204 OOK REVIEWS history of Arabia. Vol. i: Sources forthe history of Arabia | 15-2 Riyadh 1979. _ Mf Ibrahim, “Social and economic conditions in pre-Islamic Mees LIMES 14(1982): 343-358. ceeaero, “The constitution of Medina”, Orient XVI (1982): 1-17 A hata (ed), Land tenure and social transformation inthe Middle East, Beirut 1984. -To end this review with the usual cliché thatthe criticism offered does re fetract from the value of the study, might seen out of Place ree ertheless, as an answer to the questions the autor undertook newfie, the study must be considered a success, a most important seMibution to our knowledge of early Islamic history, and quite svorthy of taking its place beside Lakkegaard’s and Petch n's stuies. Kaj Ohrnbs Kaus Karttunen: India in Early Greek Literature, Stadia Orich- wiiia, Vol, 65. The Finnish Oriental Society, Helsinki 1989 293 pp, In this book Klaus Karttunen examines the early Greek sources 15 1 to tna, The study is not only based on primary sources Dut also tant impressive amount of background literature: His list of mone raph and articles contains an astounding 703 items. Accortie Mo Sra nen, most ofthe classical accounts on India co not deal with the aarrntry and culture we know from Sanskrit sources, but salher sat the often heterodox and heteroprax northwestern part of India. ris one of the reasons why India, as represented by ancicnt Western aa aoc hard for the modeta Indologist to recognize, The author has aiereeeid avast corps of primary and secondary sourees, and provided o yellorganized description of it with critical reviews of various ine terpretative theories rettunen’s discussion of the Greck literary sources starts with the acest appearing at the end ofthe sixth century B. C.,and ends with aeccttorigns of Alexander. One of the ideas of the study isto show re Northwestern India was neither a part of India nor of Tran, and one of his purposes has be id out how much we can actually Sty Hoae eeeethe various hypotheses and fantasies are cleare ee ay” sg BOOK REV! 205, (p-9). Karttunen's approach is sceptical and, sometimes 19 the de roof his analysis, he generally avoids mythological explanatory meas when toying to explain the phenomena hie encounters in his primary sourees ut before Karttunen delves into the intricacies of the Greek literary sources he gives the reader a broad historical and cultural perspective oeenrnnining the ancient contacts between the Near East and South ee dismisses any contact between Mesopotamia and Vedic India, perhaps a bit hastily: for example, the story of Manu and the deluge eid he indiective of such contacts, as this myth probably has its orish) so caltures of the Middle East. Karttunen only finds indisputable in henve of Indo-Western relations from the Achaemenian period. He ener eviderce of any direct contact between the Gangetic basin and the Achaemenian empite, neither in Indian nor in Western souress Th his discussion of the earliest Greck sources on India ~ Scylax Heaataeus, Herodotus and Ctesias — Karttunen focuses on the connes- vee petween these writers. At the same time, be addresses the ques: thom of the relationship between information (Fact or fiction) coming fram the country itself and the role of Greek theory and interpretation. The most important source after the death of Alexander was Megie ithenes, the Scleucid ambassador to the Mauryan court. He had a great aan first-hand knowledge not only of the Northwestern country but eof India proper. Karttunen stresses, however, that fe was still a Greck writing to his compatriots, using Greek literary conventions. Niet of his accounts can be given Indian explanations, thus showing that Megasthenes was not writing fiction but selecting precisely those pints which corresponded wel to the Greek conception of an cal point tn ths respect, Megasthenes was hardly different from modern travellers who have found a far-off paradise), Karttunen also deals with what he regards as spurious Gi somues, He acknowledges that foreign influence may be present in surly phencmena such as Orphism and Pythagoreanism and propesce that the si mes observed in Greek and Indian thinking thay be due to a common source in the ancient Near East or EayPt Hge seems to him a much more likely explanation than direct contact (p. 112). In most eases doctrinal simiarities are only superficial, he ‘| no conclusions concerning, possible contact or common origin can be drawn from the argues, Karttunen’s dis- cussion is missing the point arguments put forward by Bruce206 OOK REVIEWS, Lincoln in his book “Myth, Cosmos and Society” (London, 1986) show that the idea of a common origin for many of these Indo-European intellectual patterns should not be dismissed so easily. On the other hand, Karttunen seems somewhat paradoxically willing to aceept an Indo-European