186 book reviews

David Jongeward, Elizabeth Errington, Richard Salomon, Stefan Baums Gandharan Buddhist Reliquaries [Gandharan Studies Volume 1] (Seattle & London: University of Washington Press, 2012), pp. xii +331, 405 illustrations (175 in colour). us$75,00. isbn 978-0-295-99236-5.

This new series starts with an in every respect splendid book:1 The six chapters of equally high quality contributed by the authors mentioned on the title page are all accompanied by superb illustrations. D. Jongeward, who had the fortunate idea to compile an inventory of Gan- dharan reliquaries, introduces the book with a brief recapitulation of the Bud- dha’s nirvāṇa2 and the distribution of the relics, before surveying the mate- rial presented and laying the foundation for a typology of the 406 reliquaries described (chapters 1–3, pp. 3–110). Despite all efforts to compile a comprehen- sive catalogue including all reliquaries from Museums or private collections as far as they are accessible (with the exception of small fragments), the author is well aware that there must be more pieces particularly in private collections yet unknown, but the overwhelming majority should be listed systematically in the appendix also by D. Jongeward “Tables of Gandharan Reliquaries,” where also images of all 406 reliquaries are provided (pp. 253–295).3 In the fourth chapter E. Errington describes the reliquaries preserved in the British Museum and their provenance with her usual care and circumspection (pp. 111–163). Richard Salomon deals with the inscriptions on reliquaries in such a way that also introduces the art historian to the epigraphy, language and script of Gandhāra (chapter 5, 165–199). Further details of the text of the inscriptions are investigated, including matters such as donors, honorees and beneficiaries, dates and method of dating, and locations mentioned in the inscriptions.4

1 The book was reviewed by Jason Neelis, Bulletin of the Asia Institute ns 23. 2009 [2013], pp. 231–235; Gérard Fussman, Arts Asiatiques 68. 2013, pp. 129–134; Michael Willis, jras 23. 2013, p. 493. 2 The name of the last pupil of the Buddha is erroneously given as Subhūti instead of Subhadra. The tradition on Subhadra is summed up by André Bareau: Recherches sur la biographie du Buddha dans les Sūtrapiṭaka et les Vinayapiṭaka anciens. ii. Les derniers mois, le parinirvāṇa et les funérailles, Tome ii. Paris 1971, pp. 92–131. 3 On no. 253 Sāh-jī-kī Ḍherī (“Kaniṣka Reliquary”) see now Frederick M. Asher: Travels of a Reliquary, Its Contents Separated at Birth. South Asian Studies 28. 2012, pp. 147–156. 4 The formulation used one in inscription no. 12 (p. 187, 211) takhasilaye nagara—utareṇa pracu deśo kṣema nāma—atra “in the city of Taxila—in the northeast there is an area called Kṣema—there …” may be a surprisingly late example (early 1st century?) of an “Ortsnamen-

© koninklijke brill nv, leiden, 2015 | doi: 10.1163//15728536-05800055 book reviews 187

As far as the inscriptions can be dated, they provide an approximate chrono- logical bracket between about 150bc to about 200ad. The rather abrupt end of the practice to donate reliquaries coincides with the decline of the Kuṣāṇa Empire (p. 165) and thus indirectly proves the importance of Kuṣāṇa patronage for Buddhism. Only a minority of the reliquaries known is actually inscribed, about 10% according to R. Salomon’s estimate. A reason for this proportion is as impossible to find here as in the label inscriptions of Jātakas found on various Buddhist stūpas.5 And the warning that we might overestimate the importance of a written documentation from a modern perspective cannot be overemphasized (p. 166). Besides the inscriptions themselves, the model for their wording and the process of enshrinement of reliquaries are also discussed (pp. 168–170). That the reliquaries “were most likely displayed and paraded before throngs of worshippers (p. 168)” is corroborated from the other end, as it were, of the Buddhist world in , from Ceylon by the 31st chapter of the Mahāvaṃsa describing the enshrinement of the relics of the Buddha originally enclosed in the Rāmagāma stūpa,6 washed away by the floods of the Ganges and eventually recovered from the Nāga world.7 Once the mythological frame work is removed, a rough idea of how such an enshrinement might have been executed can be abstracted from the story given in the Mahāvaṃsa. After Duṭṭhagāmaṇī Abhaya (161–137 [101–77] bc) had finished the relic chamber (dhātu-gabbha), he officially asked the Saṃgha to appoint a dhātu- āhāraka “bringer of the relics” (Mhv xxxi 3). Next the king announced in public (cāresi nagare bheriṃ, verse 32) that on the next day, which is the 15th and thus an uposatha day, the relics will be enshrined (dhātu-nidhāna “laying down the relics”). At the same time, clothes and food are distributed at the city gates. The

parenthese” (place name put in parenthesis), cf. O. v. Hinüber: Hoary Past and Hazy Memory. On the History of Early Buddhist Texts. jiabs 29/2. 2006 [2008 (2009)], pp. 193–210, particu- larly p. 198. 5 In the case of the Jātakas it is, moreover, impossible to know which stories enigmatic to us, but lacking the badly needed label, were perhaps very well-known at the time. 6 An image of this stūpa is found at : K.P.Poonacha: Excavations at Kanaganahalli (, Dist. , ). Memoirs of the Archaeological Survey of India, no. 106. Delhi 2011 [2013], plates L,b; cxx,a; on the inscription: Maiko Nakanishi & O. v. Hinüber: Kanaganahalli Inscriptions. aririab 17. 2013 Supplement, iii.2,31. This stūpa is one of many in Kanaganahalli entwined by Nāgas as the one on Fig. 2.20 perhaps correctly identified as the Rāmagāma stūpa (p. 37). 7 Mahāvaṃsa xxxi is discussed from a different perspective by John S. Strong: Relics of the Buddha. Princeton 2004, pp. 160–178.

Indo-Iranian Journal 58 (2015) 163–201