Central Tibetan documents

One finds the following forms of address devoid of khri (arranged chronologically):

To these one can also add:

which can be interpreted as “bcan po, Khri Sroṅ-lde-brcan and [bcan po] Lde-sroṅ, father and son”. Below I shall briefly comment on the above forms of address.

Ɣo-lde Spu-rgyal was a legendary person, so one can omit him from the discussion. The titles with which his name is provided in the documents are anachronistic and apparently reflect the contemporary practice of the period in which the texts were composed.

Sroṅ-rcan is addressed as bcan po gčen sroṅ rcan together with his younger brother (gčuṅ) Bcan-sroṅ:

1. (1) bcan po gčen sroṅ rcan daṅ / gčuṅ bcan sroṅ gñīs nold nas (PT 1288: 8)

   Both bcan po, the elder brother Sroṅ-rcan, and the younger brother Bcan-sroṅ, fought.

From this passage Dotson (Reference Dotson2015: 9) inferred that Sroṅ-rcan was the pre-accession name of the bcan po, otherwise called Khri Sroṅ-rcan in the OTA. The problem is the chronology, because earlier (l. 6 of the same document) the bcan po is already called Khri Sroṅ-rcan:

1. (2) bcan po khrī sroṅ rcan gyīs / śuld byaṅ lam du pyuṅ ste / (PT 1288: 6)

   bcan po Khri Sroṅ-rcan left [his] traces on the northern road.

One can hypothesize that, because the Preamble (ll. 1–16) was written after the annalistic practice had been initiated in 650/1, the events reported therein were presented anachronistically and one inadvertently used the regnal name Khri Sroṅ-rcan, causing the inconsistency.

Lha-bal-pho is mentioned on the occasion of his dethronement:

1. (3) poṅ lag raṅ du bcan po gčen lha bal pho rgyal sa nas phab / (ITJ 750: 152)

   At Poṅ-lag-raṅ, [they] overthrew the bcan po, the elder brother Lha-bal-pho, from the throne.

From this laconic account we can infer that Lha-bal-pho acceded to the throne illegally, without the necessary ceremonies that accompanied the enthronement, and for that reason was not addressed with khri. On the one hand, the kinship term gčen “elder brother” is used and, on the other, Lha-bal-pho is called bcan po. One also notices that Khri Ɣdus-sroṅ died in the winter of 704/5, whereas Lha-bal-po was removed from the throne in the summer of 705/6. It follows that the latter remained on the throne for no longer than six months.Footnote ⁸ We know from Chinese sources that the succession to the throne after the death of Khri Ɣdus-sroṅ was disputed among rivalrous heirs and their supporters.Footnote ⁹ History was more favourable to Rgyal-gcug-ru who eventually became the next bcan po.

Lhas-bon is only spoken of in the context of his death:

1. (4) sras lhas bon dron na bźugs / bźugs (282) pa las noṅs / (ITJ 750)

   The son Lhas-bon, upon abiding in Dron, passed away.

2. (5) bcan po sras lhas bon daṅ / bcan mo khoṅ čo gñīs gyī (288) mdad btaṅ / (ITJ 750)

   [One] prepared the funeral for both the bcan po, the son Lhas-bon, and bcan mo Khoṅ-čo.

Lhas-bon must have been the heir to the throne, since in (5) he is called bcan po sras.Footnote ¹⁰ It seems that he died very young (his birth is not recorded), long before he could have been enthroned; the rightful ruler was then (i.e. in the years 739–42) Khri Lde-gcug-rcan who ruled well into the 750s. Lhas-bon's mother was ǰo mo Khri-bcunFootnote ¹¹ whose funeral is reported in the year 745/6 (ITJ 750: 302).

Of Rgyal-gcug-ru, Sroṅ-lde-brcan, and Lde-sroṅ, we know that they later became rulers and their names were changed to Khri Lde-gcug-rcan, Khri Sroṅ-lde-brcan, and Khri Lde-sroṅ-brcan respectively:

1. (6) bcan poe mchan rgyal gcug (186) ru las / khrī lde gcug rcan du gsold / (ITJ 750)

   [One] bestowed the name of the bcan po as Khri Lde-gcug-rcan instead of Rgyal-gcug-ru.

