¹ In this article, the Tibetan script is transliterated according to the principles put forward in J. Bialek, ‘Towards a standardisation of Tibetan transliteration for textual studies’, Revue d’Etudes Tibétaines 56 (2020), pp. 28–46. All passages have been translated by the authors. Whenever multiple witnesses of Tibetan texts are provided in the references, the quoted Tibetan texts are edited readings based on the listed witnesses, in which, for reasons of space, only highly select variants are given. The following conventions are applied in discussions of Tibetan toponyms: bod = transliteration of a Tibetan word; Bod = toponym; ‘Bod’ = term referring to a conceptual image of a toponym; ‘Tibetan Realm’ = translation of a Tibetan term.

² J. Bialek, ‘Naming the empire: from Bod to Tibet: a philologico-historical study on the origin of the polity’, Revue d’Etudes Tibétaines 61 (2021), pp. 339–402. Note that, in post-imperial histori(ographi)cal sources, bod may likewise refer to the people inhabiting Bod, in which case it is synonymous with bod mi. This article concentrates on the toponym and mostly leaves aside its other denotations.

³ G. Tuttle, ‘Challenging Central Tibet’s dominance of history: the Oceanic Book, a 19th-century politico-religious geographic history’, in Mapping the Modern in Tibet, (ed.) G. Tuttle (Andiast, 2011), pp. 135–172.

⁴ K. E. Ryavec, A Historical Atlas of Tibet (Chicago and London, 2015), pp. 8, 14. The atlas as a whole roughly equates ‘Tibet’ with the ‘Tibetan Plateau’.

⁵ The works in question were selected specifically to shed light on perceptions of ‘Tibet’ in the post-dynastic period; some other sources were considered but then rejected for their lack of instructive passages. Although all works under consideration in this article are written in Classical Tibetan and therefore classify as ‘Tibetan’ from a linguistic perspective, not all can necessarily be described as ‘Tibetan’ from the viewpoint of the ethnic affiliation of their authors or described protagonists and populations.

⁶ Reinier Langelaar surveyed the Pillar Testament, the Singular Volume, and the Treasury of Explanations, while Joanna Bialek analysed the Canopy and the Royal Chronicle of Ladakh.

⁷ See Tuttle, ‘Challenging’, pp. 138–147. In this context, also consider the work by Washul (née Yang) on the čhol kha gsum. She shows that the referent of this threefold geographic division apparently shifted from Dbus, Gcaṅ, and Mṅaɣ-ris originally, to Dbus-Gcaṅ, Mdo-smad, and Mdo-stod later on, thus similarly absorbing regions on the eastern Tibetan Plateau at the apparent expense of the west (E. Yang, ‘Tracing the Chol kha gsum: reexamining a Sa skya-Yuan period administrative geography’, Revue d’Etudes Tibétaines 37 (2016), pp. 551–568, especially pp. 558–564; see also L. Petech, ‘The Mongol census in Tibet’, in The Tibetan History Reader, (ed.) G. Tuttle and K. R. Schaeffer (New York, 2013 [1980]), p. 235; Tuttle, ‘Challenging’, p. 147).

⁸ See, for instance, fn. 22, in which one witness reads bod khams ‘Bod Realm’ against others’ correct mdo khams (a large region on the eastern Tibetan Plateau).

