Lars Fogelin has previously presented research on the site of Thotlakonda in Orissa, India, and on a comparative study of early Buddhist monuments (2006, 2012). In this latest volume, he seeks to lay out “the most basic contours of an archaeological history of Indian Buddhism” (p. 4). The purpose of the book is not only to trace Buddhism's historical development in India but also to offer “an exemplar for the archaeological study of religion” (p. 4). Divided into eight chapters, the introduction offers an overview of both the archaeology and history of Buddhism, as well as an evaluation of sources; Chapter 2 attempts to contextualise the study within the broader challenges of the archaeology of religion. The following five chapters present a chronological outline of Indian Buddhism: 600–200 BC, 200 BC–AD 200, AD 100–600, the first millennium AD and AD 600–1400. The conclusion suggests future directions for the archaeology of religion, as well as reflections on the volume, which Fogelin refers to as “the first attempt at a large-scale integration of Buddhist archaeology and history” (p. 223).

While the latter claim may appear ungenerous to the earlier studies of Dutt (Reference Dutt1988), Mitra (Reference Mitra1971) and others, the volume contains much to appreciate and confirms Fogelin's position as one of the pioneers in the attempt to ‘rematerialise’ the study of Buddhism in South Asia. Certainly, the discussion of “semiotic transformations of Buddhist monastic ritual foci”, viewing locations and “attenuated stupas” (p. 172) reinforces the originality of his earlier studies of Buddhist monuments. Although one might not fully accept some of his bolder statements, such as identifying “the design tricks that the Sangha used” (p. 183), his focus on monuments will be helpful to those considering longitudinal shifts in relations between clergy and laity. Fogelin also clearly uses the volume to try to bring together what he sees as polarised disciplinary interests. Using a horticultural analogy, he states that for too long:

This ambition is certainly laudable as there is much need for dialogue between text and archaeology in South Asian archaeology.

Compared to the detailed monument and landscape analysis of Fogelin's earlier work at a single small site, this volume promises a far broader historical scale of analysis. Despite setting out an early definition of archaeology as “the study of the material remains of past cultures—the empty buildings, the discarded tools, and the garbage that people leave behind” (p. 1), his archaeological focus is largely restricted to building plans and monument elevations. Unfortunately, these plans often lack scales (missing in 19 of the 28 building plans presented). Fogelin also has a tendency to rely on synthetic sources rather than original excavation reports. For example, Mitra (Reference Mitra1971) is cited rather than Dikshit (Reference Dikshit1938) for information on the great monastery and temple at Somapura, and this reliance on synthetic works could be a contributing factor to the absence of references to more recent detailed spatial and structural analyses at a number of sites (Michon Reference Michon2007; Prasad Reference Prasad2011; Sen Reference Sen2014). In other places, the discourse is unsupported by references (pp. 149–50), leaving the reader uncertain as to the sources for some of the statements. Similarly, the absence of reference to Harry Falk's (Reference Falk2006) magisterial survey of Asokan monuments is unfortunate, as is the lack of consideration of many of the relevant chapters in Olivelle (Reference Olivelle2006) and Sengupta and Chakraborty (Reference Sengupta and Chakraborty2008), which would have enhanced the discussion of the changing political, social and economic context of the first millennium AD.

Referring back to factors of scale, the volume's restriction of geographic coverage to modern Pakistan, Bangladesh, India and southern Nepal separates ‘Indian’ Buddhism from the ‘Buddhism’ of Sri Lanka and Myanmar, and compounds the challenges at either end of Fogelin's chosen timeline. The former's exclusion is hard to justify on account of the very close chronological, textual and cultural links between the two. Indeed, the Palk Strait that separates Sri Lanka from India is only 33km wide, and as little as 1m deep. Reference to the island's monuments would have provided useful material in the discussion of monastic isolation and meditation in Chapter 5, including reference to Wijesuriya's (Reference Wijesuriya1998) volume on meditational monasteries. It would also have provided more context for statements such as the “earliest readable inscriptions in India were carved at the direction of [the emperor] Ashoka in the third century BC” (p. 20), when compared with the acknowledged presence of inscribed material in Sri Lanka at least a century earlier (Allchin Reference Allchin and Coningham2007). The island's exclusion also removes an interesting debate as to why Buddhism thrived in Sri Lanka despite its eclipse a short distance away on the mainland and despite the island's temporary membership of the Chola's south Indian ‘Hindu’ hegemony in the tenth century AD. Similarly, Myanmar's inclusion would have offered a useful counterpoint to the discussion of the decline of ‘Indian’ Buddhism and the challenges this presented to pilgrims from the region of Myanmar. While the pilgrimage centre of Bodhgaya may have become unreachable, the inhabitants of Bagan built their own full-scale model of the Mahabodhi Temple in the thirteenth century AD, thus making the inaccessible accessible and bringing the Buddhist homeland home (Pichard Reference Pichard2000).

Finally, while this book provides a useful overview of the development of Indian Buddhism from an archaeological perspective, whether it meets the ambition of its author to provide “an exemplar for the archaeological study of religion” (p. 4) is less certain. Fogelin's own methodologies are clearly stated: “Rather than rejecting older theories for the novelty of newer theories, I find it more informative—and interesting—to use them all” (p. 69); but the application of these theories to the interpretation of “discarded tools and the garbage people leave behind” (p. 1) is less clear. Indeed, while he praises Colin Renfrew's earlier pioneering research at Phylakopi, it might have been better to reflect on Renfrew's more recent, science-based analyses of patterns of pilgrimage and cult on the island of Keros, a compelling and contemporary study (Renfrew et al. Reference Renfrew, Philaniotou, Brodie, Gavalas and Boyd2013). Although not insurmountable, these combined challenges lead me to question Fogelin's aspiration that “many of the people reading this book will be scholars who work outside South Asia” (p. xi); in fact, the volume's choice of broad contours will restrict its relevance to scholars working outside the focus of his study, both within and beyond South Asia.