2. (7) bcan poe mcan khrī sroṅ lde brcan du bond / (Or.8212/187: 17)

   [One] gave [him] the bcan po's name as Khri Sroṅ-lde-brcan.

None of the preserved historical sources documents the name-giving ceremony of Khri Lde-sroṅ-brcan. In these three cases it can be reasonably argued that their previous names were pre-regnal and were replaced at the moment of their enthronement.Footnote ¹²

Central Asian documents

In no known OT document is the name Ɣwuɣi-dun-brtan prefixed with khri.Footnote ¹³ This is also true for PT 134 on which Richardson asserted “Khri-ɣuɣi-dum-brcan [sic] is the beneficiary of a long prayer in PT 134” (Reference Richardson and Richardson1998b [1992]: 190). In fact, the document begins with the following formula: bcan po lha sras ɣwuɣi dun brtan kyi sku yon du bsṅo baɣi smon lam du gsol paɣ (l. 1). The name recurs in the penultimate line of the text as bcan po ɣwuī dun brtan. The syllable khri was evidently added by Richardson but is not attested in the text; Yamaguchi (Reference Yamaguchi and Drège1996: 253) did the same without stating his reasons. The last and unfortunately incomplete sentence of PT 1286 informs us that Ɣwuɣi-dun-brtan was a younger brother of Khri Gcug-lde-brcan (l. 69) and thus could not have legitimately succeeded the latter; because Khri Gcug-lde-brcan had been enthroned (khri), only his son could have succeeded him.Footnote ¹⁴

Yet another OT document reads: lha sras khri ɣod sruṅs brcan yum [s]r[as] (PT 230: 7).Footnote ¹⁵ Therefore, according to the disclosed patterns of the official imperial nomenclature, the names Ɣwuɣi-dun-brtan and Khri Ɣod-sruṅs-brcan indicate that the former was not enthroned whereas the latter was enthroned as a legitimate ruler.

But the issue is not as straightforward as presented above. The following formulas are attested in OT records:

Presuming that these documents follow the official naming-protocol, it is conspicuous that Ɣwuɣi-dun-brtan is titled bcan po.Footnote ¹⁶ On the other hand, Khri Ɣod-sruṅs-brcan is not called bcan po, but the syllable khri (and -brcan) informs us that he ascended the throne (Richardson Reference Richardson and Richardson1998e [1971]: 50 and Reference Richardson and Richardson1998f [1988]: 108).Footnote ¹⁷

The above analysis is based on the assumption that PT 134 and PT 230 conformed to the official naming-protocol. The texts could have been written in different circles that supported one or other pretendant to the throne, and so may be irreconcilable. An alternative hypothesis will be presented below.

In this connection I would like to draw attention to yet another significant occurrence of the formula “bcan po + proper name” discussed in more detail by Dotson (Reference Dotson2007b: 8ff.). In the so-called Ɣphaṅ thaṅ ma catalogue ‒ apparently a document originally composed in the imperial period ‒ a certain bcan po Mu-rug-bcan is attributed a commentary on Saṃdhinirmocanasūtra.Footnote ¹⁸ Mu-rug-brcan is called elder brother (gčen) of bcan po Khri Lde-sroṅ-brcan in Źwa W 48. The same inscription relates a quarrel (thugs noṅs) between the elder brother (gčen) of Khri Lde-sroṅ-brcan (i.e. Mu-rug-brcan) and their father (yab), i.e. Khri Sroṅ-lde-brcan (ll. 9–10). If we gather together these scattered pieces of information we obtain the following picture:

The data suggest that Mu-rug-brcan, the elder brother of Lde-sroṅ, was by birth determined to become the next bcan po. However, due to unknown circumstances he was rejected and fought with his father, probably to regain his right to the throne, but eventually lost. His younger brother Lde-sroṅ was enthroned instead and acquired the regnal name Khri Lde-sroṅ-brcan.Footnote ¹⁹ This new interpretation allows for a new relative chronology of the above sources. The Rkoṅ inscription is assumed to have been composed during the reign of Khri Sroṅ-lde-brcan, between 797 and 803/4.Footnote ²⁰ Thus, there are three ways to explain the phrase bcan po mu rug bcan from the Ɣphaṅ thaṅ ma catalogue: 1. The catalogue was compiled during the reign of Khri Sroṅ-lde-brcan when Mu-rug-brcan was still perceived as the heir to the throne;Footnote ²¹ 2. The passage that mentions bcan po Mu-rug-bcan was compiled during the reign of Khri Sroṅ-lde-brcan (when the assumed commentary was written) and repeated in a later re-edited work; or 3. The catalogue was compiled after the fall of the Tibetan Empire and the royal naming-protocol was not observed any more. Since we know that the Ɣphaṅ thaṅ ma catalogue was composed rather late,Footnote ²² only the second and third options can be considered correct. The titulature used in Ɣphaṅ thaṅ ma evinces serious revisions of the text so that no secure dating of the original can be proposed; cf.: 1. Mu-rug-bcan instead of OLT Mu-rug-brcan (Źwa W); 2. Dbaɣ-dun-brtan (Halkias Reference Halkias2004: 57) for OLT Ɣwuɣi-dun-brtan and Ɣuɣi-dum-brtan (see above);Footnote ²³ 3. The use of the title rgyal po: rgyal po lha sras sroṅ bcan sgam po and ɣphrul gyi rgyal po khri sroṅ lde bcan (Halkias Reference Halkias2004: 64).Footnote ²⁴ One notices, however, a significant incoherence: the title rgyal po is used in the colophon (Halkias Reference Halkias2004: 64) but in the body of the catalogue we find: bcan po Khri Sroṅ-lde-bcan (ibid., p. 80), bcan po Dbaɣ-dun-brtan (p. 82), and bcan po Mu-rug-bcan (p. 83). It follows that large parts of the catalogue were re-edited in post-imperial times but there are still linguistic features that indicate its imperial provenance.

The above survey has concentrated on the names of bcan pos that lacked the syllable khri. The latter formed part of a regnal name and its bestowal constituted an important element of the enthronement ceremony. The custom is reflected in OT historical documents but its remnants can likewise be traced in non-historical records that were re-edited in post-imperial times. This finding has far-reaching consequences for the reconstruction of the royal dynasty: persons whose names are never provided with the title khri were not legitimate (i.e. enthroned) rulers. This concerns such widely discussed personages as Lha-bal-pho, Mu-rug-brcan, or Ɣwuɣi-dun-brtan, to mention just the most famous ones. Now one can reasonably ask: why were they nevertheless called bcan po?

The following cases of bcan pos who were not khri have been collected from historical documents dating back to the Empire:

Some of them were later enthroned and acquired the title khri (these are marked with *). Some might have been foreordained to become bcan pos by virtue of their primogeniture, but never succeeded to the throne (marked with †). In texts they are additionally referred to by a kinterm, either sras or gčen, depending on their kin relation to the ruling bcan po.Footnote ²⁵ But of Ɣwuɣi-dun-brtan, a younger brother of Khri Gcug-lde-brcan, we know that under normal circumstances he would never have ascended the throne (he is also never titled khri). Why are all these persons (leaving aside Ɣo-lde Spu-rgyal) called bcan po? And why is Khri Ɣod-sruṅs-brcan, despite the title khri, never addressed as bcan po? Apparently the rules for the application, and thus also the distribution, of the titles bcan po and khri differed.

bcan po

The solution might lie in the etymology of the term bcan po. The latter has almost unanimously been understood as a mere title, i.e. devoid of lexical meaning, and has usually been related to CT bcan “mighty”. However, its true nature was already alluded to early in the history of Tibetan studies by Francke (Reference Francke1914: 51): “In Ladakh the title or name bcan, bcan-po, would indicate that a certain person was descended from the royal family”. This description certainly applies to all persons called bcan po in OT documents. I think that the connotation with the royal family had its origin in the etymology of the lexeme. Zeisler (Reference Zeisler, Imaeda, Kapstein and Takeuchi2011: 109) proposed deriving bcan from the verb root √ʦa, although it was Benedict (Reference Benedict1942: 321) who first related the CT verb bcaɣ to cha “offspring”; he also provided a list of further potential cognates. Due to its semantics the verb was not inflected for all stems, but formed only two: act/pfv bcas (v2) and dpass bcaɣ (v3).Footnote ²⁶ The verb is glossed in CT dictionaries under the latter form with the meaning “to bear, to bring forth” (J: 434b). I assume that bcan was derived from v3 bcaɣ, lit. “was born/brought forth” (Ger. “wurde geboren”), by means of the adjectival suffix -n, so that the etymological meaning of bcan can be reconstructed as *“born/brought forth” (cf. Eng. born < to bear).Footnote ²⁷ The formation bcan po denoted a male descendant (lit. “born-he”), and bcan mo a female one (lit. “born-she”).