⁹ R. Langelaar, ‘Replacing a pillar of Tibetan Buddhist historiography: on the redactions of the so-called Pillar Testament (bKa’-chems-ka-khol-ma)’, Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African Studies 87.3 (2024), 489–517). The following redactions of the Pillar Testament have been used: D = Anonymous, Čhos brgyal sproṅ bcan sgan poɣi bkaɣ čhems (manuscript reproduction), in The Literary Arts in Ladakh: A Reproduction of a Collection of Bhotia Manuscripts on Poetics, Prosody, Sanskrit Grammar, Lexicography, etc. from the Library of the Former Ruling Family, (ed.) Kargyud Sungrab Nyamso Khang (Darjeeling, 1972), vol. 1, ff. 363–481; L = Anonymous, Čhos rgyal sroṅ bcan sgam poɣi bkaɣ thems bkaɣ khol ma (manuscript reproduction), in Ma ɣoṅs luṅ bstan gsal baɣi sgron me, (ed.) S. Tashigangpa (Leh, 1973), vol. 1, ff. 613–809; M = Anonymous, Bkaɣ čhems ka khol ma, (ed.) Smon-lam Rgya-mcho (Lha-sa, 1989); N = Anonymous, Rgyal rabs bkaɣ bkol ma (manuscript reproduction), in Qu rgyan gu ru rin po čheɣi rnam thar mthoṅ ba don ldan bstan paɣi sgron me ñi maɣi dkyil ɣkhor, (ed.) Damchoe Sangpo (Dalhousie, 1981), vol. 2: ff. 815.6–914.9; P = Anonymous, Rgyal rabs daṅ gser gyi lha śākya mu ne bźeṅs nas bod yul dbus su bdan draṅs lugs duṅ rigs gsum mgon poɣi mȷad spyod// rgyal po sroṅ bcan sgam poɣi rnam thar bsdus pa legs pa gčig bźugs sho (unpublished hand-written transliteration of the dbu-med manuscript at the IOM RAS, St. Petersburg, 1975); S = Anonymous, Bkaɣ čhems ka khol ma (Lhasa, 2019?).

¹⁰ The historical referents of toponyms such as Khams, Mdo-khams, and Mdo-smad also shifted, in ways that still require further study, too (E. Yang, ‘Geographies of Tibet in the pre-Mongol period: literary mappings in Tibetan literature’ (paper given at the International Association of Tibetan Studies Seminar, Ulanbaatar, 24 July 2013); see also D. Martin, A History of Buddhism in India and Tibet: An Expanded Version of the Dharma’s Origins Made by the Learned Scholar Deyu (Somerville 2022), p. 674, fn. 2645, as well as fn. 2642 and 2643).

¹¹ Figure 1 provides the rough location of Ldan-ma-brag, as given in A. Heller, ‘Ninth century Buddhist images carved at lDan ma Brag to commemorate Tibeto-Chinese negotiations’, in Tibetan Studies: Proceedings of the 6th International Seminar for the International Association for Tibetan Studies, Fagernes 1992, (ed.) P. Kvaerne (Oslo, 1994), vol. 1, p. 335. This is the site of an early inscription that was not made by, or even in the exact time of, Mun-čhaṅ koṅ čo, but is popularly associated with her nonetheless (see, for instance, A. Gruschke, The Cultural Monuments of Tibet’s Outer Provinces: Kham. Vol. 1. The TAR Part of Kham (Tibet Autonomous Region) (Bangkok, 2004), pp. 159–163). We tentatively identify this Ldan-ma-brag with the site mentioned in the Pillar Testament.

¹² Consider also S: 158.21–159.1, M: 190.15–16, which similarly describe the site in question as offering a view of the mountain peaks of Bod.

¹³ For the location of Gyaṅ-tho, see Figure 1, following S. Karmay, ‘Mount Bon-ri and its association with early myths’, in The Arrow and the Spindle: Studies in History, Myths, Rituals and Beliefs in Tibet, (ed.) S. Karmay (Kathmandu, 1998), p. 212.

¹⁴ Qu-rgyan Gliṅ-pa, Padma bkaɣ thaṅ (Chengdu, 2006 [1987]).

¹⁵ Ibid, pp. 366–371.

¹⁶ For the territory of the Four Horns, see Figure 1 and G. Hazod, ‘Imperial Central Tibet: an annotated cartographical survey of its territorial divisions and key political sites’, in The Old Tibetan Annals: An Annotated Translation of Tibet’s First History, (eds.) B. Dotson, with G. Hazod (Vienna, 2009), p. 198, Map 5. We should stress that the territory of the Four Horns was not stable either. Prior to the administrative reform of the early 730s, the sources speak of the Three Horns (see G. Uray, ‘The Four Horns of Tibet according to the Royal Annals’, Acta Orientalia Academiae Scientiarum Hungaricae 10.1 (1960), pp. 31–57; and, more recently, Bialek, ‘Naming the empire’, p. 364). It is also unlikely that the Three (later Four) Horns had unwavering geographic extension throughout the history of the Tibetan empire. Similarly, other historical regions, such as Dbus and Gcaṅ, are likely to have experienced shifts in their perceived extent as well.

