheres to his previous
(1978) statement. All the necessary evidence should be given in
his next volume (Gardin,forthcoming).Until it is published, all
that can be said is that a decrease in cultivation after a con-
quest by nomad tribes, who need pasture for their horses and
livestock, would be no surprise. But some reservations should
be expressed: the decrease may be less than stated, because
Hellenestic pottery was still in use years after the conquest
and there are very few ceramic markersof the presence of the
nomads. It might have started before the conquest, during the
civil wars which contributed to the end of Greek dominion.
 FUSSMAN:
Southern Bactria and Northern India before Islam
cessors. Other statements raise questions to which we
cannot give any answers at this time. As an instance, it
is now quite certain that even in remote villages locally
made Hellenistic ceramics soon replaced earlier ceram-
ics. This major and long-lasting cultural phenomenon
can be explained in very different and even contra-
dictory ways. One may advocate technological reasons
(sudden improvementsin quality and productivitywhich
made it advantageous for local producers to stop their
traditional production and to adopt new and foreign
shapes); economic reasons (a new organization of the
markets which enabled Greek potters to outsell local
producers); political reasons (the political will of the
new masters to impose the Greek way of life on the
country; or the enslavement of the former population
who could no longer choose their everyday pottery; or
even the replacement of the earlier population either by
western free colonists used to Hellenistic ceramics, or
by slaves who were provided with pots by their Greek
masters), etc. The importance of Lyonnet's book lies
not only in the novelty and accuracy of the many state-
ments it contains; it also lies in the novelty of the many
questions it raises.
The final report of the Shortughai excavations, which
is a revised Ph.D. dissertation (Francfort 1989), would
deserve a longer review, both for the importance of the
finds and the way they are published. The excavations,
made after the discovery of Harappansherds during the
survey of the plain of Ai Khanum, brought to light the
remains of a Harappan settlement, either a trading or
colonial outpost (Francfort), or evidence for the exis-
tence of a huge cultural zone including both Central
Asia and the Indus valley (Lyonnet), and proved the use
of channel irrigation in Central Asia as early as the
third millennium B.C. The excavations were apparently
conceived as a challenge. They were supposed to vali-
date the methods of the survey and the deductions of
the surveyors, which they did. They were supposed to
demonstrate the usefulness of the recently created Cen-
tre de Recherches Archdologiques (CRA), which put at
the excavators' disposal a pool of full-time specialists
in paleo-sciences who could help in maximizing the
results of diggings. Shortughai is thus the only French
excavation in Afghanistan where some use was made of
methods now commonplace in prehistorical and even
historical diggings: a geophysical survey was first made
(that only indicated that there was no cemetery); plant,
animal and human remains were collected and studied
with care by specialists; minerals were analyzed, etc.
Publication was the main challenge. The final report,
although quite elaborate, indeed much more elaborate
than most final reports, was published very quickly. The
253
site was discovered in 1975. A first trial trench was dug
in 1976, the main excavations were made in three suc-
cessive campaigns (1977-79). After two interim re-
ports, a very detailed and richly illustrated final report
was published in 1989 (Francfort 1989). Considering
that H.-P. Francfort was busy with other publications
and field work during these ten years, it is a wonderful
achievement. The text is divided in two parts, a detailed
report of the Shortughai excavations followed by a his-
torical study of the economy and population of Central
Asia before the Achaemenid conquest.
The report is written in a very unusual way. It is an
illustration of the endeavors made by J.-C1. Gardin's
team to improve publication practices in archaeology.55
As such, it deserves careful reading even by archae-
ologists or historians who have no interest whatever
in Central Asia. The main endeavor is the precise
clarification of the objectives, the procedures, and the
deductive reasoning used during excavations and publi-
cation, with a minimal use of conventional rhetoric.
The book thus begins with a reminder of the limited
aims of the excavations (a search for the entire Harap-
pan historical sequence, i.e., a search for stratigraphy,
evolution and ecology, not for buildings), the defini-
tions of words whose meaning is usually taken for
granted (level, layer, soil, wall, etc.) and statements
concerning the deductions which can be made from the
many possible combinations of the realities expressed
by these words. This is presented in a few words and
diagrams, similar to models found in mathematical or
linguistic literature. Then comes a description of the
dig, level by level, room by room, with almost no gram-
matical sentences. The data is always tabulated in the
same order, followed by a study of the ceramics in Gar-
din's way,56with all necessary comparisons with Central
Asiatic and Indian potteries.