background for Pythagoras’ prohibition against eating beans! In his discussion of Greek ethnographic theory, Karttunen points to the interesting fact that Strabo’s account of the inhabitants of Ireland curiously resembles that of Herodotus on India. Here he touches on an important point, i.e. the reliability of the ancient Greek and Latin sources related to “barbaric” peoples. To what extent are we dealing with true information or literary topoi? This question has a bearing on the research of such people as Georges Dumézil and Bruce Lincoln, whose views are partly based on evidence given by classical authors. No doubt the ancients give us a mixture of often garbled fiction and facts ~ and Karttunen stresses this point quite rightly — but this problem should have been treated in a less summary manner. Karttunen shows that there are two sides to Greek ethnographic writing: Theory and fact, Both are clearly present in the accounts on India, Authors, including those who visited the country, selected and adapted their data to fit the theory, even though they tried to find reliable data, and give a reliable picture. Karttunen’s arguments on this, point are quite convincing In the last chapters of his book Karttunen evaluates the Indian sources, He adheres to the short chronology of the birth of the Buddha, placing it in the mid-fouth century. This has ramifications as regards his, dating of several works which could potentially be expected to provide information regarding early Greek contacts. Evidently, the Vedas, the Sambitas and the Brihmanas precede any such contact. But the oldest Satras still belong to the pre-Mauryan period, and Karttunen regards them as the best possible source for comparison with the carly Greek sources on India Ctesias mentions falconry in India, which is the first time this artis mentioned in literature with the exception of some Mesopotamian tablets. Karttunen rejects Ulrich Schneider's claim that falconry was known in Central Asia from “graue Vorzeit” (p. 161), although it may have been known there at the time of Ctesias. The art is not mentioned in the Arthasastra and was therefore according to the author probably not a royal sport. Since the India known to Ctesias was the Northwest, OOK REVIEWS 207 Karttunen draws the conclusion that falconry belonged to Northwest India. Even Panini seems to mention falconry and he himself was a Northwesterner. The theory is tempting, but it is partly based on an argumentum ex niilo: The supposed non-existence of falconry in Cen- tral Asia in “graue Vorzeit” His views on the skolex, or gigantic white worm of the Indus, are less 1s. Here, Karttunen seems to make the same mistake as many ‘ofthose whom he criticizes: He constructs a theory on scanty evidence. Connecting the skolex with the nagas, and by extension, with Sesa and the incarnation of Sesa, Balarama, is certainly ingenious and could ‘even be right, But the theory is left hanging in the air as long, as we know no more about the skolex than Ctesias tells us. There are no Indian tales about the fabulous peoples of India so ethnography, although certain ethnographi details seem partially to match Greek data: The Indian sources men- tion cannibalism as a custom among Northwestern tribes (c.g. the pislicas). ‘This tallies with Herodotus’ aecount of the Indian tribes who ate their old, weak relatives, and it fits in well with the attitude prevalent in Aryavarta that the Northwesterners were highly unortho- otten described in classi dox. Based on the theories of Asko Parpola, Karttunen tries to analyse the basie conflict of the Mahabharata and the polyandry of the Pand- \sas in terms of historic events. He sees the Pandavas as a new wave of marauding Aryans coming from Central Asia to Northern and Western India around the eighth or ninth century B, C. He compares their | polyandry to the Massagetan custom described by Herodotus ws well as t0 practices found in the far South, among the Bhils of Gujara/Maharashtra and in the Western Himalayas. Such historieist tions are dubious at best, The studies of Dumézil have shown very convincingly that the basic intrigue of the great epic is of a far more venerable age. We should not read too much into the names of \d protagonists, Historical persons (and no doubt frater peoples and events) tend to be wssimilated in legend and mythology hut the basic structures of such leg n more or less unaltered for long periods. ‘This is well illustrated in Mircea Eliade's book, "The Myth of the Eternal Return” (Princeton, 1974, p. 349), And wnslation of the Mahabharata, van Buitenen has with one of the marginal ally of Abhisi k inthe preface of his t shown how king Poros may be identific nes of the Mahabhirata who w208, OOK REVIEWS Abisares) (p.1S4ff). No doubt this hero was added to the epie story at a comparatively