¹⁷ It is often unclear how the compound bod yul should be parsed because bod is both a toponym and an ethnonym. The complex bod yul (or bod kyi yul) could therefore be rendered as ‘Land of the Bod people’ but also as the ‘Land of Tibet’. To retain some of this ambiguity, we render bod yul simply as ‘Bod Land’. A similar approach is taken for bod khams and comparable terms.

¹⁸ M: 58.3–5, S: 48.2–4. This particular passage is likely an interpolation.

¹⁹ The Pillar Testament prefers the term Khams over Mdo-khams. ‘Khams’ appears repeatedly and across all recensions, yet we have found only a single instance of ‘Mdo-khams’, in the most expansive redaction (M: 235.3, S: 195.6).

²⁰ ‘On the palm of [the demoness’s] left hand, the Gloṅ-thaṅ Sgrol-ma Temple [of] Ɣkhams (i.e., Khams)’ (lag mthil g.yon pa la ɣkhams gloṅ thaṅ sgrol maɣi rcug khaṅ (read: gcug lag khaṅ) (D: 454.1). Note that, in the far more elaborate redaction, there is an explicit geographic division of the temples of the Four Horns and those of the border areas (ru bźi daṅ mthaɣ ɣdul yaṅ ɣdul gyi gcug lag khaṅ rnams (M: 262.14–15, S: 218.13–14)).

²¹ R. Langelaar, ‘Biography and hierarchy: the Tibetan ruling house of Phag-mo-gru and the Singular Volume of the Rlangs (Rlangs-kyi-po-ti-bse-ru)’, Medieval Worlds (special volume: Medieval Biographical Collections: Perspectives from Buddhist, Christian and Islamic Worlds, (ed.) D. Mahoney, D. Ó Riain, and G. Vocino) 15 (2022), pp. 77–78. A detailed discussion of the Singular Volume can be found in the same publication. For the present study, the following redactions have been consulted: I = Anonymous, Rlaṅs kyi gduṅ rgyud po ti bse ru, in The History of the gÑos Lineage of Kha-rag and a Version of the Rlaṅs po ti bse ru Containing the Genealogy of the Rlaṅs Lineage, (ed.) Khedup Gyatso (Dolanji, 1978), fols. 97–337; II = Anonymous, Rlaṅs po ti bse ru, in Lha rigs rlaṅs kyi rnam thar: A Detailed Account of the Rlaṅs Lineage of Phag-mo-gru-pa Rulers of Tibet: Incorporating Versions of the ‘Rlaṅs po ti bse ru’ and the ‘Si tu’i bka’ chems’ of Si-tu Byaṅ-chub-rgyal-mtshan, (ed.) T. Tsepal Taikhang (New Delhi, 1974), fols. 2–212; IV = Anonymous, Lha gzigs rlaṅs kyi gduṅs (sic) rabs po ti bse ru bźugs (Lhasa, 1982).

²² I: 194.3, IV: 56.11–12: mdo khams yul gyi sog śod; cf. II: 89.5: bod khams ∼.

²³ Sog-la-skya-bo, a pass situated in Sog-śod, is also given as the boundary between western and eastern Tibetan subterritories (čhol kha) in the fifteenth-century historiography Rgya bod yig chaṅ (Yang, ‘Tracing the Chol kha gsum’, p. 563).

²⁴ Also note that, in this instance, pace Tuttle’s earlier impression (Tuttle, ‘Challenging’, pp. 143–145), Mdo-khams does in fact include portions of what would later be called Amdo (CT qa mdo).

²⁵ R. Stein, ‘Introduction to the Ge-sar epic’, The Tibet Journal 6.1 (1981), p. 12.

²⁶ M. Dillon, China’s Muslim Hui Community. Migration, Settlements and Sects (Richmond, 1999), p. 32.

