^{page 140 note 1} 'od.

^{page 140 note 2} AN 1.

^{page 140 note 3} mon omitted.

^{page 140 note 4} gru.

^{page 140 note 5} AN 2.

^{page 140 note 6} AN 3.

^{page 140 note 7} da drag supplied by editor.

^{page 140 note 8} pa omitted.

^{page 140 note 9} AN 4.

^{page 140 note 10} gyi sde.

^{page 140 note 11} AN 5. (Ends line 21.)

^{page 141 note 12} cang.

^{page 141 note 13} kun.

^{page 141 note 14} AN 6.

^{page 141 note 15} nas omitted.

^{page 141 note 16} AN 7.

^{page 141 note 17} so so'i.

^{page 141 note 18} AN 8.

^{page 141 note 19} AN 9.

^{page 141 note 20} AN 10.

^{page 141 note 21} cog la.

^{page 141 note 22} gnang.

^{page 141 note 23} yid ma phebs.

^{page 141 note 24} bsgam.

^{page 141 note 25} chos srid. to drin gyis ni omitted.

^{page 141 note 26} bzhi'i.

^{page 141 note 27} zhing.

^{page 141 note 28} 'dun par.

^{page 141 note 29} yul khyim tshes omitted.

^{page 141 note 30} bon.

^{page 142 note 31} 'khon.

^{page 142 note 32} srid. (Ends line 43.)

^{page 142 note 33} phrad.

^{page 142 note 34} ces.

^{page 142 note 35} dkon.

^{page 142 note 36} 'grul.

^{page 142 note 37} pa inserted.

^{page 142 note 38} 'phrig.

^{page 142 note 39} zhing inserted.

^{page 142 note 40} shi'i.

^{page 142 note 41} te.

^{page 142 note 42} po'i.

^{page 142 note 43} mdo omitted.

^{page 143 note 44} bu omitted.

^{page 143 note 45} Po'i.

^{page 143 note 46} yi ger.

^{page 143 note 47} 'bri.

^{page 143 note 48} AN 11.

^{page 143 note 49} AN 12.

^{page 143 note 50} la bris pa omitted.

^{page 143 note 51} AN 13.

^{page 143 note 52} cig.

^{page 143 note 53} AN 14.

^{page 149 note 1} chen po omitted.

^{page 149 note 2} de.

^{page 150 note 3} cing.

^{page 150 note 4} yod ║ zhir. See AN 1.

^{page 150 note 5} AN 2.

^{page 150 note 6} AN 3.

^{page 150 note 7} AN 4.

^{page 150 note 8} AN 5.

^{page 150 note 9} zhing inserted.

^{page 150 note 10} rnying omitted.

^{page 150 note 11} srid.

^{page 150 note 12} AN 6.

^{page 150 note 13} AN 7.

^{page 150 note 14} dag.

^{page 150 note 15} yul gyi mi dmangs rnams. AN 8.

^{page 150 note 16} btang.

^{page 151 note 17} 'dul.

^{page 151 note 18} na.

^{page 151 note 19} sngar.

^{page 151 note 20} rjes.

^{page 151 note 21} rtse.

^{page 151 note 22} bod omitted.

^{page 151 note 23} btul.

^{page 151 note 24} blo.

^{page 151 note 25} dngang. See AN 9.

^{page 151 note 26} dang yang.

^{page 151 note 27} sa mal.

^{page 151 note 28} nyi. Also in 1.63.

^{page 151 note 29} pas omitted.

^{page 152 note 30} bsdig.

^{page 152 note 31} brku.

^{page 152 note 32} ci omitted.

^{page 152 note 33} gyi.

^{page 152 note 34} gshegs.

^{page 152 note 35} kyis.

^{page 152 note 36} kyis.

^{page 152 note 37} rbal.

page 154 note 1. Translations of the Chinese book version suggests that de las in 1.31 means “from that place” rather than “thereafter” as understood by Li. It is interesting that the book versions specify the territory of China as lying to the east of T'ao and Min – a detail not contained in the inscription.

page 154 note 2. Li's translation “the couriers of Tibet and China…” is due to a misreading in 1.42 of bang for bar; the latter is quite clear in my rubbings.

page 154 note 3. bag brkyang' which Li shows (p. 61) to be the equivalent of ch'e pei “to remove precautions, i.e. defensive measures” in the Chinese text and which Professor P. Demiéville in Le concile de Lhasa, 199, interprets as meaning that the frontier guards were withdrawn, is, in Tibetan, a more general expression for ease of mind: cf. Chos grags dictionary, 554: bag rkyong: lhod lhod sems gu dog ma yin pa, and Dagyab, 434: sems bag yangs pa.

page 154 note 4. sa sa mal mal is still used in Amdo to describe peaceful conditions.

page 154 note 5. Li, p. 62, cites from the Chinese text on the pillar the reading yin mou “secret schemes, conspiracy”. This seems to differ from the book versions of Hyacinthe and Klaproth which state only that the deities witnessing the oath will punish an offender with misfortune; but Bushell, whose reading of the Chinese text on the pillar agrees for the most part with Li's, translates here, “May there come to them misfortune and calamity, provided only that the work of rebels against the state, or secret plotters shall not be a breach of the sworn ceremony.” That seems a reasonable provision but it is not, prima facie, the meaning of the Tibetan. Perhaps there was at some stage a misunderstanding between the interpreters of the two versions.

