After eight years (2004–12) of excavation at Tepe Narenj, Zafar Paiman, then field director working under the auspices of the Afghan Institute of Archaeology, produces two final reports of which the present volume, essentially dedicated to architecture and chronology, is the first to appear. By providing a synthetic view of the site, these complement and amend the preliminary results regularly published or presented after each of the ten campaigns.

Tepe Narenj is the name given by local inhabitants to a spur situated at 1750m south of Kabul's Bala Hisar. Over the years of excavation, the team brought to light Buddhist remains, adding to the dozens of Buddhist complexes discovered in the Kabul region since the end of the nineteenth century. The field was divided into fourteen zones which largely concentrated on the spur (Z1–Z9 and Z11–Z12) equipped with nine superposed terraces (numbered T1–T9) connected by stone stairways. Except for three trenches at its foot (Z14) and on the northern and southern slopes opposite the ravine (Z10 and Z13), the ever-growing Muslim cemetery lying below has limited the extent of the dig. This predicament prevents a clear assessment of the general outline of this Buddhist centre and of its nature. No residential units of a monastery which Paiman believes to be lying under the cemetery have been uncovered and the function of the vestiges excavated is manifestly ceremonial. Particularly remarkable among these are a large quadrangular stupa (10.60 m sides, T4), the remains of two columned porticos (T8 and zone 14), a large circular room with a circular fireplace which Paiman interprets as a homa room, and ten shrines (CH1–CH10). These contain fragments of sculptures modelled in clay and a small stupa of an unusual shape consisting of a square base and four massive columns supporting four deep arches which certainly housed images. This stupa probably does not deserve the adjective “tantric” which it receives along with the homa room. This shape, unparalleled in architecture, is possibly a local reformulation of vihāra-shrines containing a Buddha image frequently found on Gandhāran reliefs. As for the homa room, Verardi (to whom Paiman refers) has shown that associating fire-rites with esoteric Buddhism would only be a reductive definition of the practice in Buddhist contexts.

With regard to chronology, the discovery of an inscription dedicated to the mahāsaṃghika sect dated by Fussman to the second–third century ce on palaeographic grounds, and of coins of Huviṣka (c. 153–191) and Vasudeva I (c. 191–227) establish the terminus post quem of the site. Other numismatic finds, namely two coins attributed to Spalapati Deva (c. 750–850) and Śrī Khudavayaka (c. 870–900) lead Paiman to attribute the sculptures to a period after 870 ce, thus making Tepe Narenj the longest-lasting Buddhist complex in the region of Kabul. These results, concludes Paiman, substantially change the traditional conception of Buddhism and of its art in the region, by which Buddhism ceased to exist after the conquest of Yakub ben Layth in 870. Paiman's chronology is, however, unconvincing, as it is based on a system of relationships between the various elements of the site, none of which rely on a secure date.

According to Paiman, the sculptures found on T5 (CH3), and as a matter of fact all other sculptures on the site, should not be dated earlier than 870. This date is provided by the two coins of Spalapati Deva and Śrī Khudavayaka found in the backfill of T4. T4 entirely covers an earlier terrace (T3) and would be the first of a series of major constructions initiated after 870 (T1–T3 would belong to a first building phase spanning the third to fifth centuries). Paiman's working hypothesis, admittedly a reasonable one, is that each terrace cannot have been levelled before the terrace below; it is only logical that he would postulate a date later than T4 for T5. A difficulty arises with the discovery of a coin by Nezak, a local dynast who probably ruled shortly after c. 484 ce, in a cavity carved inside the pedestal of the seated Buddha image on T5 (CH3). Paiman admits that “common sense” would incite one to date the image to the fifth century and subsequently to ascribe T5 to the same period as T3. Yet he circumvents the problem and further supports his dating, highlighting similarities between the small stupa found in CH2 (T5) and those of the porticoes on T8 and Z14 which, Paiman says, “are certainly posterior to 870”. But it is not clear how he comes to 870: a date is implicitly given for T8 in light of a comparison to the columns of the mosque of Hāji-Piyāda in Balkh dated to 784 by Adle. As for zone 14, the author argues that the numismatic finds, the parallel with the portico on T8 and the resemblance of the sculptures with those on T5 and CH8 (Z10) “attributed to c. 900 if not later” on numismatic grounds all point to a date after the eighth-century point of departure (T5), a closer examination of the numismatic data allows less firm dating. The catalogue of coins compiled by M. Alram provided in appendix 2 lists for Z14 one coin of Śrī Samanta Deva (c. 970–1000) and two Sassanian coins issued by Ohrmazd IV (579–590) and Khusro II (591–628). With regard to CH8, three coins of Śrī Samanta Deva (c. 970–1000) are registered. This would indeed hint at a date as late as the tenth century (and even the eleventh) if the reliability of the data was not to be questioned. As Paiman reports, CH8 was backfilled and covered by a monument identified by Paiman as a stupa (only the angle units of a structure on a high of 0.50–0.70 m were discovered) and the mound was disrupted by the digging of tombs.

On the basis of current knowledge, nothing allows us to attribute the production of sculptures as well as their associated monuments to a period after 870. Likewise, nothing prevents one from believing that T5 (and the other terraces) already existed when T4 was built over T3. In fact, this is a plausible scenario if one considers that none of the (few) coins discovered on upper terraces (T7 and T8) date to after 700 and that some of the shards, mentioned only in passing, are attributed to the fifth or sixth century by Paiman. Unfortunately, although a list of the shards is provided in appendix 1, the author did not see the need to conduct a study of ceramics found on the site (“il n’a pas paru utile d’en faire une présentation typologique”, p.79). It is unlikely, however, that this would corroborate the present chronology of Tepe Narenj. One may only hope that the latter will be more convincing in light of the detailed analysis of sculptures announced in the second volume.