²⁷ Some passages indicate that Thel-čhu is indeed considered a border town in the Singular Volume, although it seems to be associated more strongly with China (rgya) than with Bod. For instance, Byaṅ-čhub Ɣdre-bkol leaves a junior clan member in charge as the town’s bla ma after announcing his plan to return to ‘Bod Land’. Simultaneously, its demographic make-up is mixed: the new incumbent is left not only with books, powers, temples, and so on in his charge, but also with ‘the patrons, Chinese and Tibetans of Thel-čhu’ (thel čhuɣi yon bdag rgya bod rnams, I: 202.5, II: 97.1, IV: 61.4–5). The new bla ma also has placed at his disposal ‘the gods and demons of China, Tibet [and] Thel-čhu’ (rgya bod thel čhuɣi lha ɣdre rnams, I: 203.1–2; II: 97.2, IV: 61.7). Both these passages, if transmitted accurately, suggest that Thel-čhu belongs to neither Rgya nor Bod, but is situated in between and labelled independently. Another passage, however, rather unambiguously locates Thel-čhu within China: ‘When he went up from Thel-čhu-yaṅ-thel in Rgya (“China”) …’ (rgya thel čhu [I: rgya thel čhuṅ, IV: rgyal thel čhu] yaṅ thel nas khoṅ yar byon paɣi dus, I: 319.3, II: 197.2, IV: 117.9–10). Elsewhere, we find an inverted ‘Yaṅ-le-thel-čhu in China’ (rgya yaṅ le thel čhu (I: 330.5–31.1, II: 206.5, IV: 122.12)). Lastly, the new bla ma of Thel-čhu is instructed to focus on the bodhisattva Mañjuśrī as his tutelary deity, who is explicitly said to dwell on Wǔtái Shān (Ch. 五台山), which would seem to mark out the town’s affiliation with the Chinese Buddhist landscape.

²⁸ I: 126.1–127.3 and 179.5–181.3, II: 26.5–28.1 and 76.3–78.2, IV: 18.11–19.5 and 48.13–49.11.

²⁹ Langelaar, ‘Biography and hierarchy’, pp. 84–88.

³⁰ Tuttle, ‘Challenging’, pp. 154–158.

³¹ The identification of the toponym spelled Bu-raṅ with Pu-hraṅs is buttressed by a following mention of a ‘ghoul of the south-western border’ (lho nub mchams kyi srin po (I: 210.5–211.1, etc.)) and by the site’s affiliation with the Twelve Bstan ma established earlier in the work. We adopt the spelling Pu-hraṅs throughout the article. Other variant forms of the toponym encountered in literature are: Pu-hraṅ, Pu-raṅs, Pu-raṅ, and Spu-hraṅs. Pu-hraṅs and Pu-hraṅ are the earliest-attested spellings (see R. Vitali, The Kingdoms of Gu-ge Pu-hrang: According to Mgna’.ris rgyal.rabs by Gu.ge mkhan.chen Ngag.dbang grags.pa (Dharamsala, 1996), p. 89, fn. 1) but, as the post-consonantal -s tends to be omitted easily, we accept Pu-hraṅs as lectio difficilior.

³² E.g. I: 133.1–2, II: 33.2–3, IV: 22.8–9.

³³ khams paɣi rgyal khams, I, 306.3, II, 186.1, IV, 111.9–10; khams paɣi dpon brgyud, I: 172.4, II: 70.1, IV: 44.12; and gcaṅ gi rgyal khams, I: 315.1, II: 193.2, IV: 115.7.

³⁴ Langelaar, ‘Biography and hierarchy’, pp. 80–81.

³⁵ Note that all the adduced material up to and including (7), which is unequivocal in its inclusive image of Bod, comes from one and the same section of the work, namely the long biography of Byaṅ-čhub Ɣdre-bkol. This part of the work can lay claim to far more homogeneous authorship than the Singular Volume as a whole.

³⁶ Two redactions have been used for the present study: 1 = Anonymous, Don dam smra baɣi seṅ ge, in A 15th Century Tibetan Compendium of Knowledge: The bŚad mdzod yid bzhin nor bu, (ed.) Lokesh Chandra (New Delhi, 1969); 2 = Anonymous, Don dam smra baɣi seṅ ge, in bŚad mdzod yid bźin nor bu. A Compendium of Tibetan Lamaist Scholastic Learning (Thimphu, 1976).

³⁷ E. G. Smith, Among Tibetan Texts: History & Literature of the Himalayan Plateau (Somerville, 2001), pp. 211–213.

³⁸ This dating of the work hinges on its succession lineage of the Phag-mo-gru Dynasty, whose incumbents, however, seem to be described in a rather confused manner (A: 175.2–76.2, B: 186.4–87.4; cf. the handy table in O. Czaja, Medieval Rule in Tibet: The Rlangs Clan and the Political and Religious History of the Ruling House of Phag mo gru pa. With a Study of the Monastic Art of Gdan sa mthil (Vienna, 2013), p. 460).