The evolution of the ceramics is studied with the
help of a computerized data-base and statistics, accord-
ing to a procedure which, due to my own limitations, I
am at pains to follow and to explain. In this way "non-
subjective" conclusions may be drawn about the rela-
tive chronology of the different levels and the evolu-
tion of the Shortughai ceramics during two millennia.
Then follow detailed studies of other artifacts, plant and
animal remains, and two human skeletons. The time has
now come for syntheses (excavated area by excavated
area, period by period, level by level) and limited eco-
logical and sociological conclusions. Here ends the final
55 Gardin1979 andabove,n. 40.
56 See n. 47.
254 Journal of the American Oriental Society 116.2 (1996)
report proper, a model of completeness, useful erudi-
tion, and clarity. When using it we know what was
done, how it was done, what was found, which conclu-
sions the author reached, and the exact procedure he
followed to reach them. All the help we need (draw-
ings, analyses, etc.) is given and the necessary reser-
vations are made. Gardin's challenge is met and the
demonstration is done.
The second part is a study of the economy, demogra-
phy, and movements of population in Central Asia in
the so-called Bronze and Iron Ages, backed in part by
the results of the Shortughai excavations. H.-P. Franc-
fort displays the same qualities of erudition, clearness,
and caution. This is not the place to discuss, nor even
sum up, the results of his study, which looks quite
sound. Specialists will find many important hints for
dating the Bronze (e.g., Namazga) and Iron (e.g., Jazd)
Cultures more precisely and good discussions about the
dilemma between the diffusion of cultures and pop-
ulation movements. H.-P. Francfort is most probably
right in denying the existence of any archaeological evi-
dence of the Indo-Aryanpresence, although most of our
(former) Soviet colleagues are ready to detect it. But as
an historian, I do not feel much at ease in this second
part. Although afraid of being thought too conservative
and in some ways even backward,I feel I am an intruder
in a club of colleagues familiar with the same problem-
atics and language. Although these problematics and
this common language are quite usual now in South
Asian and CentralAsiatic prehistoricalstudies, and even
in some historical studies, they remain foreign to me.
H.-P. Francfort feels it necessary to prove, in a very
courteous, scholarly and computer-aidedway, that most
of the theories advocated by his colleagues do not hold
water, which to my hypercritical mind seemed obvious
at first glance. He devotes many pages to the often de-
bated questions of the emergence of the state, the defi-
nition of a town and the processes of urbanization and
deurbanization. But most of the problems arise from
using technical terms that denote ever-changing reali-
ties and hence cannot have invariantmeanings. Lacking
absolute definitions, they cannot be grasped by one and
the same set of criteria-pace the view of GordonChilde,
and many others since, that there is no such thing as the
essence of a town. There is nothing in common between
Hastinapuraand New Delhi, even less between Hastina-
pura and Ibadan-except the fact that they are inhabited
areas located on a continuous scale with megalopo-
lises and conurbations at one end and isolated houses at
the other, with huge time and place variables. Census-
makers are familiar with this kind of problem and at
each new census feel obliged to elaborate new criteria
to express changing realities. Indeed many discussions
would be cut short if fewer words with fewer connota-
tions were used. It is easier to reach a consensus when
talking about political organizations, or sizes and den-
sities of inhabited areas, than when referring to the
emergence of the state and growing urbanization.
The other reason why I do not favor such formalized
and computer-aided discussions is because I do not be-
lieve that history is a science or should be a science.
Archaeology, philology, linguistics are sciences and as
such need to evolve formal procedures and methods of
validation. History is not, as demonstrated by Veyne
1971, and there is no reason why it should be. It is a
discourse whose main objective is the pleasure we take
in writing or reading it. Lack of accuracy and faulty
reasoning spoil this pleasure, but that does not make
history a science. Most readers do not like faulty rea-
soning in detective novels either.