late stage in its development, and no doubt similar additions have been made at different times in its history without significantly altering the fundamental intrigue. As for the polyandry of the Pandavas, itis difficult to compare this with the Massagetan prac- tices described by Herodotus (which may even be a topos). It is also, puzzling that the Pang brothers should be the only ones on the Pandu side who were polyandric. There may, however, be another solution to the problem. If we accept that the relationship between the Pandavas and their common wife reflects a very ancient mythologem, as has been suggested by Dumézil and Hiltebeitel, there may be a connection with polyandric practices at the Indo-European stage. Polybius tells us that “among the Lacediemonians it was a hereditary custom and quite ‘usual for three or four men to have one wife or even more if they were brothers, the offspring being the common property of all... “(Polybius, ‘The Histories, translation by W. R. Paton, London MCMXXV). Con- sidering the archaie nature of Spartan society, this may indeed suggest that polyandric customs were not unheard of in the more distant past This could explain why the six functional gods of Dumézil were matched by a single great Indo-European goddess, that originally may have been regarded as the common wife of them all, just as Draupadi was the common wife of the Pandavas. Further support for such an interpretation may be found in the Irish legend of Lugaid Red Stripes and his three fathers, which in the final analysis could be rooted in ancient polyandric practices. (This legend is discussed in Myth, Cosmos and Society, p. ASS). In his section on Heracles and Dionysus, Karttunen tries to equate Dionysus with an carly version of Siva (or rather Rudra) connected with the Northwest. Here he sees Karna’s rebuke to Salya, the king of the Madras, as an account of Northwestern religious habits. Karna’s speech is, of course, extremely derogatory. The people of Salya’s territory are devoid of dharma, they drink alcohol, eat beef and even dog's meat, they sing and dance naked with women. And, of course, they do not respect the caste boundaries. There is, however, on problem with Karna’s speech: It can hardly be meant as an objective description of Northwestern habits. On the contrary, it is a challenge and a brash insult to Salya and his Madra people. If everything in this speech were true, itis difficult to see how it could be insulting to Salya at all, Even if the Northwest was less orthodox than the regions to the BOOK REVIEWS. 209 south, Karna’s description is certainly an exaggeration. Within the epi context Karna’s rebuke probably carries a deeper significance which ‘emerges from a mythological analysis of the Mahabharata. A sensible iscussion of Karna’s words is found in Hiltebeitel’s book “The Ritual 0 Battle” (London, 1976) (p. 266 The fundamental value of Karttunen’s work is the fact that he has gathered and sifted through so much material on the subject. But, hough his treatment of the Greek sources seems sound enough, his approach to the Indian sources too often consists of reducing complex historico-mythical phenomena to purely historical explanations. It is {quite astonishing that he writes about the Mahabharata without dis- cussing the theories of Dumézil and other scholars who have tried to analyse the epic from a mythological point of view, despite the fact that any discussion of historical elements in the Indian epic, and indeed in a number of other sources, would have to deal with such problems. On the other hand, when he applies a mythological analysis, as in the case of the skolex, it is based on insufficient material. Still, most of the time Karttunen shows sound judgement, and due to his thoroughness his ‘work will be of considerable value to anybody who is interested in the ‘way India is represented in the early Greek sources, even if one does not share all the author’s views. Karttunen's command of primary and secondary sources is impressive, but he comes across as a meticulous recorder of data and a theory-killer, rather than as an imaginative and ive scholar. This statement, however, should not necessarily be taken in its most negative sense. The Karttunen brand of schokarship imay very well serve as an effective antidote to those excessive flights of fantasy typical of writers who produce better reading than research, Lars Martin Fosse Walter Slaje: Katalog der Sanskrit-Handschriften der Osterreich ischen Nationalbibliothek, Sammlungen Marcus Aurel Stein und Carl Alexander von Hiigel. Osterteichische Akademie der Wissenschaften, Philos.-histor.KI., Sitzungsberichte, 546, Bd Wien 1990, 152 8. Nachdem Utz Podzeit mit seinem Wien 1988 erschienenen Werk Die indischen Handsehrifien der Universitatsbibliouhek Wien eine Z: st ona