³⁹ Tuttle, ‘Challenging’, p. 154.

⁴⁰ The somewhat unusual phrase mṅaɣ ris bod ‘the domain Tibet’ is also found elsewhere in the work (e.g. A: 174.3: mṅaɣ ris bod kyi rgyal khaṃs) and in the earlier Mkhas pa ldeɣu: mṅaɣ ris bod kyi rgyal khams ɣdir (Mkhas-pa-ldeɣu, Mkhas pa ldeɣus mȷad paɣi rgya bod kyi čhos ɣbyuṅ rgyas pa (Lhasa, 2012), p. 182.4). The Tibetan term mṅaɣ ris on its own is ambiguous: it can be a toponym—that is, a proper name referring to the western parts of the Tibetan Plateau—but it can also function as a common word meaning ‘domain’ (lit. *‘share of power’, J. Bialek, Compounds and Compounding in Old Tibetan: A Corpus Based Approach (Marburg, 2018), vol. 1, p. 295).

⁴¹ Parts of contemporary Khams were already included in ‘Tibet’ in works going back to at least the thirteenth century (Yang, ‘Geographies of Tibet’).

⁴² In this context, consider the inclusion of ‘three ranges’ (sgaṅ gsum) in the nineteenth-century Mdo smad čhos ɣbyuṅ’s geographic division of ‘Tibet’ in which ‘three ranges’ also cover the north-east (Tuttle, ‘Challenging’, pp. 139–140).

⁴³ In the royal genealogy, we find Ña-khri being banished (read spyugs for gśugs) to ‘the Spo-bo Land’ (spo boɣi yul) before eventually returning to ‘the Bod Land’ (bod kyi yul; A: 161.5–62.1, B: 174.1–2).

⁴⁴ This phrase, quoted verbatim from f. 27.1, was chosen by Pritzker for the title of his dissertation: D. T. Pritzker, ‘Canopy of Everlasting Joy: An Early Source in Tibetan Historiography and the History of West Tibet’ (unpublished PhD dissertation, University of Oxford, 2017). We put the Tibetan equivalent forward for the work’s title, adding ma at the end of the phrase by analogy with other Tibetan titles (see M. Taube, ‘Das Suffix -ma in tibetischen Buchtiteln’, Mitteilungen des Instituts für Orientforschung, Deutsche Akademie der Wissenschaften zu Berlin 16.1 (1970), pp. 107–117). A modern Chinese edition titled the work Zla baɣi rigs kyi rgyal rabs (see Ñi maɣi rigs kyi rgyal rabs daṅ zla baɣi rigs kyi rgyal rabs (Lha-sa, 2014)).

⁴⁵ On the rgyal rabs genre, see L. W. J. van der Kuijp, ‘Tibetan historiography’, in Tibetan Literature: Studies in Genre, (eds.) J. I. Cabezon and R. R. Jackson (Ithaca, 1996), pp. 43ff.

⁴⁶ Pritzker, ‘Canopy of Everlasting Joy’, pp. 3–4. Pritzker provides a detailed study of the text, with a transliteration, translation, as well as photographs of the manuscript. A scan of the manuscript has also been made available via the Buddhist Digital Resource Center (BDRC; https://library.bdrc.io/ (accessed 15 July 2024)) under the signature W4CN12077.

⁴⁷ Pritzker, ‘Canopy of Everlasting Joy’, pp. 4, 29.

⁴⁸ For instance, rgu (7.3, 7.4) for dgu ‘nine’, rcaṅ for gcaṅ ‘pure’ (16.1), and rguṅ for dguṅ (4.6, 12.7, 13.1) all display the sound change [dC-] > [rC-], which is characteristic of north-western Tibetan dialects. The same applies to sbye for dbye (16.6).

⁴⁹ The work’s beginning is missing and the text abruptly ends with the reign of the Gu-ge ruler Rce-lde (r. circa 1057–1088; Pritzker, ‘Canopy of Everlasting Joy’, p. 168).

