Mu-tig thug-khog:A Note on Lhasa-Tibetan Pearl Coifs (Late 17th to Mid-20th

Centuries)1

– The ‘Proper’ Version –by

Joachim G. KARSTEN(Bonn)

alias

Jáchym G. GÍSL(Berlin)

[With some rather marginal (!) ‘collaboration’ by Dr. Veronika RONGE (Bonn)2]

NB: This ‘new’ edition of ‘our’ paper published, in “2010” [recte 2011], is, very unfortunately,not the ‘final’ version of the proper article originally sent to Prof Elliot SPERLING forpublication of ‘our’ paper presented at the 1998-conference held at Bloomington. Due tosome slipshodness of my former co-author, Dr. Ronge, and apparently also Prof. Sperling –both somehow or other ‘successfully’ managed to lose both text and important historicalphotographs of the 1930s to 1950 –, instead of the ‘final’ version, the very first draft (!) of thearticle was somewhat slipshod published by Saadet ARSLAN and Peter SCHWIEGER,1 Note that this article* is based on the (former) authors’ paperdelivered at the 8th Seminar of the International Association forTibetan Studies, Bloomington 1998. For unknown reason, the theneditor-to-be of the Proceedings has never published any of the papersdelivered – including our (JGK/VR) own – and has unfortunately lostour original photographic material... We were, therefore, forced tominimize our selection to a couple of less interesting photographs.**During to a decade-long illness, I was unable to bring this paper upto date. On top of that, I have had also no access to IsrunEngelhardt’s splendid book on Tibet 1938-1939, seen several yearsago.It is very unfortunate that our manuscript was submitted by Dr Rongeinstead of the third (!) version. The version published, in 2010, byDr Ronge is unfortunately the first (!) draft of the final paper. AsDr Ronge has, regrettably, also inserted a few strange remarks andinaccuracies of her own, I have to refrain from accepting thepublished version as the ‘final’ version. I was, therefore, forced toomit her name in the title of the present version.Note further, that – despite some inaccuracies concerning languageand style – the English had been corrected by Prof Sperling.*To be cited as KARSTEN 1998/2014.**Note that I have refrained from publishing the photographs in thepresent version. Therefore, the reader is required to have a look atKARSTEN/RONGE 2010.2 I – as well as Dr Ronge – have received kind help from the late two‘lovers’ of Tibet: Heinrich Harrer (1912-2006; photographs andwritten communications) and Hugh Richardson (1905-2000; photographsand written communications), two long-time residents of Lhasa until1950. Further thanks for the supply of written and/or photographicmaterial go to Dr. Isrun Engelhardt of Icking, Ms Guilaine Mala, MA,of Oxford, Mr and Ms Hilmar and Romy Pabel of Ratzing, Mr Bruno Begerof Frankfurt, and Mr Hans Roth, MA, of Bonn.

In the course of our originally independent work on

Tibetan (official and other) robes and their accessories,

etc., both of us came across what must be considered one

of the most outstanding kind of jewellery of Tibet known

– or rather unknown – to us here in the West. This is a

type of ‘coif’ of sheer dazzling beauty – though, as will

be seen below, somewhat strange proportion – as well as

some kind of skill in craftwork and rather high value.

Despite its beauty and value it is, however, hardly

mentioned in native and/or foreign works on Tibet or, to

be more accurate, extant references have been overlooked

by most of us Westerners and my very self.4

The first known written reference to Tibetan pearl

coifs in any language known to me appears to date back to

the year of 1713 when the Italian missionary, Domenico da

Fano, compiled his Breve relazione. There, in the second

chapter entitled “Modo di vestire de’ butiani e tartari”,

reference to and a short description of the coif under

study is made: Questo capello è come un catino rovesciato sopra la testa, e al di fuori sopraquella tela è tutto ricoperto di bellissime perle, …5

This first written reference is, however, outdated

by a painted depiction of a lady wearing the coif as

shown on a painted scroll of around 1680 or shortly

before!6

3 ROCKHILL 1891: 188, according to the Wei Tsang t’u-chih.4 Note that it is not even mentioned in the notes on women’s clothingin ZHWA-SGAB-PA I 73f. A very important kind of appendix devoted to“the sixteen different kinds of ornaments” – which includes our coif– can be found in YUTHOK 321-325.5 MITN III 18.

