Academic interest in the so-called Graeco-Bactrians and Indo-Greeks has existed for at least 300 years (Mairs, pp. 1–2; also O. Coloru, p. 127). Initially focused on scant references that survived in the classical literary corpus and cartographic analysis (A. Fenet, p. 174), subsequent numismatic discoveries during the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries (see the chapters of Coloru and S. Glenn) and increasing archaeological work in the last 100 years (see Fenet and S. Gorshenina, and C. Rapin) have allowed for more varied research in this field. The prism through which this material was studied unsurprisingly coloured the interpretations offered by different generations of scholars. These ranged from early desires to connect European imperialist ambitions with Alexander's eastern conquests (although for British scholars, comparisons between the Roman Empire and the Raj were to prove more popular: P. Vasunia, The Classics and Colonial India [2013]) to the search for ‘Greek’ cultural ‘influence’ in the region (following an obsession that can be traced back to Plutarch; though Soviet researchers perhaps stand out here in their distinctive approach on this issue – Fenet, pp. 186–94). Moreover, the availability of material also greatly impacted on the interpretations offered. At the time when the seminal works of W.W. Tarn (The Greeks in Bactria and India [1938]) and A.K. Narain (The Indo-Greeks [1957]) were published, comparatively little was known of the archaeological record in Central Asia (Mairs, p. 1).
The volume under review is thus a doubly valuable contribution to this field of study. Not only does it offer the reader a synthesis of the most recent research, interpretations and discoveries (archaeological, historical, epigraphic and numismatic), but also highlights a number of methodological and theoretical insights into fraught issues such as culture and identity (discussed below). Indeed, a comprehensive English-language overview of this complex web of subjects has been sorely lacking; various studies have sought to explore different aspects of Graeco-Bactrian and Indo-Greek history, but usually this has been from a specific vantage point. This includes a desire to reconstruct a bare-bones chronology of various rulers, heavily based on numismatic data (e.g. H. Sidky, The Greek Kingdom of Bactria [2000]; F. Holt, Thundering Zeus [1999]; O. Bopearachchi, Monnaies gréco-bactriennes et indo-grecques [1991]). Similarly, there have been many art-historical studies of material culture, coinage, portraiture and reliefs over the last century and a half (e.g. J. Boardman, The Greeks in Asia [2015]), often discussed in terms of hybridity, identity and the problematic concept of ‘influence’. Other research encompasses regional surveys and studies of the topography and archaeology of sites in Central Asia and the north-west Indian subcontinent (e.g. R. Mairs, The Archaeology of the Hellenistic Far East [2011]; J. Cribb and G. Herrmann [edd.], After Alexander [2007]). A fourth area of interest surrounds religio-philosophic and intellectual exchange between the ‘Graeco-Macedonians’ and groups such as the Gymnosophists and Brahmans, usually connected to Alexander's campaigns in the east and Megasthenes’ Indika (see, notably, R. Stoneman, The Greek Experience of India [2019], and C. Beckwith, Greek Buddha [2015]).
Collectively, the contributors to this volume engage with the first three of these areas. The fourth area, religio-philosophic and intellectual exchange, is perhaps underexplored. This seems justifiable, since the latter is heavily focused on Graeco-Roman notions about the so-called Gymnosophists and Brahmans (who are more closely connected to the northern Indian Subcontinent rather than Central Asia proper). There are debates about the extent to which these accounts reflect a genuine, albeit garbled, comprehension of practices and ethical conduct (rather than belief-systems) – what could be called the credulous approach – as opposed to a largely imagined Graeco-Roman vision of wisdom in the East – the constructivist approach. Since the volume is primarily concerned with comprehending developments within Central Asia (and how this tied into wider developments in Eurasia), an external Mediterranean (Graeco-Roman) vision of ‘philosophic wisdom’ in ‘India’ is arguably more tangential. As a result, this book is split up into the following sections: contextual discussions of geography and history (1); a historiographical overview (2); a review of what different types of source material can tell us, namely archaeological evidence (3); written material (4); numismatic evidence (5); discussions on the contentious issues of culture and identity, and local-global dynamics (6); and, finally, a series of framing chapters that consider developments prior to, and subsequent to, the Hellenistic period (7).
The book presents a promising picture for the state of research in the field of Hellenistic Central Asia. Greater use is being made of varied methodologies, including zooarchaeology and archaeobotany, allowing for new questions to be asked about socio-economic activity at the household to regional level (L. Stančo, p. 297). Similarly, under-analysed results from earlier surveys and excavations, such as in southern Tajikistan, are increasingly being brought to the fore (G. Lindström, pp. 286–7). Even more exciting is that sites for potential further research are being continuously identified, such as in the piedmont steppe region (Stančo, pp. 297–8; by contrast there appears to be a dearth of ‘Hellenistic’ sites identified in Areia [western Afghanistan] – W. Ball, p. 376). Nevertheless, greater dissemination of this scholarly work remains a desideratum (Lindström, pp. 286, 307).