⁵⁰ On the Old Tibetan provenance of the phrase lhas mȷad, which, in Classical Tibetan, became a mere cliché, see J. Bialek, ‘“Tibetan”—all inclusive? Rethinking the “Tibetan-ity” of the “Tibetan empire”’, in The Social and the Religious in the Making of Tibetan Societies: New Perspectives on Imperial Tibet, (eds.) G. Hazod, C. Jahoda, and M. Fermer (Wien, 2022), pp. 14–15.

⁵¹ All passages from the Canopy have been transliterated by Joanna Bialek on the basis of photographs reproduced in Pritzker, ‘Canopy of Everlasting Joy’, pp. 170ff.

⁵² J. W. de Jong, The Story of Rāma in Tibet: Text and Translation of the Tun-huang Manuscripts (Stuttgart, 1989), p. 60 identified skol with ɣo skol, the better-known inclusive first-person plural pronoun. On ɣo skol in Old Tibetan, see N. W. Hill, ‘Personal pronouns in Old Tibetan’, Journal Asiatique 298.2 (2010), p. 559; N. W. Hill, ‘Some Tibetan first person plural inclusive pronouns’, in From Bhakti to Bon: Festschrift for Per Kværne, (eds.) H. Havnevik and C. Ramble (Oslo 2015), pp. 242ff. The etymological meaning of skol seems to have been *‘subject’ (as suggested in R. A. Stein, ‘Tibetica Antiqua III: A propos du mot gcug-lag et de la religion indigène’, Bulletin de l’École française d’Extrême-Orient 74 (1985), p. 100).

⁵³ Cf. a similar use of ɣdi in conjunction with mṅaɣ ris in (12) below.

⁵⁴ Pritzker, ‘Canopy of Everlasting Joy’, p. 84.

⁵⁵ In a comment included in the Me tog sñiṅ po sbraṅ rciɣi bčud (apud Ñi-ma Ɣod-zer, Die große Geschichte des tibetischen Buddhismus nach alter Tradition (ed.) R. O. Meisezahl (Sankt Augustin, 1985), f. 104.2.4), we find the name of the country spelled as bod khams gsum gliṅ dgu, apparently of the same structure as our bod khams gsum ru bźi (we thank Eveline Washul for drawing our attention to this passage.) Yet, the former is less problematic because, as we can infer from the text, the referent of khams gsum was understood to be identical to that of gliṅ dgu.

⁵⁶ The same section of the Canopy does, however, refer to the ‘realm of the Bod people’ (bod khams; 30.3–4) as the main scene of events.

⁵⁷ Some of the toponyms mentioned in the passage can be (tentatively) identified:

• •

  • Lha-rce of Gog-śod: Gog-śod might be a Tibetan equivalent of Goggadeśa or Gogga, identified with Gu-ge in L. Petech, ‘Ya-ts’e, Gu-ge, Pu-raṅ: a new study’, in Selected Papers on Asian History, (ed.) L. Petech (Roma, 1988b [1980]), p. 385). However, it is identified with the Ɣgog goldfields near Ru-thog in L. Petech, ‘Western Tibet: historical introduction’, in Tabo: A Lamp for the Kingdom, (ed.) D. Klimburg-Salter (New York, 1997), p. 244. The Royal Chronicle of Ladakh actually mentions the gold mine of Ɣgog, which suggests that its location is in the vicinity of Ru-thog and Lde-mčhog-dkar-po (most probably identical to Bde-mčhog; see Figure 1; apud A. H. Francke, Antiquities of Indian Tibet. Part II: The Chronicles of Ladakh and Minor Chronicles (New Delhi, 1926), p. 35, ll. 14–16). This region is described in the Royal Chronicle of Ladakh as belonging to Rgya (see below);

• •

  • Wo-bo of Nepal = Humla (?), Tib. Ɣol-mo (Pritzker, ‘Canopy of Everlasting Joy’, p. 153, fn. 333);

• •

  • Ɣu-rten of Li = city of Khotan (G. Uray, ‘The Old Tibetan sources of the history of Central Asia up to 751 AD: a survey’, in The History of Tibet, (ed.) A. McKay (London, 2007), p. 127);

• •

  • Ya-ce of Pu-hraṅs = Ya-che/rce, identified by Tucci with Señjā, modern Sinja/Lamathada (Jumla, Nepal; G. Tucci, Preliminary Report on Two Scientific Expeditions in Nepal (Roma, 1956), pp. 112–113;

Rgyal = probably the Rgya kingdom in Mar-yul (see Figure 1 and Vitali, Kingdoms of Gu-ge, p. 123, fn. 115).