2

The second known written reference in a Western work

goes back to the year of 1828 when the Chuvash monk and

scholar, Archimendrite Hyacinthe (Iakinf) Bichurin

(=Nikita Jakovlevič Bičurin (1771-1822)), published his

Russian-language translation of the Chinese-language

monograph entitled Wei-Tsang-Tsang t’u-chih.7 Three years later

appeared a French annotated rendition of the Russian

translation by the German scholar, Heinrich Julius

Klaproth (1783-1835).8 In 1891, the great American

scholar-diplomat, William Woodhill Rockhill (1854-1914),

undertook an-other extensively annotated translation

based on the Chinese original. Over three and a half

decades ago, Dr Andrea Becker of Munich translated and

annotated a ‘very similar’ text in her doctoral thesis

(1976) which, unfortunately, is not up to Rockhill's

standard of almost a century before, as it contains not

too few inaccuracies.9

It is also a pity that so many foreigners who took

thousands of photographs of Tibet in the first half of

the 20th century or even earlier failed to take good

pictures of the coif itself – there are, of course, few

exceptions (see below). To my deep regret, important

photographic material was lost by two senior colleagues

in the late 1990s…

It is the purpose of the present paper to make our

colleagues aware of the existence of this special type of

6 TPS II 406, III plate J. Note that a separate study by the writerbased on a paper delivered, in 2004, at the Second InternationalConference on Tibetan Archaeology and Art, Beijing, is in progress.

3

coif, as in our eyes it has so far not received the

proper attention it deserves.

The coifs under study are half-globular-shaped

objects of little less than 20 (19.5±) cm height covered

with approximately 1,500 pearls arranged in over fifty

rows of various lengths. A round stepped medallion of cut

turquoise set in golden rings crowns the coif.10 Until

1959, this kind of coif was known in Lhasa as mu-tig thug-

khog [IPA (approx.): mudì· thūgɔ·].11 As mu-tig12 means “pearl”

from a pearl oyster,13 thug-khog must stand for some kind

of coif.14 However, the only references to be found in

modern (!) Tibetan dictionaries are to thug-khog, an

unglazed and urn-shaped earthen pot for boiling soup,

broth or gruel (thug-pa).15 -Khog itself stands for khog-ma

or rdza-khog, i.e. an earthen vessel for the same purpose16;

and, khog-chen refers to a large [earthen] pot in

general.17 It appears that the shape of the coif [of most

probable foreign origin (see below)] was seen as rather

similar to Tibetan earthen pots (cf. rdza-khog, etc.) and it

was, therefore, given a name that meant something to some

Tibetans. Note, however, that an important Tibetan-

Tibetan-Chinese dictionary lists the term, thod-sgor, and

explains it as a pearl head ornament in the shape of a

hat18; the Chinese explanation states that it is a “pearl

bun” (as of hair) or chignon (chen-chu chi) or an ornament

worn on the head by the noble women of old. It has,

apparently, nothing to do with the white round hat worn

during the lHa-mo plays called thod-kor.19 As I have been

4

unable to find any further reference to this apparently

“orthographic” spelling of the term and as my Tibetan

informants20 have never encountered the latter, I shall

continue to employ the spelling of thug-khog throughout

the following lines.

It appears also rather interesting to compare this

somewhat strange term for a coif – thug-khog – with

Oyirad-Mongol toô, i.e. pot, kettle, or cauldron.21 The

Classical Mongol form of this word is toua(n) or tou(n),

i.e. cooking pot.22 Also, the phonetic and semantic

resemblance of the two terms is striking too, to say the

least. Proof of this probable identification was shown,

in 1989, in an exhibition of Mongol art and artefacts at

the Haus der Kunst in Munich. There, a huge bronze

cauldron dated “Törü Gereltü 18th year”, which corresponds

to the 18th year of the Daoguang emperor, that is 1838,

was shown and identified as “togoo”.23 Its shape is

strikingly similar to our coifs and this type of cauldron

must have been the ‘model’ for shaping them. As will be

indicated below and has been done earlier,24 an Oyirad-

Mongol or ultimately Manchu connection is not out of

question.