* * *
Afghan Turkestanwas not an easy country; I suspect
Swat was more difficult still. It is densely populated and
cultivated. Everybody boasts at least one gun. Women
are kept under strict seclusion. Nor do poppy cultiva-
tion, drug smuggling, weapon trafficking and lucrative
illegal digging encourage archaeological surveys. But
Pathans are a hospitable people and, if you do not break
the rules, you may be welcome. Indeed G. Tucci suc-
ceeded in establishing an archaeological mission whose
scope was very broad from its inception. Although, per-
sonally, mainly interested in the history of Buddhism,
he launched a series of excavations with the avowed
aim of unravelling the whole history of the Swat valley,
from prehistoric times (G. Stacul) to nineteenth-century
mosques (U. Scerrato),without neglecting inhabitedareas
like Udigram (G. Gullini) or Bir-kot-Ghwandai (P. F
Callieri).57Limited surveys were made and an archaeo-
logical map of the Jambil valley, supposed to be "sec-
tion I of the Archaeological Map of Swat," was in
preparation.58
Judging from Tucci's motivations59 and the number
of publications, the main object of research was the
Buddhist "Sacred Precinct"60of ButkaraI. The purpose
57 For an overview of the work of the Italian
Archaeological
Mission to Swat, see Peshawar Exh. 1982, with bibliography.
58
Faccenna 1980, I:10, n. 1. I am afraid it is still not ready.
59 See above, 244.
p.
60 "Sacred Precinct"
(or "Sacred Area") is an expression
coined by our Italian colleagues to denote the stiipa area of a
monastery as distinguished from the monks' quarters.
 Southern Bactria and Northern India before Islam
FUSSMAN:
of the excavation was to unravel the tangled history of
Gandharan art and Buddhism. The site was carefully
selected by G. Tucci: a huge area, between two streams,
next to the main city of Buddhist Swat, probably the
main monastery and the richest in that area. I also guess
that the fact that the land lay unused and that the prov-
ince headquarters were nearby played a role in the
selection of this area. The site was excavated between
1956 and 1962, i.e., at a time when physical methods
of analysis and paleo-sciences were not used widely in
archaeology. Some luck befell the excavators. It was
discovered that the main stfupawas built in the third
century B.C.; up to the tenth century A.D. it underwent
five reconstructions, each new one encasing the previ-
ous. There was thus some chance of detecting changes
in religious attitudes and of obtaining a relative chro-
nology of Gandharansculptures, building devices and
decoration. But lying in low country, close to a growing
modern town, the area was used as a source for building
materials by the local contractors. While many Bud-
dhist buildings still stand almost intact on the sides of
the nearby hills, the Butkara I monuments were nearly
razed to the ground. The loss in preserved elevations
was more than compensated for by the gain in the
building sequences.61
The excavations (c. 6,000 m2) were published in
great detail: six volumes in-folio for the architecture
alone (Faccenna 1980), with a great many drawings and
photographs, and a wealth of tables and indexes. The
plan of the publication is clear and very appropriate.
We find a description of the main stuipa, period by
period, with an overall chronology; descriptions of the
individual monuments, arrangedin periods and typolog-
ical classes, of floors, decoration and painting of the
Sacred Precinct, and a few "urban"structureslying out-
side this Sacred Precinct. References are given when-
ever necessary, even when not so necessary. Reading
and understanding are made easier by numerous draw-
61 It is a
pity that D. Faccennacould not use the evidence
fromthe almostadjacentsite of ButkaraIII. This site, which
couldnot be detectedfromsurfaceevidence,was discovered
after heavy rains and flooding.It was excavatedby a team
fromPeshawarUniversityin 1982 and 1985 (Rahman1990),
well after the completion of Faccenna 1980. It was buried un-
der a thick deposit of mud, brought down by a swollen rivulet,
and boasts a number of well-preserved stupas, complete up
to the umbrellas, with sculptures still in place, some of them
clearly archaic (e.g., Rahman 1990, 702, fig. 8). We can
deeply regret that it will not be published in the same detailed
manner as Butkara I.
255
ings and by precise definitions and sketches of the tech-
nical vocabulary used by D. Faccenna, e.g., names of
mouldings, etc. The chapter on the chronology of the
monuments (vol. I, pp. 167-75) sums up the evidence
in a very convincing way. The chronology depends on
the stratigraphyand on the date of coins found in differ-
ent layers and buildings. For absolute datings, D. Fac-
cenna uses without a question mark the chronology of
the Kushan kings elaborated by R. Gobl, who published
the coins found during the excavations in an exemplary
way (Gobl 1976). As everyone knows, this chronology
is open to question, and careless readers who content
themselves with looking at the table of contents (vol. I,
pp. xix-xx) and the synoptic chart (vol. I, between
pp. 174 and 175) must be warned about this peculiarity.
Actually D. Faccenna's choice is no great problem, for
in the text we are given all the necessary indications to
fit the absolute Kushan chronology of our choice into
the relative chronology of the Sacred Precinct.