Thus, bcan po and bcan mo denoted a male and a female offspring of the royal family and could be translated as “scion” and “scioness”, respectively. As opposed to Dotson's assumption that “all of the Tibetan ladies referred to as bcan mo – that is, excluding in-marrying foreign princesses – appear to be sisters of the reigning emperor” (Dotson Reference Dotson2009: 119, fn. 294), we actually have no historical evidence concerning their kin relations to the royal family.Footnote ²⁸ Zeisler (Reference Zeisler, Imaeda, Kapstein and Takeuchi2011: 110) assumed that bcan po denoted only an offspring of the heir-bearing mother. But this seems to clash with the fact that Mu-rug-brcan was called bcan po but was born to a different mother from the actual successor Khri Lde-sroṅ-brcan. The same objection most probably applies to Lha-bal-pho. I think it more secure to assume that bcan po and bcan mo denoted legal (i.e. officially recognized) offspring of an enthroned bcan po.Footnote ²⁹

Now a clearer picture emerges: bcan po denoted a legal son of a Tibetan ruler, whereas khri was a title bestowed on the heir to the throne during the enthronement ceremony. The second part of the paper is an attempt at a new chronology of the dynastic line which includes these new insights.

Khri Sroṅ-rcan

The date of birth of Khri Sroṅ-rcan remains unknown and has long been a matter of speculation.Footnote ³⁷ If we agree that his grandson Khri Maṅ-slon Maṅ-rcan was born in 638 (he must have been born before 647, see below), then Khri Sroṅ-rcan must have been born not later than at the end of the sixth or the very beginning of the seventh century. Richardson's estimation that the year of his birth should have been somewhere between 609 and 613 (Reference Richardson and Richardson1998d [1965]: 6) is untenable because it would give an average of 18 or even 16 years for Khri Sroṅ-rcan and Guṅ-sroṅ Guṅ-rcan to have become fathers (e.g. Khri Maṅ-slon Maṅ-rcan was certainly more than 27 years old and Khri Ɣdus-sroṅ was 29 years old when their heirs were born in 676 and 704 respectively, but Khri Sroṅ-lde-brcan was 19 when his first son was born in 760/1).Footnote ³⁸ Hazod (Reference Hazod, Gyalbo, Hazod and Sørensen2000, esp. 175, fn. 4) and Dotson (Reference Dotson2007a: 61f.) proposed the ox year 605 for the birth of Khri Sroṅ-rcan,Footnote ³⁹ which I consider the latest possible date, although 593 seems to me the most plausible date (Bialek Reference Bialek2021b: 359f.). Concerning the death of Khri Sroṅ-rcan (recorded in PT 1288: 15), Richardson, based on Chinese sources, opted for the first months of 650 (Reference Richardson and Richardson1998a [1965]: 7) which correspond to the last months of the hen year 649/50 (PT 1288: 15).

Guṅ-sroṅ Guṅ-rcan

Thus far the name Guṅ-sroṅ Guṅ-rcan has been known only from the non-historical text PT 1286 (his regnal name in khri- is not attested). He might have died in 647 for in PT 1288: 15–6 we read that his father, Khri Sroṅ-rcan (d. 649/50) had lived three years with Mun-čaṅ Koṅ-čo before his death, so he must have married her not later than in 647 according to Tibetan reckoning. As sensibly remarked by Yamaguchi (Reference Yamaguchi1969: 160), a passage from the Preamble to the OTA dated to 644/5 states: bcan po khrī sroṅ rcan gyī riṅ laɣ (PT 1288: 13), lit. “the body of the bcan po Khri Sroṅ-rcan”.Footnote ⁴⁰ Thus, at that point Khri Sroṅ-rcan was the ruling bcan po. Yamaguchi, following Tibetan historiographers, assumed that Guṅ-sroṅ Guṅ-rcan ruled for five years and accordingly he placed his reign before 644 (Reference Yamaguchi1969: 160).Footnote ⁴¹ However, Chinese sources report that it was Khri Sroṅ-rcan who asked for a Chinese princess (Bushell Reference Bushell1880: 444; Pelliot Reference Pelliot1961: 4, 83); thus he must have been the reigning bcan po at that point. In conclusion, Guṅ-sroṅ Guṅ-rcan must have reigned either from around 641 to 644 or from 645 to 647. In the former case, Khri Sroṅ-rcan's marriage with Mun-čaṅ Koṅ-čo might have been concluded after the burial ceremonies for Guṅ-sroṅ Guṅ-rcan had ended, i.e. about two or three years after his death.Footnote ⁴²