Among some of the most intriguing discoveries that have come to light are the results of the excavations at Barikot (in the Swat region) discussed by L.M. Olivieri (Chapter 16), where an urban defensive structure has been identified (c. 150 bc), along with evidence for a possible multi-lingual, multi-ethnic Indo-Greek community (as seen in the mix of ceramics and scripts, both Greek and Brahmi). New interpretations of existing material also allow for interesting and provocative debates regarding Graeco-Bactrian history. For example, J. Jakobsson (Chapter 22) argues that earlier assumptions about Diodotus I minting coins with his own bust, but in the name of Antiochus II (as part of a cautious policy of gradually increasing autonomy), are in fact incorrect. Instead, he asserts that these coins can be attributed to a later Graeco-Bactrian king named Antiochus (Nikator), an idea, nevertheless, questioned by O. Bordeaux (p. 513).
As Mairs is keen to stress in the introduction (p. 2), there are a plurality of perspectives among the contributors; no attempt is made to impose a singular collective vision (quite wisely). Instead, the reader has the opportunity to critically respond to the different ideas presented. To the reviewer's mind, one of the most contentious areas surrounds the treatment of identity and culture. In much earlier nineteenth- and twentieth-century scholarship there had been a tendency to try and clearly demarcate the Greek, local (Central Asia), Iranian and Indian, be it in artistic, architectural or conceptual terms (on this issue, see R. Mairs, The Hellenistic Far East [2016]; also, Ball's chapter). This, in part, tied into representational approaches to archaeology, particularly the employment of material culture (and epigraphic evidence) as proxies for the presence or absence of particular groups.
Some contributors clearly still adopt such representational approaches. For example, B. Lyonnet (p. 324) debates whether the absence of certain characteristic Hellenic ceramics (notably fish-plates and echinus bowls) at the site of Afrasiab (northern Samarkand) indicates a loss of Seleucid control of the north Zeravshan area or the use of local (non-Greek) recruits under Seleucid authority. In and of itself, there is nothing wrong in adopting such an approach (even proponents of alternative methods like materiality do not advocate for the wholesale abandonment of representative analysis of material culture; see A. Van Oyen and M. Pitts, ‘What Did Objects do in the Roman World?’, in Materialising Roman Histories [2017]), although a more reflective discussion on such representational methodologies would perhaps be useful. However, what seems more problematic is that a few of the contributors utilise the terminology of ‘influence’ (‘most obviously reflecting Hellenistic influence’, G. Puschnigg, pp. 344–5; ‘fidelity to Hellenism mixed with oriental influences’, G. Lecuyot, p. 551), which might (inadvertently) imply quite essentialised notions of identity and culture. As recent proponents of the (reformulated) concept of transculturality (a term not specifically employed in this volume) have sought to emphasise, culture and cultural identity should not be seen in a static, hermetically sealed or essentialised manner (L. Abu-Er-Rub et al. [edd.], Engaging Transculturality [2019]).
By contrast, other contributors have taken a more circumspect approach to what constitutes culture, ethnicity and identity. This more cautious treatment of the source material can be seen, for example, in L. Martinez-Sève's discussion of the site of Ai Khanoum (Chapter 10). She notes (p. 224) that earlier perceptions of the site as a centre that diffused Greek culture in the region has given way to a greater willingness to look at local agency and the development of ‘mixing’ and hybridisation. Mairs (pp. 424–5) also cautions about the complex use of written scripts, and what this does and does not say about issues of ethnicity, identity and the languages spoken in a particular area.
In addition to this debate about culture and identity, a number of contributors seek to explore how local societies were connected into global networks of exchange. For example, old East–West, Empire-focused notions like the Silk Road are avoided in favour of a more complex, multidirectional analysis that gives greater attention to nomadic groups and individual polities in the region (for example, S. Stark's chapter, pp. 90–1). In Chapter 26 M. Hoo outlines the challenges and opportunities of using globalisation (and concepts connected to / embedded within it) to study Hellenistic Central Asia. She observes the dangers of this term being employed in an under-theorised way (other contributors allude to the concept, albeit in a less clearly defined manner, e.g. R. Strootman, pp. 1–12, 18). Similarly, she points to the problems inherent in core–periphery models and the understanding of globalisation as a one-sided process of homogenisation (employed as a substitute term for ‘Hellenisation’) in which the ‘local’ reactively either resists or is overwhelmed by such processes (pp. 555–60). Instead, she emphasises how concepts like glocalisation and translocalism allow the researcher to think about ‘visual and material culture in social and relational terms, rather than as spatial phenomena embodied in objects and architecture’ (p. 562). This more thoughtful engagement with how globalisation thinking can be applied is a highly welcome addition to the volume.
To summarise, this volume is a very useful resource for students, lecturers and researchers alike. It offers an invaluable state of the art on research connected to Hellenistic Central Asia as well as a snapshot of key theoretical and methodological debates taking place. The book is in fact partially devised as a reference work: Mairs (p. 3) notes that it is designed so that individual chapters can be read in isolation. However, those not well-versed in this field of study (particularly undergraduate students) need to be careful about accepting specific conclusions (in individual chapters) without engaging with other viewpoints, since so many areas within the study of Graeco-Bactrian and Indo-Greek history remain contentious and based on comparatively limited source material.