I would go so far as to say that Butkara I is the best
excavation ever made and published of a Gandharan
Buddhist site. As a result, thanks to this very detailed
report, we can use a wealth of reliable data for tracing
the history of building techniques, decorative elements
(mouldings, columns, etc.) and the painting of the Hel-
lenized art of Gandhara.It is a wonder that nobody, up
to now, has taken advantage of the evidence that is
here provided in such a convenient way for further
research. Faccenna 1980 is a welcome counterpart to
Marshall'sTaxila excavations, whose data, collected with
less care,62are notoriously unreliable. For a student of
Gandharan architecture and building techniques, Fac-
cenna 1980 should definitely supplant Marshall 1951. I
would like to add that, as a user, I am glad to be given
an easy-to-use final report, with so many plans and
large-scale drawings, color plates and long descriptions
of each monument,however minute or damaged it might
be, although more concise descriptions, and smaller-
size drawings would have been sufficient in some
instances.
Contrary to G. Tucci's expectations, apparently no
evidence of religious changes was found. This does not
mean that they did not take place, insofar as religious
changes cannot be easily deduced from changes in build-
ing techniques.63 Sculptures (infra) and inscriptions,
62
This is not a censureof Marshall'swork,which is emi-
nentlylaudable.But between1913 and 1956, the excavation
techniqueshadchangedmuch,andfor the better.
63 Comparing a Gandharan stupawitha Tibetanmchod-rten
does not teachus anythingaboutchangesin conceptions.
256 Journal of the American Oriental Society 116.2 (1996)
which could have been used as evidence for such changes,
do not exhibit anything decisive. In this instance luck
was not with the excavator. But it is surprising that we
are told nothing about the location of the monks' cells,
and very little about the relationship between the Sacred
Precinct and the adjacent town. From the panoramas
published in Faccenna 1980, it seems that in 1956 the
valley was not yet overbuilt. If it was really impossible
at that time to discover any surface evidence of the lo-
cation of the inhabited areas, it would have been better
to say so in a few lines in the introduction.
At the end of the introduction, D. Faccenna indicates
that "a study of the numerous finds the excavation has
yielded up is not included in this volume. A remark-
able collection of stuccoes and architecturaland figured
sculpture has been provided by the [Sacred Precinct]
alone, while among the finds in the [Inhabited Area]
pottery prevails .... Other categories of objects are made
up of coins, figured terracottas, the contents of reli-
quary recesses (necklace beads, copper, silver, and gold
items), and minor objects.... Obviously, it is only when
all the material has been published-and here we wish
to emphasize this fact-that the publication may be
considered complete, and so at the present moment it is
held to be still 'open'" (Faccenna 1980, 1:3-4). In
1995, thirty-three years after the completion of the ex-
cavations, the publication is still open; these finds are
only partly published in interim reports or specialized
studies. The same can be said of the excavations of the
small, but interesting, nearby hill monastery of Panr.
The final report (Faccenna 1993) exhibits the same out-
standing qualities as Faccenna 1980, but after thirty-
one years, the publication is still "open." In this respect
the final report of the third monastery excavated by our
Italian colleagues in that area, the less importantsite of
Saidu Sharif I (1977-82), represents a big improve-
ment. Each find is recorded and published (Callieri
1989). But only one part of the excavations, the monks'
living quarters, has been published. We still have to
wait for the Sacred Area or stupa terrace, where most of
the sculpture was found. Let us hope that the delay will
be shorter than for Butkara I and Panr.
I especially regret the delay in publishing the sculp-
tures. The bibliography devoted to the history of Gand-
haran art is tremendous and, alas, ever-growing. But for
a few pieces (below), we have no sure evidence on which
to establish a relative chronology of the sculptures, less
so an absolute dating. Each date is dependent on the
intuitive feeling of the researcher, and no two special-
ists feel things in the same way. The stratigraphy and
relative locations of the Butkara I and Panr sculptures
could be of great assistance in this respect. Starting
from a relative chronology of the Swati sculptures, we
could work out a relative chronology of the Gandharan
and Taxilan finds. D. Faccenna is seemingly busy
making a detailed study of the ButkaraI finds, based on
art-historical criteria and the location of the finds: "We
have the possibility of determining several groups of
sculptural productions marked by a close correspon-
dence of (stylistic features) and of recognizing, within
each group, several series of products of the same
workshop.... On the basis of the discovery of some re-
worked sculpture(s) these circumscribed groups can be
arranged in their own internal and relative position(s).
The slab of schist, worked on one site, is re-used later
. . and worked on the back with another scene..."