According to the second-earliest reference to the

coif in a ‘Western’ (Russian) work (written by the above-

mentioned Buryad author), it was called by the Tibetans

”vaïdzia”25 which I am unable to reconstruct. Moreover, no

Chinese text consulted gives a Tibetan name for our coif.

5

I am, further, not able to decide whether mu-tig thod-

rgyan, roughly ‘pearl ornament for the head’, which used

to be worn by the wives (lha-lcam) of the heads (khri-chen)

of the princely house (sde-dpon/rgyal-phran [PL]) of lha rGya-

ri26 is another type of pearl coif (see below).

The coif was worn on top of27 the (‘pearl’ white)

“headgear” (mu-tig spa-phrug)28 only on very rare occasions

by Tibetan noble and other chosen women during certain

New Year’s29 and other important state ceremonies. The

latter women30 were known as rgyan-bzang-ma, “the ornate

one[s]”31, who used to be relations of the ya-sor spyi-khyab32

or members of their retinue (HR). The coifs were also

worn by brides from noble houses of Lhasa.33

As there are apparently no contemporary (17th to

early 20th centuries) written Tibetan-language sources

referring to our pearl coif,34 one has – as is so often

the case with Tibetan and other Oriental Studies35 – to

turn to contemporary (i.e. 18th-20th-century) Chinese-

language sources to find the earliest reference to the

coif. In the earliest Chinese monograph on Tibet under

the Ch’ing accessible to me, namely the Hsi-Tsang chih36 by

Chiao Ying-ch’i (ca. 1665–after 1736)37, reference is made

to a ‘pearl cap’ (chen-chu mao)38 which was worn by the rich

[wo-] men (‘people’). The author also presents the oldest

description of the coif known39 to which I shall come back

below.

Let me now compare two similar descriptions that

were written within a span of 270 years and complement

6

each other most beautifully. Both appear to have been

compiled down from memory or, perhaps, diaries.

According to a female member of the highest ranking

of Tibetan aristocracy of this century – who had herself

once worn the coif during certain important events (i.e.

between ca. 1930 and 1959) – it was shaped just like a

pot (khog) or a bowl which shape results from bending

thin bamboo strips as some kind of scaffolding within the

coif.40 It was covered with white cotton – the “fuori” of

the above-mentioned Italian missionary –, countless

pearls and a few turquoises.41 We are informed by the late

gYu-thog lha-lcam rDo-rje gYu-sgron (1912-1990s?) that

frameworks for the mu-tig thug-khog made of wood or (!?)

leather were purchased ready-made in the market(s of

Lhasa) and later decorated with precious stones by a

local jeweller.42 Note that also hats were made of open

weave bamboo frameworks, as is the case with the summer

hat for state occasions worn by high-ranking monks.43 It

is certainly interesting to note that the “material used

for Mongolian hats is plaited bamboo”, too (see below).44

According to the above-mentioned Chinese official

who, in 1720, visited Lhasa,45 the coif was made of a

wooden ring-shaped frame46 from which strips of bamboo

went up [or better: down?] like latitudes on a globe. The

inner side was thickly coated with red lacquer.47 Outside,

it was completely covered with pearls (according to a

modern count over 1,500)48 and on top one large turquoise

was fixed within a golden setting.49 At the time of the

7

visit (1720) it was estimated to be worth several

(“hundred[s of?]”) thousand gold pieces.50 It is

interesting to note that this Chinese description is much

more detailed than that of a lady who used to wear this

coif during her younger years in the first half of the

20th century. This may be due to the fact that such a coif

was no really extraordinary object in the noble lady’s

eyes.

Another “Chinese” resident who mentioned the coif

was an official of Mongol origin, namely the 165th Amban

of Tibet, Yu-t’ai (1846-1910)51, who, in describing the

events of the Tibetan New Year of 1906 (24 February52) in

his diaries, mentions a “domed”53 “hat” (mao) covered with

innumerable large and small pearls.54 This description

most certainly refers to our coif.