Khri Maṅ-slon Maṅ-rcan

Post-imperial historiographical sources agree that Khri Maṅ-slon Maṅ-rcan was born in a dog year. Because his father Guṅ-sroṅ Guṅ-rcan died not later than in 647, it follows that Khri Maṅ-slon Maṅ-rcan must have been born in 638, otherwise he would have been 17 in 644 or 20 in 647 when his father died (see above) and could have taken over the government; instead, his grandfather Khri Sroṅ-rcan reigned again. One can speculate that Khri Sroṅ-rcan abdicated after the son was born to Guṅ-sroṅ Guṅ-rcan, securing the dynasty. Khri Maṅ-slon Maṅ-rcan must have been enthroned in 649/50 for in the record for the year 650/1 he is already referred to by his regnal name (PT 1288: 18) and no name-giving ceremony is alluded to. At the time of his enthronement he must have been at least nine years old, for otherwise he would not have been enthroned immediately after the death of Khri Sroṅ-rcan – Khri Ɣdus-sroṅ and Khri Lde-gcug-rcan were not enthroned until they reached the age of about nine (see sections Khri Ɣdus-sroṅ and Khri Lde-gcug-rcan below).Footnote ⁴³ This argument also supports the hypothesis that Khri Maṅ-slon Maṅ-rcan was born in 638. He died in the winter of the rat year 676/7 (ITJ 750: 66–7).

Khri Ɣdus-sroṅ

Khri Ɣdus-sroṅ was born in the winter of the rat year 676/7 (ITJ 750: 67), bestowed the title khri in the winter of the hen year 685/6 (ITJ 750: 92–3), and died on a military campaign in the winter of the dragon year 704/5 (ITJ 750: 148). Chinese sources state that he took over the reign at the age of eight (Bushell Reference Bushell1880: 451; Pelliot Reference Pelliot1961: 9) which confirms the association of the name-changing ceremony with the enthronement.

Khri Lde-gcug-rcan

Khri Lde-gcug-rcan was born in the spring of the dragon year 704/5 (ITJ 750: 146) and bestowed the title khri in the summer of the rat year 712/3 (ITJ 750: 185–6). According to Chinese sources, he took over the reign at the age of seven (Bushell Reference Bushell1880: 456; Pelliot Reference Pelliot1961: 12 and 95) which again alludes to the name-changing ceremony of 712/3. In post-imperial sources the opinion prevails that Khri Lde-gcug-rcan died in a horse year, which would correspond to 754.Footnote ⁴⁴