(Peshawar Exh. 1982, 40-41). A catalogue and photo-
graphs of most of these sculptures were published long
ago by M. Taddei (Faccenna [sic] 1961). Let us hope
that D. Faccenna'sstudy will now be published soon and
will help to elaborate an overall chronology of Gandha-
ran art free from subjectivity and prejudice. Scholars
need no reminder of the importance of the Butkara I
finds for this purpose. I recall that one of the major ad-
vances in our knowledge of early Gandharanart was the
dating of an archaic series of sitting Buddhas by J. van
Lohuizen de Leeuw from evidence gathered from the
Butkara I excavations.64
One last observation should be made for those inter-
ested in the sociology of modern archaeology. On the
cover of Faccenna 1980, despite the great number of
drawings and their usefulness, only one name appears.
On the cover of Faccenna 1993, seven names are
printed.
* * *
The excavations at Sonkh, near Mathura, were con-
ducted for eight years (1966-74) by a team of German
archaeologists led by Prof. Hartel. With the objective
of unravelling "structuralremains to an extent sufficient
for a reassessment of the antiquity of Mathuraand the
natureof early historical settlements in its environment"
(Hirtel 1993, 12), the relatively undisturbed mound of
Sonkh (c. 20 m high) was selected. Two areas were
fully excavated, down to the virgin soil, part of a vil-
lage (4,800 m2) and a nearby low lying apsidal temple
(c. 200 m2). It is obvious that the excavator was espe-
64 Lohuizende Leeuw 1981,
usingFaccenna1974, 172-75
and personalinformationfrom D. Faccenna.Slightlyrevised
chronology (based on a new dating of the coins) in Fussman
1987, 69 ? 6.
 Southern Bactria and Northern India before Islam
FUSSMAN:
cially interested in the early periods (third century B.C.-
fifth century A.D.) and that he would not have been
averse to discovering cultic evidence and sculptures.But
from the start the main dig, located on the mound, was
intended to be a stratigraphicdig, unearthingeach level
on an area wide enough to get some idea of building
techniques and shapes and village planning. Indeed, in
each inhabited level excavated in the mound, four to
ten living quarters("blocks") and a number of roads or
lanes could be traced. Forty levels, making eight peri-
ods, were unearthed, ranging from the eighth century
B.C. to the eighteenth century A.D. The two excavated
areas yielded a wealth of artifacts, among them some
beautiful stone sculptures and two metal statuettes.
The publication is both detailed, precise and concise.
It is divided in two parts: the citadel (mound) area and
the low-lying apsidal temple.65 After an introduction
and a very useful and well-done summary of the results
(table E, p. 17), the dig is described period by period,
level by level, in concise style, well illustrated with
good photographs and drawings in the text, so that
there is no need to search for them at the end of the
book. Then follows a chronology, with evidence ad-
duced from radiocarbon data, ceramics and coins, four
pages in all (pp. 85-88, 427), quite clear and giving all
the necessary details without undue flourish. The finds
are described in the same systematic way, category by
category, with short descriptions following general in-
troductions, and excellent photographs printed in the
text, next to the description of the objects they refer to.
An index closes the book. There is no study of plant
and animal remains, hence no information on the crops
and domestic herds nor on the villagers' diets.
What characterizes this report are its concision and
its clarity, the one inseparable from the other, all made
possible by a very clever use of lavish illustration.
Much attention was given to the page layout, making
this book very convenient to use. It is printed on a
beautiful glazed paper, which makes the photographs
still better and the text easy to read. The plans are
small but drawn so that each detail and caption may be
easily seen and it is convenient to have them in the
text.66 This is a perfectly produced book, up to usual
Berlin standards.
People used to French reports will be surprised that
Prof. Hartel did not avail himself of the results of the
65 Or
apsidal temple n? 2: apsidal temple n? 1 was discov-
eredin the citadelarea(periodV, i.e., Kushan).
66
Hartel, 1993, 10, complains that "caused by the growing
expenses for the publication,only reducedversions of the
257
Mathuraexcavations to write a culturalhistory of north-
ern India. Indeed, the catalogue of objects is conspicu-
ous by its lack of references to finds made in other
Gangetic sites or even outside India. References are
only given to papers or books where the Sonkh object
described was commented upon either by Prof. Hartel
or by one of his (mainly Indian) colleagues. This final
report looks like a series of "objective" descriptions
without any other comments, save those needed for a
better comprehension by the reader. In complete con-
trast with the French publications of the Ai Khanum or
Shortughai digs and the eastern Bactria surveys, it is
not meant to be a historical study made from new finds,
but a tool for further historical studies.
