No CrossRef data available.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 15 March 2011
The importance of the texts of early Tibetan inscriptions once in the possession of the 18th-century lama, Rig-'dzin Tshe-dbang Nor-bu (RT), has been shown by the recovery from his collection of a lost inscription of Khri Srong-Ide-brtsan (JRAS, 1964) and the substantial restoration, from his material, of that at the tomb of Khri IDe-srong-brtsan (JRAS, 1969). His copy of the rKong-po inscription adds some new matter to the text I have published in JRAS, 1954, and, as it is a valuable social document of the 8th and 9th centuries, there is sufficient reason to attempt a new edition. That leaves for future examination RT's texts of the Lhasa Treaty Inscriptions of 822 and the “sKar-cung” inscription. In the first, his copy gives some help towards establishing a final text; but the inscriptions are long and the necessary critical apparatus is daunting. As for the second, RG has little to add to the text edited by myself in JRASB, 1949, and by Professor Tucci in The tombs of the Tibetan kings, Rome, 1950 (TTK). All that is necessary is to correct a few small errors which crept into the printing, and to comment on a few readings.
1 The reversed ki-gu is shown in italic.
The existence of three sources provides over 100 variant readings. To reduce the reference numbers in the text I have summarized, in n. 60 below, several discrepancies which are repeated frequently. It is to be understood that, down to 1. 15, where a RT variant alone is noted the alternative reading is common to O and D and will be found in the transcription above; where O is quoted alone, and RT provides no reading, the alternative of D has been accepted, and vice versa.1a RT brtsan.
2 RT inserts honorific sign.
3 O mar. D ma, which is adopted in view of thog ma in 11. 6, 9.
4 O gnya'; RT nya.
5 D khyi.
6 RT bum.
7 RT rab.
8 RT gtsen.
9 RT khri.
10 RT tha.
11 D la.
12 O provides new reading where stone is now damaged: ni rkong yul du bzhugs ste.
13 O mar: D, RT ma.
14 O kyis: D, RT kyi.
15 D bshos pa.
16 D lha sras gnyis.
17 D sku.
18 O la bab; D la'a bab; RT la 'bab.
19 O srogs; D, RT srog.
20 RT dgyis.
21 O btsan || yong.
22 O chags.
23 RT bkol.
24 D cis.
25 O gyes pa; D and RT omit pa.
26 O bye.
27 RT yung.
28 D kha bso.
29 RT snang.
30 O dag gis.
31 RT kyi.
32 O thugs dpag; RT thug bag; D thugs par.
33 RT rtsig.
34 RT khra.
35 O bur; RT, D bu.
36 O la; RT, D las.
37 RT gtsig.
38 O ba; RT bar; D ba'a.
39 O, D zhar; RT zhard.
40 RT po.
41 RT bzhug.
42 RT inserts 'di yi.
43 O tsha; RT, D tsa.
44 RT por.
45 RT rab. Here is RT's note indicating end of his check.
46 D myi.
47 D bkol.
48 O rab.
49 O omits punctuation.
50 O punctuates after kyis, not after gang.
51 D gsol.
52 D spung nga.
53 O cig.
54 D dbang ba.
55 D phyab.
56 O new reading: ‘bul yang.
57 O tshig.
58 O da ltar; D khrar.
59 O kyis.
60 The following is a list of discrepancies which are repeated frequently:
O reads brtsan for brtsan in ll. 1, 8, 12, 13, 16.
O omits all reversed ki-gu; RT corrects in ll. 1 (khri), 4 (yul gyi, ri), 5 (dri), and 6 (ni).
O omits all ya-btags; RT adds in ll. 4 myi, 9 myes, myi, 14 myi, 15 mying, myi.
O omits a-bo in ll. 1 la'a, ba'a; 11 pa'a; 13, 20, 21 bka's; 18 dpya'.
O omits da-drag in ll. 11 gsold, stsald; 17 stsald. O adds da-drag in 1. 16 gsold, where D omits.
O reads dkar where RT and D read kar in ll. 2, 3, 12, 14.
61 The revised text and study since 1954 have necessitated some new notes which supplement and, in some instances, supersede the old.
The epithet kar-po survives in the description of parts of rKong-po north of the gTsang-po (Brahmaputra) as chabs dkar and those south of the river as chabs-nag—the white and black dominion.
62 The new text supplies the name of the minister. 1Ha'i-zung is a ming—personal name; it would have been valuable to know his rus—clan name. THD, p. 80, gives mKhar-pa and Pha-drug as the rus of the rKong-po ministers.