Khri Sroṅ-lde-brcan

Khri Sroṅ-lde-brcan was born in the horse year 742/3 (ITJ 750: 291–2) and bestowed the title khri in the summer of the monkey year 756/7 (Or.8212/187: 17) after some turbulent years of internal fights (Or.8212/187: 12–3; Źol S 5–20). His death and the succession to the throne are immersed in a fog of confusing information. Chinese sources report on three deaths of Tibetan bcan pos in this order: 804, 797, and 798 (Bushell Reference Bushell1880: 506, 510–1; Pelliot Reference Pelliot1961: 67, 123, 124). The years 797 and 803 or 804 – that recur in later Tibetan and Chinese sources as marking changes on the Tibetan throne – could correspond to the abdication year of Khri Sroṅ-lde-brcan and his death respectively.Footnote ⁴⁵ The abdication of Khri Sroṅ-lde-brcan is a recurring topic in later historiographical works (for an overview, see Richardson Reference Richardson1952: 141ff. and Haarh Reference Haarh1960: 122f.). Imperial sources do not support the hypothesis of another bcan po ruling between Khri Sroṅ-lde-brcan and Khri Lde-sroṅ-brcan. In my opinion, the former, after some internal disturbances caused by Mu-rug-brcan, directly ceded power to his son Khri Lde-sroṅ-brcan. It seems that Tibetan authors writing in later times did not understand the nuances of the imperial official language: neither the distinction between riṅ la “during the reign” and sku riṅ la “during the lifetime”,Footnote ⁴⁶ nor the significance of the enthronement ceremony intrinsically (or even tautologically) bound to the bestowal of the title khri on the rightful ruler were still recognized. This has brought about the proliferation of bcan pos and the necessity to explain their mutual relations. The inevitable language change (not considered as a factor by Tibetan historiographers in their discussions of old sources) might be blamed for the inconsistencies encountered. Uray's (Reference Uray1989: 5ff.) concise summary may serve as an example: he provides the names and the order of succession of Tibetan bcan pos at the beginning of the ninth century according to later Tibetan historiographical sources. By-and-large a great conundrum prevails.Footnote ⁴⁷ Regarding Chinese sources, one citation from Haarh suffices to discredit their reliability for the discussed period: “For the period from the embassy in the beginning of 797 AD till the summer 803 AD, the Chinese sources show no record of diplomatic relations between the two countries.” (Reference Haarh1960: 136; cf. also Demiéville Reference Demiéville1952: 323, fn. 1 and Richardson Reference Richardson1952: 145f.). Haarh's own analysis must be treated with caution since he did not include OT documents as his sources, apart from a brief quotation of the OTA (p. 152). Zu-zhi-jian, the assumed successor of Khri Sroṅ-lde-brcan in 797, according to Chinese sources (Bushell Reference Bushell1880: 506; Pelliot Reference Pelliot1961: 123), was clearly not titled khri by the Chinese. The same sources refer, for instance, to Khri Sroṅ-lde-brcan as Ji-li-su-long-lie-zan and to Khri Gcug-lde-brcan as Ke-li-ke-zu. The first two syllables of the Chinese equivalents, Ji-li and Ke-li, transcribe the regnal title khri. A transcription of this title is visibly missing from the name Zu-zhi-jian which can in no way be a transcription of the name Mu-rug-brcan. Compare also Petech's remark: “In the beginning of the 9th century it might have been pronounced approximately Tsiuk-chih-tsiän. Probably the text is corrupt, because it is impossible to find a Tibetan equivalent for this name, which is so different from all the other names of Tibetan kings occurring in the T'ang-shu” (Reference Petech1939: 74). Luckily, recent reconstructions of Middle Chinese lend a helping hand to the problem:

The first syllable 足 zú is identical with the last syllable in Ke-li-ke-zu (cf. also Pelliot Reference Pelliot1961: 125). My conjecture is that Ch. Zu-zhi-jian reproduces Gcug-lde-brcan who was apparently identified as the acceding bcan po. Khri Gcug-lde-brcan was born in a dog year which might have been 794 and so the Chinese sources mistook him for the acceding bcan po, who was in fact his father, Khri Lde-sroṅ-brcan.Footnote ⁴⁸

Khri Lde-sroṅ-brcan

It is traditionally agreed that Khri Lde-sroṅ-brcan was born in a dragon year (which can only be 764, 776, or 788) but no independent evidence confirms that. If, as argued above, Ch. Zu-zhi-jian is a transcription of Gcug-lde-brcan, then the latter must have been born no later than 797, in which case his father must have been at least about twenty years old.Footnote ⁴⁹ This supposition is further supported by the active role Khri Lde-sroṅ-brcan played as Lde-sroṅ in the Rkoṅ inscription, indicating that he had already taken over some official duties.Footnote ⁵⁰ Richardson (Reference Richardson and Richardson1998c [1988]: 278), following Tibetan historiographers who almost unanimously dated Khri Lde-sroṅ-brcan's death to a hen year, and analysing the contents of the Ldan 2 inscription, concluded that the bcan po must have died in 817, the year in which his death was also reported to the Chinese (cf. Bushell Reference Bushell1880: 512; Pelliot Reference Pelliot1961: 125).Footnote ⁵¹ Since the date of Khri Gcug-lde-brcan's accession to the throne can be established without doubt as 815 (see next section), Khri Lde-sroṅ-brcan most probably died in the same year. The latter date was also accepted by Dotson (Reference Dotson2007a: 416).