Nevertheless, H. Hartel took advantage of this op-
portunity to make a number of concise statements,
indeed a series of short, well-informed and carefully
worded studies. They are scattered through in the book,
where they look like summaries: chronology of the
Mitra and Datta kings of Mathura (pp. 85-86); stylis-
tic studies of the terra-cotta figurines (pp. 88-89, 100,
112, etc.); categorization of votive tanks (p. 195); char-
acteristics of minor religious sculptures (pp. 245, 248,
281); function of the apsidal temples and evidence of a
ndga cult. This is obviously a choice in the name of
"objectivity" which we should, in principle, applaud. I
nevertheless feel that Prof. Hartel is the most qualified
person to use the results of the Sonkh excavations for
larger syntheses. I hope he will do it. But I can under-
stand his point and the preference he gave to first pub-
lishing, as soon as possible, in a very precise way, the
remains he unearthed, for the finds are impressive. The
Sonkh final report will remain for a long time the main,
if not the only, source of comparison for Gangetic pot-
tery, terracotta figurines, and stone and metal objects.
Nowhere in the available scientific literature are these
artifacts so well dated, described and illustrated. The
Sonkh excavations will also remain the standardrefer-
ence work for the culture of the Mathura country for
years to come. They will be the basis for studies on
building history, material culture, domestic cults. When
compared with similar artifacts found or dug out else-
where, the Sonkh finds will enable us to trace the
connections between Mathura and other parts of India
and to characterize more precisely the westernization
(original) plans of the levels could be published in the report.
They were redrawnfromreproductions of the originaldraw-
ings (1:50)."I woulddaresay that it is moreconvenientfor
the reader to be given these reduced versions of the plans in
the text.
258 Journal of the American Oriental Society 116.2 (1996)
or internationalization of the Gangetic culture in the
centuries circa the Common Era. And it is not indiffer-
ent to this purpose that the final report was published
relatively fast and printed in a very handy way.
* * * cenna 1980 or ultra-modernist like Francfort 1989. But
An archaeologist is never entirely free to choose his
excavation strategy. He has to make concessions to the
BIBLIOGRAPHY
BERNARD, P. 1973. Fouilles d'Ai Khanoum,I (Campagnes 1965,
1966, 1967, 1968). M6moires de la D1eegation arch6olo-
gique francaise en Afghanistan XXI. Paris.
. 1974. "Aux confins de l'orient barbare: Ai Kha-
noum, ville coloniale grecque." Archaeologia-Dossiers
de l'Archeologie 5:99-114.
. 1976. "Ai-Khanoum, Une cite hellenistique d'Af-
ghanistan." Universalia (1976): 139-43.
. 1978a., with H.-P. Francfort. ttudes de geographie
historique sur la plaine d'Ai Khanoum (Afghanistan). Pub-
lications de l'URA n0 10, M6moires n? 1. Paris: editions
du CNRS.
. 1978b. "Campagnede fouilles 1976-1977 a Ai Kha-
noum (Afghanistan)." Comptes rendus de l'Academie des
inscriptions et belles-lettres (octobre 1978): 421-63.
.1981. "Problemes d'histoire coloniale grecque 'a
travers l'urbanisme d'une cite hellenistique d'Asie Cen-
trale." In 150 Jahre Deutsches Archdologisches Institut
1829-1979, pp. 108-20, tab. 43-48. Mainz.
.1982. "An Ancient Greek City in Central Asia."
Scientific American 246.1 (Jan. 1982): 148-59.
1985. Fouilles d'Ai Khanoum, IV; Les monnaies
hors tresors. Questions d'histoire greco-bactrienne. Mem-
oires de la D6elgation arch6ologique franqaise en Afghan-
istan XXVIII. Paris.
Callieri, P. F 1989. Saidu Sharif I (Swat, Pakistan) 1: The
Buddhist Sacred Area, The Monastery, with contributions
by D. d'Alterio, G. Fussman, and A. Stella. IsMEO, Re-
ports and Memoires, XXIII.1. Rome.
FACCENNA, D. 1961. Sculptures of the Sacred Area of ButkaraI
(Swat, Pakistan). Descriptive catalogue by M. Taddei. Is-
MEO, Reports and Memoirs 11.2-3. 2 vols. Rome, 1961-
1964.