63 RT's reading nya khri is preferable to O's gnya' khri or D's nya khyi; THD, 81, has nyag khri.
64 The phywa were a group of divine beings: see R. A. Stein, Les tribus anciennes des marches sino-tibÉtaines, Index.
65 O's reading clarifies this, formerly defective, passage. My rendering of sku bla as “patron spirit” is meant to mark the distinction between sku bla and sku lha. The latter is the deity responsible for one's body while the former is a more remote sort of soul-force immanent in localities, mountains, etc., and in the seasons of the year; see Lalou, M., Inventaire des manuscripts tibétains de Touen-houang conserveés à la Bibliothèque Nationale, Paris, 1939–1961 (LINV), no. 1569Google Scholar, also passages in F. W. Thomas, Tibetan literary texts and documents concerning Chinese Turkestan, 1935–55 (TLTD), II, indexed in TLTD, III. Thomas's interpretation there as “magnate, grandee” is not tenable.
66 The usage “A dang B bshos pa‘i sras”—“the son born of the union of A and B”—is frequent; but Tibetan helpers see here a reference to a consort not the offspring of sku bla De-mo, though it is not clear whether sku bla gNyan-po is meant or some other lha.
67 On the analogy of lus kyi rim gro (TLTD, II, 337) I accept RT's sku 'i rim gro rather than D's sku rim gro.
68 The insertion by RT of a punctuation sign between dbu rmog brtsan pa and yong lha sras suggests that yong here is comparable with yong yang in TLTD, II, 93, 95, and with yong ni in LINV, nos. 1283 etc.
69 This phrase was not clear t o Tibetan helpers. Some considered it to mean that heaven was subjected to the btsan-po; but I have accepted, with no great conviction, one of the other possibilities, taking ci bas as the equivalent of ci byas—see S. C. Das's dictionary, p. 869.
70 This expression is still used to describe the “good old days”.
71 In most early examples g-yung drung seems t o have the derived meaning “eternal, unchangeable”—e.g. TLTD, II, 92, 93, 98 g-yung drung-du, and the Lhasa Treaty Inscription and inscription at Khri 1De-srong-brtsan's tomb respectively—g-yung drung gi rgyal po and g-yung drung gi gtsug lag chen po; but here it seems to be a direct reference to the swastika.
72 The khab-so were officials of the district or provincial administration; e.g. Lhasa Treaty Inscription, N. face, mngan-dpon khab-so. The dpon sna were the general body of officials (see Lalou, M., “Revendications”, JA, 1956Google Scholar) rather than leading officials as understood by Thomas (TLTD, III, index).
73 thugs pag is one of many different spellings of this word; see TLTD, III.
74 Professor Tucci's translation of 'phra-men as “silver-gilt” (TKK, 18, 79) is supported by comparison of the list of decorations in the T‘ang Annals with those in LINV, no. 1071, and in PT, ja, f. 21,; but although the parallel appears conclusive, it leaves some doubt, ‘phra men can hardly be the Tibetan rendering of t‘u, the Chinese term for silver-gilt. Tibetans today see it as another form of khra-men, which dictionaries interpret as “a kind of jade”. There is also the analogy of men in mu-men “lapis lazuli”, which calls to mind the Chinese ma nao “agate” (E. Schafer. The golden peaches of Samarkand, 228, 233). The list in the T‘ang Annals may not be exhaustive, for THD, 60, mentions ke ke ru—apparently some precious hard stone—as marking a higher rank even than turquoise; and at the other end of the scale PT adds “iron”.
75 mying-mi rlag-pa is an improvement on D's myi myi rlag-pa; cf. Zhwa'i Lha-khang West inscription, 1. 41.
76 The meaning of rje blas awaits complete elucidation. It seems to refer to the right of nobles to succeed to high offices of state. Generally it is an honour to be competed for (e.g. TLTD, II, 23) but here it appears be a duty not customarily imposed on vassal princes.
77 The claim to exemption from taxes etc. suggests that the contributions of grain etc. by the vassal were regarded as a complimentary offering.
78 The new text shows that sa tshigs has the meaning, familiar to travellers in Tibet, of “a transport stage”— the limit to which men and animals of a village had to carry baggage in performance of 'u-lag (corvée) duties. It seems that the king's officials had been trying to make the rKong-po people bring their offerings to some point further than was customary and that this was resented—as any similar attempt to extend u-lag was resented in more recent times.
79 According to the Bon-po scholar bsTan-'dzin rnam-dag, phywa nas means “fine barley”. Perhaps stsang-ra means “the firstfruits of the grain”.
80 In JRAS, 1954, I translated 'bras as “produce”, because rice is not grown in rKong-po chabs-dkar nowadays; but Tibetan scholars insist on the meaning “rice”.
81 rje blon is rendered by Thomas (TLTD, III) as “eminent councilor”. The punctuation here shows that it means “King and Ministers”.