BOOK REVIEWS 287

Max Oidtmann, Forging the Golden Urn: The Qing empire and the politics of reincar-
nation in Tibet. New York (NY): Columbia University Press. 2018. 352 pp. Hardback.
£50 & $65. ISBN 9780231184069

At the end of the wars against the Gurkhas in 1789 and 1791, which highlighted
the involvement of reincarnated masters of the Gelukpa school in the conflict,
the Qianlong Emperor (1711–99) of the Qing Dynasty (1644–1912) introduced
a secular law to guarantee Buddhist law. Convinced that the corruption of
­oracles, Dalai Lamas and Panchen Lamas threatened the credibility of the pro-
cess of recognising reincarnated masters, the Qianlong Emperor implemented
a law instituting the drawing of lots in the golden urn in Tibet and Mongolia.
It took six months to develop and put it into practice, from October 1792 to
March 1793.
Max Oidtmann’s tour de force is in introducing the reader to the mysteries
of both Manchu and Tibetan powers. Indeed, the author leads the reader as
close as possible to the circle of close advisors who surrounded the Qianlong
Emperor, namely the Manchu civil servants and Tibetan masters living at the
Court. Oidtmann reports on the debates and adjustments relating to the imple-
mentation of the drawing of lots in the golden urn at the end of the eighteenth
century. He also demonstrates how Tibetan religious elites transformed the
law imposed by the Manchus into a ritual in order to make it acceptable to civil
society. Finally, he highlights the importance of the role played by border offi-
cials as intermediaries and negotiators between the Tibetan elite and the Qing
court. He shows how much these three centres of authority depended on each
other in terms of the circulation of information and assessment of circum-
stances, while at the same time carefully detailing the precaution with which
the said information and assessments had to be considered by taking into ac-
count the different versions of the performance of the ritual delivered by each,
as in the case of the recognition of the Third Jamyang Zhepa in 1796–97.
Beyond the elaboration, implementation and practice of the ritual of draw-
ing lots, Qianlong, by this measure, intended to redefine his role in Tibet.
Oidtmann demonstrates that, in hoping to master the predictions of oracles
and divinations used in the process of seeking and recognising reincarnations,
Qing emperors moved away from their role as ‘patrons’ of the Gelukpa school,
a Tibetan model of the relationship between a spiritual master and his lay pro-
tector (chöyön) accepted by Shunzhi (1638–61), the first Qing emperor. Thus,
according to the author, from the eighteenth century onwards, the emperor
came to define himself as ‘spiritual master’ and ‘lay protector’ whenever he felt
the Dalai Lama did not sufficiently master the Buddhist doctrine. At the same
time, the emperor reaffirmed his sovereignty over Tibet by committing himself

© Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden, 2019 | doi:10.1163/22105018-12340130

Downloaded from Brill.com01/26/2021 11:29:25AM
via University of Cambridge
288 BOOK REVIEWS

definitively to a colonial enterprise through the promulgation of a law that

transformed an indigenous religious tradition.
Moreover, through this measure aiming at considerably reducing the role of
oracles, Qianlong understood he could restore the lost trust in the ­reincarnated
masters echoed by the Eighth Dalai Lama Jamphel Gyatso (1758–1804) himself.
However, as Oidtmann points out, this imperial acrimony towards oracles was
not shared by Tibetan masters, who were primarily concerned with the rec-
ognition of authentic reincarnated masters. Indeed, for Tibetan masters, the
introduction of the drawing of lots in the golden urn would strengthen the
selection of ‘true’ reincarnated masters at a time when Tibetans had lost faith
in them because of the reprehensible behaviour of some of them. In the eyes
of the great Tibetan masters, the drawing of lots would help maintain the role
of peacekeepers held by spiritual masters within communities, as well as guar-
antee the survival of the Gelukpa school.
The use of archival documents written in Manchu and their perspective
with other published Tibetans and biographies of Tibetan masters who wit-
nessed the drawing of lots provide innovative insights into the relationship
between the Qing and the Lhasa court and their respective agents in the field.
They allow Oidtmann to demonstrate how the golden urn was only a means for
the Qing to extend their sovereignty over Tibet by imposing a secular law in the
Tibetan religious domain. Drawing his conclusions from a very careful reading
of his sources, Oidtmann offers a remarkable and finely crafted study of a new
convoluted ritual—political and religious—which Manchus and Tibetans ma-
nipulated as they pleased in order to suit their own interests.

Fabienne Jagou
École française d’Extrême-Orient (EFEO), Université PSL, Paris, France
fabienne.jagou@efeo.net

Inner Asia 21 (2019) 283–291

Downloaded from Brill.com01/26/2021 11:29:25AM
via University of Cambridge