⁵⁸ More popularly known as Skyi-lde Ñi-ma-mgon (r. circa 923–950), he was the grandson of Ɣod-sruṅs (Petech, ‘Western Tibet’, p. 232). Vitali dated his flight to Mṅaɣ-ris to 910 (R. Vitali, ‘A chronology (bstan rtsis) of events in the history of mNga’ ris skor gsum (tenth-fifteenth centuries)’, in The History of Tibet, (ed.) A. McKay (London, 2003), p. 54), but, according to the the Sa-skya tradition, it was in 929 (Petech, ‘Ya-ts’e’, p. 369).

⁵⁹ Together with the relocation, the title mṅaɣ bdag (‘the hereditary chieftain of Mṅaɣ-ris’, Petech, ‘Ya-ts’e’, p. 383) is introduced in the narrative and, for the first time, used for Bkra-śis-mgon (f. 34.2). This might be a coincidence, but also an indication that, in those parts of the Tibetan Plateau, mṅaɣ bdag was understood as *mṅaɣ ris kyi bdag po ‘the lord of Mṅaɣ-ris’ (for a different understanding of the term in Old Tibetan, see Bialek, Compounds and Compounding, pp. 508ff.). Petech reports that the title was first assumed by Skyi-lde Ñi-ma-mgon after the complete conquest of Mṅaɣ-ris (Petech, ‘Western Tibet’, p. 232).

⁶⁰ Ibid.

⁶¹ f. 41.5–6. Note that stod ris at f. 41.5 constitutes the last two syllables of the line. It is plausible that the scribe chose to contract stod mṅaɣ ris to stod ris instead of dividing the compounded toponym between the lines.

⁶² Petech, ‘Western Tibet’, p. 234.

⁶³ L. Petech, The Kingdom of Ladakh: c. 950-1842 A.D. (Roma, 1977), p. 171; Petech, ‘Western Tibet’, p. 247.

⁶⁴ Francke, Antiquities, p. 11.

⁶⁵ As indicated by L. Petech, A Study on the Chronicles of Ladakh (Indian Tibet) (Calcutta, 1937), p. 9, Francke’s edition (Francke, Antiquities) of the Royal Chronicle of Ladakh is a compilation of two different redactions of the work. The cosmological chapter is contained only in the longer redaction, which is attested in Francke’s manuscripts A and L. Francke’s text of the chapter in question follows manuscript A, which had been previously published by Marx (K. Marx, ‘Three documents relating to the history of Ladakh: Tibetan text, translation and notes’, Journal of the Asiatic Society of Bengal 60 (1891), pp. 97–135; K. Marx, ‘Three documents relating to the history of Ladakh: Tibetan text, translation and notes’, Journal of the Asiatic Society of Bengal 63 (1894), pp. 94–107; K. Marx, ‘Three documents relating to the history of Ladakh: Tibetan text, translation and notes’, Journal of the Asiatic Society of Bengal 71 (1902), pp. 21–34), though the latter had omitted the parts on cosmology and the Yar-luṅs Dynasty. To a lesser extent, Francke also made use of a copy prepared for Schlagintweit in 1856 (S manuscript). We have used Francke’s edition, but adduce notes based on Marx’ edition (A and B) wherever helpful.

⁶⁶ Francke, Antiquities, p. 21, ll. 20–21. The other three are the Chinese (gam śaṅ rgya), Hor (gyim śaṅ hor), and Mon (ha le mon). For a detailed discussion of miɣu rigs in several Ladakhi sources, see R. Vitali, ‘Tribes which populated the Tibetan Plateau, as treated in the texts collectively called the Khungs chen po bzhi’, Lungta: Cosmogony and the Origins 16 (2003), pp. 37–63.

⁶⁷ Francke, Antiquities, p. 28, ll. 15–17.

⁶⁸ Ibid, p. 33, ll. 19.

⁶⁹ For an alternative interpretation of the events following the death of Glaṅ-dar-ma, see J. Bialek, ‘Bcan pos who were not khri: royal titulature and the succession to the throne in the Tibetan empire’, Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African Studies 86.1 (2023), pp. 121–146.