1974. "Excavations of the Archaeological Mission
(IsMEO) in Pakistan: Some Problems of Gandharan Art
and Architecture."In Central Asia in the Kushan Period:
Proceedings of the International Conference ... held in
Dushanbe 1968. Vol. 1, pp. 126-76. Moscow.
demands of his sponsors and to negotiate the permis-
sion to dig or survey with local authorities. But he
can choose his publication strategy-ultra-academic like
Rapin 1992 or seemingly ultra-matter-of-fact like Har-
tel 1993; ultra-detailed and even over-sized like Fac-
his main task is to publish a thorough final report, more
for the benefit of the reader than for his own glory. The
sooner, the better.
.1980. ButkaraI (Swat, Pakistan) 1956-1962. IsMEO,
Reports and Memoirs III. 5 vols. in 6 parts. Rome.
.1993. with Ahmad Nabi Khan, Ihsan N. Nadiem.
Pdnr I (Swat, Pakistan). IsMEO, Reports and Memoires
XXVI. 2 vols. Rome.
FRANCFORT, H.-P. 1984. Fouilles d'Ai Khanoum, III: Le sanc-
tuaire du temple a redans, 2: Les trouvailles. M6moires
de la D6elgation arch6ologique francaise en Afghanistan
XXVII. Paris.
.1989. Fouilles de Shortughai; Recherche sur l'Asie
Centrale protohistorique. M6moires de la Mission arch6o-
logique franqaise en Asie centrale, II. 2 vols. Paris.
Fussman, G. 1980. "Nouvelles inscriptions gaka: Ere d'Eu-
cratide, ere d'Azes, ere Vikrama, ere de Kaniska."Bulletin
de l'Ecolefrancaise d'Extreme-OrientLXVII:1-43, pl. I-V.
.1987. "Numismatic and Epigraphic Evidence for the
Chronology of Early GandharanArt." In Investigating In-
dian Art, Proceedings of a Symposiumon the Development
of Early Buddhist and Hindu Iconography Held at the
Museum of Indian Art, Berlin, in May 1986, ed. M. Yaldiz
and W. Lobo. Pp. 67-88. Berlin.
.1993. "L'Indo-grec M6nandre ou Paul Demi6ville
revisit6." Journal asiatique 281:61-137.
.1994. "Upaya-kausalya: L'implantation du boud-
dhisme au Gandhara."In Bouddhisme et cultures locales:
Quelques cas de rdciproquesadaptions, ed. FumimasaFukui
and Gerard Fussman. Pp. 17-51. Publications de l'lcole
francaise d'Extreme-Orient,Paris.
GARDIN,J.-C., with P. Gentelle. 1976. "Irrigation et peuple-
ment de la plaine d'Ai Khanoumde l'6poque ach6emnide a
l'6poque musulmane." Bulletin de l'Ecole francaise d'Ex-
treme-Orient 63:59-99, pl. xviii-xxxiii.
, with A. Cattenat. 1977. "Diffusion compar6e de
quelques genres de poterie caract6ristiques de 1'6poque
ach6m6nide sur le plateau iranien et en Asie centrale." In
Le plateau iranien et l'Asie centrale des origines a la
conquete islamique, ed. J. Deshayes. Pp. 225-48. Paris:
CNRS.
 FUSSMAN:Southern Bactria and Northern India before Islam
,with B. Lyonnet. 1978. "La prospection arch-
6ologique de la Bactriane orientale (1974-1978): Pre-
miers r6sultats."Mesopotamia 13-14 (1978-79): 99-154,
pi. i-xi.
. 1979. Une archeologie theorique, Paris: Hachette
(= Archaeological Constructs: An Aspect of Archaeologi-
cal Theory. Cambridge Univ. Press, 1980).
. 1990. "Indicateurs arch6ologiques du nomadisme:
ltudes de cas en Bactriane,"in Nomades et sedentaires en
Asie centrale, ed. H.-P. Francfort.Pp. 131-40. Paris:CNRS.
.1992. "Semiotic Trends in Archaeology," in Repre-
sentations in Archaeology, ed. J.-C1.Gardin and C. S. Pee-
bles. Pp. 87-104. Bloomington: Indiana Univ. Press.
. Forthcoming. Prospections archeologiques en Bac-
triane orientale (1974-1978), vol. III: Description des
sites et notes de synthese. Memoires de la Mission
arch6ologique fran9aise en Afghanistan, vol. VII, Paris:
Editions Recherche sur les Civilisations.