Khri Gcug-lde-brcan

Grags-pa Rgyal-mchan maintained that Khri Gcug-lde-brcan was 21 when he took over the reign (see Appendix). This would confirm the date of his birth as 794.Footnote ⁵² The beginning of the reign of Khri Gcug-lde-brcan can be calculated on the basis of dates given in the Treaty inscription. The latter identifies the seventh, eighth, and ninth years of his reign as the years of ox (821; E 59), tiger (822; E 63), and hare (823; E 66–7), respectively. This makes 815 the first year of Khri Gcug-lde-brcan's reign (cf. Richardson Reference Richardson1952: 147). His enthronement ceremony is recorded in PT 1290: r2: bcan po mu cu brtan las// khrī gcug lde brcan du mchan gsol “The bcan po was bestowed the name of (lit. as) Khri Gcug-lde-brcan instead of Mu-cu-brtan”.Footnote ⁵³

After 817, Jiu Tangshu records only one death of a Tibetan bcan po: in 842 (Bushell Reference Bushell1880: 523; Pelliot Reference Pelliot1961: 76). Aoki (Reference Aoki1955: 77f.) concluded that this information concerns Khri Gcug-lde-brcan, who must have died in the hen year 841, as is almost unanimously maintained by Tibetan historiographers (see Appendix). However, between 831 and 839 Xin Tangshu additionally reports the death of an unnamed bcan po who reigned for about thirty years and was succeeded by his younger brother 達磨 Da-mo (Bushell Reference Bushell1880: 522; Pelliot Reference Pelliot1961: 133). The name of the latter can be reconstructed as:

This must have been a transcription of Dar-ma (Aoki Reference Aoki1955: 82). Aoki (Reference Aoki1955: 79) remarked that the account of the death of a bcan po in 842 included in Xin Tangshu was copied from Jiu Tangshu. The reference to Dar-ma is absent from the latter work which is older. Furthermore, the person does not bear the title khri.Footnote ⁵⁴ Because Khri Gcug-lde-brcan acceded to the throne in 815, he would have celebrated the thirtieth anniversary of his reign in 844, so could not have reigned for about 30 years in 839. Therefore it seems that the undated information in Xin Tangshu refers to the death of Khri Gcug-lde-brcan and is misplaced chronologically; it should follow the account of the year 839.

Khri Ɣod-sruṅs-brcanFootnote ⁵⁵

After the death of Khri Gcug-lde-brcan the succession to the throne was contested, possibly because no heir was born to him in his lifetime. His younger brother Ɣwuɣi-dun-brtan (PT 1286: 69) seems to have usurped the throne, but there is no trace of his enthronement, either in OT or later works.Footnote ⁵⁶ Above I have argued that Khri Ɣod-sruṅs-brcan was recognized as a legitimate successor of Khri Gcug-lde-brcan and enthroned acquiring the title khri. Tibetan historiographers maintained that Khri Ɣod-sruṅs-brcan took over the reign immediately after the death of Glaṅ-dar-ma (Tucci Reference Tucci1947: 314 and 316). According to Chinese sources Khri Ɣod-sruṅs-brcan, not being a son of Khri Gcug-lde-brcan, succeeded the latter to the throne at the age of three (Bushell Reference Bushell1880: 523; Pelliot Reference Pelliot1961: 134). The name of the new bcan po, transcribed as 乞離胡 Qǐ-lí-hú (Pelliot Reference Pelliot1961: 134), can be reconstructed as:

There can be no doubt that the first two syllables transcribe OLT khri and the last one stands for ɣod. The equation of Qi-li-hu with Yum-brtan (see Petech Reference Petech1939: 83 and 1994: 650) is untenable. Neither can Qi-li-hu render Ɣwuɣi-dun-brtan (see Yamaguchi Reference Yamaguchi and Drège1996: 250), for the latter was a younger brother of Khri Gcug-lde-brcan born to the same mother, Lha-rgyal Maṅ-mo-rǰe from the Ɣbro family (PT 1286: 69), and Qi-li-hu is stated to have been three years old around 842 (Bushell Reference Bushell1880: 523; Pelliot Reference Pelliot1961: 134). Furthermore, Chinese sources mention neither regicide nor death of another bcan po shortly before or after 842, leaving no doubt that the death reported in 842 must have been that of Khri Gcug-lde-brcan. Apart from PT 1286, three other OT documents are known that mention Khri Ɣod-sruṅs-brcan together with his mother: in PT 131: 28–9 and PT 999: 5 the mother ǰo mo bcan mo ɣphan is mentioned first but in PT 230: 7 lha sras khri ɣod sruṅs brcan precedes the appositional compound yum sras.Footnote ⁵⁷ Luckily, PT 999 is dated: it was composed in a rat year (l. 4) which was assumed to have been 844 (Richardson Reference Richardson and Richardson1998f [1988]: 108; Petech Reference Petech and Kværne1994: 651; Yamaguchi Reference Yamaguchi and Drège1996: 240).Footnote ⁵⁸ Since in PT 999 it is the mother who is mentioned first, we can conclude that in 844 Khri Ɣod-sruṅs-brcan was still a minor,Footnote ⁵⁹ and secondly, that PT 230 postdates PT 999 and PT 131. Accordingly, the relative dating of the documents can be proposed as: (oldest) PT 134 > PT 999/PT 131 > PT 230 > PT 840 (youngest). All the texts were apparently composed in or around Dunhuang. The phrase bod yoṅs gyi [rgyal] po čhen po (PT 131: 27) presents Khri Ɣod-sruṅs-brcan as a “great king of all Tibetans” and implies that his reign was recognized as far away as Dunhuang, even before his enthronement. Moreover, PT 840, an OT text that mentions both Ɣwuɣi-dun-brtan (alias Dar-ma) and Khri Ɣod-sruṅs-brcan (alias Ɣod-srus [sic]), does not show any traces of enmity between the two and instead “emphatically states that Buddhism was in full swing in the Land of Snow” (Karmay Reference Karmay1998–2005: 79) during their lifetime.Footnote ⁶⁰ The text – most probably the oldest witness of the name Dar-ma – like PT 134 undermines later Buddhist narrations about the fights that followed the death of Khri Gcug-lde-brcan and the alleged persecution of the Buddhist community and institutions.Footnote ⁶¹

From what has been said, the following scenario can be sketched: Khri Gcug-lde-brcan died in 841 leaving no heir to the throne. His younger brother Ɣwuɣi-dun-brtan took over the reign but resigned or was compelled to resign soon after Khri Ɣod-sruṅs-brcan was born in 841. It is indeed surprising that Khri Gcug-lde-brcan did not have male descendants. If he died in 841, then he must have been between 26 (if born in 815, which is improbable) and 47 years old (if born in 794). It seems rather that Khri Ɣod-sruṅs-brcan was in fact his (and ǰo mo Bcan-mo-ɣphan's) son but born after Khri Gcug-lde-brcan's death and therefore contested as the heir. This would also better match the contents of PT 999 and solve the problem, first recognized by Scherrer-Schaub (Reference Scherrer-Schaub and Steinkellner1991: 432–3, fn. 30), that the text mentions Khri Gcug-lde-brcan together with ǰo mo Bcan-mo-ɣphan and Ɣod-sruṅ. Should they be consort and son of Ɣwuɣi-dun-brtan there would be no reason for omitting the latter while mentioning Khri Gcug-lde-brcan. None of the OT sources addresses Ɣod-sruṅs as bcan po, but his affiliation with the royal family is established by the kinterm yum sras (PT 999: 5) in which he is referred to as sras. The lack of the title bcan po indicates either that he was contested as a legitimate son of Khri Gcug-lde-brcan or that the title itself was customarily bestowed only after the ruling bcan po had himself recognized the child (even if yet unborn) as his offspring. If Khri Gcug-lde-brcan died before the pregnancy of Bcan-mo-ɣphan became known, he could not have recognized his paternity and bestowed the title bcan po. Khri Ɣod-sruṅs-brcan was enthroned very early, around 843,Footnote ⁶² possibly to preclude internal fights that arose due to the unstable political situation and the declining economy. The worsening of the international economic situation from the 830s onward (Beckwith Reference Beckwith2009: 158ff.) and natural disasters reported in Chinese sources (Bushell Reference Bushell1880: 522; Pelliot Reference Pelliot1961: 133) only exacerbated the problems of the Empire.