⁷⁰ Francke, Antiquities, p. 34, ll. 7–20.

⁷¹ Ibid, p. 35, ll. 1.

⁷² This royal trailblazer appears in the Canopy under the alternative name Khri Skyil-ldiṅ.

⁷³ Francke, Antiquities, p. 35, ll. 4–6; Marx, ‘Three documents’ (1891), p. 103, ll. 2–4.

⁷⁴ mṅaɣ ris skor gsum čhab ɣog tu bsdus nas (Francke, Antiquities, p. 35, ll. 11f). The territories of Ru-thog, Gu-ge, Pu-hraṅs, Mar-yul, and Zaṅs-dkar, subdued by Skyid-lde Ñi-ma-mgon, were subsumed under the term skor gsum, lit. ‘three circuits’, after he had apportioned them among his sons Dpal-gyi-mgon, Bkra-śis-mgon, and Lde-gcug-mgon. On the disagreement of the sources concerning the allotments, see Vitali, Kingdoms of Gu-ge, pp. 153ff.

⁷⁵ E.g. Francke, Antiquities, p. 36, ll. 9, 14.

⁷⁶ In an earlier passage, Che-dbaṅ Rnam-rgyal (r. circa 1575–1595; Petech, Kingdom of Ladakh, p. 171) is said to have conquered all the territories up to Ṅam-riṅs in the east, including Glo-bo, Pu-hraṅs, and Gu-ge (śar ṅam riṅs man čhad/ blo (read: glo) bo daṅ/ pu hraṅs/ gu ge la sogs pa mṅaɣ ɣog tu bsdus/; Francke, Antiquities, p. 38, ll. 6–7).

⁷⁷ ‘[A] small lamasery on a rock on the right bank of the River Charta-Sangpo’ (Marx, ‘Three documents’ (1891), p. 134, fn. 177). It is not clear whether the coordinates (29°30ʹN, 84°50ʹE; ibid) refer to the river or the monastery. The river can be identified as Lčags-thag Gcaṅ-po (Chaktak-tsangpo in S. A. Hedin, Southern Tibet: Discoveries in Former Times Compared with My Own Researches in 1906-1908 (Stockholm, 1922), vol. 1, p. 118); see Lčags-thag on Figure 1).

⁷⁸ Francke, Antiquities, p. 40, ll. 21–22.

⁷⁹ dbus gcaṅ la dmag mȷad nas/ śi ri daṅ kyar kyar smad čhag la btaṅ nas/ (Francke, Antiquities, p. 40, ll. 30). Cunningham, who had at his disposal a more accurate version of the Royal Chronicle of Ladakh (L. Petech, ‘The Tibetan-Ladakhi-Moghul war’, in Selected Papers on Asian History, (ed.) L. Petech (Roma, 1988), pp. 19–44), gives Śi-ri Kyir-kyir as one name and identifies it with Sekor (A. Cunningham, Ladák, Physical, Statistical, and Historical (London, 1854), p. 323, fn. †). Neither Śi-ri nor Kyar-kyar could be identified.

⁸⁰ Petech, Study on the Chronicles, p. 147; Petech, ‘Tibetan-Ladakhi-Moghul war’, p. 21.

⁸¹ Francke, Antiquities, p. 41, ll. 2–3.

⁸² Petech, Study on the Chronicles, p. 157.

⁸³ ‘[The Bod-pa thought] that because Buddhist Bod and non-Buddhist Kha-čhul (= Kashmir) and the like are enemies in [their] specific Buddhist and non-Buddhist traditions, if the La-dwags king is not happy in [his] borders, Bod is not happy [either]’ (bod naṅ pa daṅ/ kha čhul phyi pa sogs ni/ phyi naṅ gi čhos lugs so sor/ dgra yin pas/ sa mchams su la dwags rgyal po ma bde na/ bod mi bde ba/, Francke, Antiquities, p. 42, ll. 13–15).

⁸⁴ Nowadays, Bde-mčhog (Demchok; 32°41ʹ52.59″N, 79°27ʹ0.98″E; see Figure 1) is a small village at the confluence of the Lha-ri stream and the Indus River. The village is split between China and India, and the border between the two countries runs along the Lha-ri stream.

⁸⁵ Francke, Antiquities, p. 42, ll. 24.