GENTELLE, P. 1978. Etude geographique de la plaine d'A' Kha-
noum et de son irrigation depuis les temps antiques. Pub-
lications de l'URA, n? 10, Memoires n? 2. Paris: Editions
du CNRS.
.1989. Prospections archeologiques en Bactriane
orientale (1974-1978) sous la direction de J.-Cl. Gardin,
vol. I: Donnees paleogeographiques et fondements de l'ir-
rigation. Memoires de la Mission arch6ologique francaise
en Asie centrale, vol. III. Paris.
Gobl, R. 1976. A Catalogue of Coins from Butkara I (Swat,
Pakistan). IsMEO, Reports and Memoirs IV. Rome.
GUILLAUME, O. 1983. Fouilles d'Ai'Khanoum,II: Les propyle'es
de la rue principale. M6moires de la D6elgation arch6-
ologique francaise en Afghanistan XXVI. Paris.
. with A. Rougeulle. 1987. Fouilles d'Ai Khanoum,
VII; Les petits objets. Memoires de la D6elgation arch-
6ologique francaise en Afghanistan XXXI. Paris.
HARTEL, H. 1993. Excavations at Sonkh: 2500 Yearsof a Town
in Mathura District, with contributions by H.-J. Paech and
R. Weber. Monographienzur indischen Archaologie, Kunst
und Philologie, vol. 9. Berlin.
LERICHE, P. 1986. Fouilles d'Ai'Khanoum, V: Les remparts et
les monuments associes. M6moires de la D6elgation
arch6ologique franqaise en Afghanistan XXIX. Paris.
Lisitsina, G. N. 1969. "The Earliest Irrigation in Turkmenia."
Antiquity XLIII:279-88.
259
van Lohuizende Leeuw, J. 1949. The "ScythianPeriod."Leiden.
.1981. "New Evidence with Regard to the Origin of
the Buddha Image," in South Asian Archaeology 1979, ed.
H. Hartel. Pp. 376-400. Berlin.
LYONNET, B. 1996. Prospections archeologiques en Bactriane
orientale (1974-1978) sous la direction de J.-Cl. Gardin,
vol. II: Etude de la ceramique; essai sur l'histoire du peu-
plement. M6moires de la Mission arch6ologique franqaise
en Asie centrale, vol. V. Paris: tditions Recherche sur les
Civilisations (in print).
Marshall, J. 1951. Taxila: An Illustrated Account of Archaeo-
logical Excavations Carried out at Taxila under the Or-
ders of the Government of India between the Years 1913
and 1914, 3 vols., Cambridge Univ. Press.
Olivier, F 1996. Des archeologues francais en Afghanistan:
Histoire de la Delegation archeologique franfaise en Af-
ghanistan (1922-1982). Paris: editions Recherche sur les
Civilisations (in print).
Peshawar Exhibition. 1982. Italian Archaeological Mission
(IsMEO), Pakistan, Swat, 1956-1981, Documentary Exhi-
bition (Catalogue). Peshawar.
Rahman, Abdur. 1990. "Butkara III: A Preliminary report."
In South Asian Archaeology 1987, ed. M. Taddei. Vol. 2,
pp. 693-706. Rome.
RAPIN,CL. 1992. Fouilles d'A'iKhanoum,VIII: La tresorerie du
palais hellenistique d'Ai'Khanoum. M6moires de la D61e-
gation arch6ologique fran9aise en Afghanistan XXXIII.
Paris.
Schlumberger, D. 1960. "Descendants non-m6diterran6ensde
l'art grec." Syria 37:131-66 and 253-319.
Sharma, R. C. 1984. Buddhist Art of Mathura. Delhi.
Srinivasan, D. Meth. 1988. "Vaisnava Art and Iconography at
Mathura."In Mathura: The Cultural Heritage, ed. D. Meth
Srinivasan. Pp. 383-92. New Delhi.
TuccI, G. 1958. "Preliminary Report on an Archaeological
Survey in Swat." East and West 9.4 (Dec. 1958): 279-328.
VEUVE,S. 1987. Fouilles d'A' Khanoum, VI: Le gymnase;
architecture, ceramique, sculpture, M6moires de la D61e-
gation arch6ologique franqaiseen Afghanistan XXX. Paris.
Veyne, P. 1971. Commenton ecrit l'histoire. Paris.
Wheeler, M. 1955. Still Digging. London.
Zejmal', T I. 1969. "Drevnie i srednevekovye kanaly vaxsskoj
doliny." Strany i Narody Vostoka X:37-57. Moscow.