page 157 note 1. Although it is said that the clan (rus) as well as the rank (thabs) and personal name (mying) of the ministers is given, those in the first group of nine great ministers are, in fact, described only by their rank and personal name while the remaining eight signatories are identified by their clan also. Comparable lists of witnesses to an official document can be seen in the edicts of Khri Srong-ldebrtsan and Khri 1De-srong-brtsan recorded in the Chos-'byung of dPa'-bo gtsuglag phreng-ba (Tucci, , The tombs of the Tibetan kings, 47–8 and 54–5).Google Scholar From them it seems that there was no consistent practice in the matter; in the former no clan names at all are given while in the latter, with one interesting exception – 'Ong-ka Lhas-sbyin, possibly a non-Buddhist religious dignitary – the clan of each witness is cited.

page 157 note 2. Khri-sum-rje must be the great minister eulogized in the prayers at the foundation of the chapel on the frontier to commemorate the treaty (TLTD, II, 92–9).Google Scholar Khri-sum-rje sPeg-lha, whom I previously suggested, is not possible as he had no right to the title zhang. The Chronicle from Tun-hyang (THD, 102) shows 'Bro Khri-sum-rje sTag-snang as succeeding dBa's Mang-rje Lha-lod as Chief Minister, an event which may be approximately dated between A.D. 808 and 810. A letter from Po Chu-i to Khri-sum-rje in the latter year describes him as Chief Minister. It is noticeable that in the list of signatories he appears as Commander-in-Chief rather than Chief Minister, pride of place being given to the monk dPal Chen-po Yon-tan, who had already been addressed as Chief Minister in an earlier letter from Po Chu-i dated 809. On the other hand, dPal Chen-po Yon-tan is not mentioned in the list of Chief Ministers in the Tun-huang Chronicle, which may suggest an anti-clerical bias there. The name 'Bro Khri-sum-rje sTag-snang does not appear among the principal witnesses to the edict of Khri lDe-srong-brtsan (see n. 1) although that of his predecessor as Chief Minister and that of his colleague in war Zhang Lha-bzang Klu-dpal are both there. It may be that he was young at the time and that he is the Zhang 'Bro sTag-stang (? snang) whose name is in the list of lesser military officers. If that is so, the passage about the capture of Tun-huang (c. 781–7) interpolated in the T'ang Annals under the year 819 cannot refer to him although the substantive account of the attack on Yen chou by Shang t'a tsang and Shang Ch'ih sin erh certainly does. Deb-ther sngon-po, kha, f. la preserves the tradition of a Chief Minister 'Bro sTag-snang Khri-sum-rje who died young and was later reborn in Khams and took ordination with the name gTsang-pa rab-gsal. Such evidence can only be accepted with caution; but the story of an early death for Khri-sum-rje is supported by the absence of any mention of him in the civil strife following the death of gLang Dar-ma when so prominent a personage could have been expected to play an important part, especially as one of the factions was led by a member of the 'Bro clan.

page 157 note 3. There is no indication who the third person in the list may have been, except that he was not a zhang. The damaged initial letter of his name, which is all that survives, cannot be certainly identified. It might be expected that the minister No Lo, who figures in the T'ang Annals as the Tibetan envoy who took part in the treaty ceremony in China and accompanied the Chinese envoys to Tibet, would be a witness to the treaty in Tibet; but he cannot be identified in the list. As the Chinese signatories of equivalent rank appear to have been lesser ministers the third position may be too exalted for No Lo.

page 157 note 4. This name, also, is not identifiable. The minister does not appear to have been a zhang and the initial syllable rgya or rgyal does not point clearly to any one person.

page 157 note 5. Although the Tibetan text of this entry is effaced, it can be reconstructed from the Chinese, which is almost complete, as chab srid kyi blon po chen po blon kie tsan (? kong) jo; or in Tibetan rgyal btsan khong bzher (or khrom bzher). Identification must be speculative but dBa's blon Khrombzher in the list of witnesses to the edict of Khri lDe-srong-brtsan comes to mind.

page 157 note 6. The missing part of the name, effaced in the Tibetan, can be restored from the Chinese text as Khri-bzher.

page 157 note 7. The function of the snam-phyi-pa, who are seen from the list of signatories to the edict of the Khri lDe-srong-brtsan to have been an important group of officials, is still uncertain. Perhaps there is a connexion with the root snom “to take”.

page 157 note 8. The mngan appear to have been senior administrative officials of the several divisions of the Tibetan kingdom and to have been concerned with revenue. The translation of khab so as “palace guards”, “palace officials”, or the like is too narrow and it is seen from the rKong-po inscription (Richardson, , JRAS, 1972)Google Scholar that they too were connected with the collection of revenue.

page 157 note 9. Li shows, from the Chinese text, that this official was the equivalent of the Chinese chi shih chung, Secretary-General. sTag-bzher Hab-ken must be the Lun Hsi Ta Je who discussed the terms of the treaty with the Chinese envoys at Lhasa.

page 157 note 10. The references in the Tun-huang documents to operations described as rtsis suggest that rtsis-pa chen-po was responsible for the assessment of revenue.

page 160 note 1. In the original inscription the examples here and in 1.17 of the Tibetan letter wa, which is now written as la on top of ba, show that the original form was a-wo + wa-zur; see Uray's, G. article in Acta Orientalia Hungarica, 1955.Google Scholar

page 161 note 1. Li, whose notes on his translation should be read, supplies this name from other sources.

page 161 note 2. The text is so badly effaced here that without guidance from the Chinese text there seems little value in recording odd letters. The official's name ought, according to Li, to be Li Wu; and “Li” can be read in the last line in my rubbings.

page 161 note 3. The name should be Li Kung-tu; “Ka” or “ko” appears in the last line in my rubbings.