Another – more recent, yet pre-modern – description

outlines it as a dome-shaped headgear covered with strung

pearls and irregularly shaped turquoise beads, sur-

mounted with a cap of gold inlaid with turquoise. The

pearls are said to be strung with spaces between them.

Those nearer the top and at the bottom are larger, while

those in the middle portion are smaller. The whole head

ornament is lined with dyed red leather.55

In order to obtain a more detailed picture of this

important kind of jewellery, it may not be out of place

to present a list56 of the coifs known to us. Also, this

fragmentary list may help fellow students of Tibetan

8

culture to further my initial work on this special kind

of coif.

1. Coif depicted on a portrait of the Fifth Dalai Lama

painted, between 1672-1681.57

2. Coif(s) seen by Italian missionary in or shortly before

1713.58

3. Coif(s) seen by a Chinese official, in 1720, and

described, in or shortly after 1721.59

4. Pair of coifs probably dating back to or shortly before

1780 and preserved by the National Palace Museum (NPM),

Taipei. Height: 19.9 cm, diameter: 25.7 cm diameter.

According to a kind communication made by Ms Ge

Wanzhang [Ko Wan-chang] of the NPM, the coifs had been

stored without their own labels indicating their

origin. However, other antiques which had been stored

together with the coifs60 bear labels dated Ch’ien-lung

45, i.e. 1780, “when the Sixth Paṇ-chen visited Peking”.61

This would mean that probably the Paṇ-chen himself

presented the coif(s).62 Note that – apparently in

return – the emperor presented “a hat with a pearl

top”; see the appendix below.63 According to the legend

to the excellent colour photograph in KKFCHT no. 5

(=FCIS plate 96)64, this coif was that of a “Ch’ing-

dynasty high-ranking monk worn during certain religious

ceremonies” which was certainly not the case.65 Another

Chinese-English-language work on Buddhist art (FCIS no.

96) gives rather indigestible information about the

coif which accordingly was probably worn by the wives

9

of Tibetan “kings” [recte: emperors] who were the

religious as well as political leaders of Tibet.66 It

is, moreover, somewhat inconceivable that high-ranking

monks – like the Paṇ-chen rin-po-che or much later the

Dalai Lama – should present coifs, i.e. gifts for ladies,

to the emperors or rulers of China; the coifs were

probably meant to be presents for the rulers’ spouses

(see below).

5. Four coifs shown on several murals depicting the

Seventh and Thirteenth Dalai Lamas on the first floor

gallery of the main temple (dBu-rtse) of the monastery

of bSam-yas (photographs by JGK, somehow lost by Dr

Ronge).

6. Coif shown on a painted scroll most probably depicting

a Dalai Lama (or regent?) receiving gifts from Tibetan

officials, ladies and foreign emissaries dating most

probably from the late 19th century (formerly Collection

Pabel, now Völker-kundemuseum Munich).67 For a picture

of a lady wearing the coif see Figure 1 in

KARSTEN/RONGE 2010.

7. Coif (?), “crown-like head-dress, studded with precious

stones and numberless pearls of all sizes”, worn by the

then Pha-lha lha-lcam68, on 7 March 1882, at ‘Brong-rtse

(pho-brang) near rGyal-rtse (Gyantse).69

8. Coifs worn together with multi-coloured mantles by

noble women and the wives of officials, as of 1901.70

9. Coif worn by three *rgyan-bzang- or *dpal-gsol-ma, on 14

June (11th day of 5th month) 1901.71 The same source

10

mentions “princesses” who wore similar, yet much

smaller, coifs.72 I wonder whether the latter “coifs”

refer to the gtsug-g.yu thag-pa mentioned below, instead.

10. Coif (“cap made of small pearls”) seen, in 1901, by

the Japanese monk and traveller, Kawaguchi Ekai (1866-

1945).73

11. Coif(s) *of the rgyan-bzang-ma of the then ya-sor spyi-

khyab mentioned in a Chinese-language diary of a Mongol

Amban of Tibet entry dated 24 February 1906.74

12. “Sixteen different kinds of ornaments” including our

coif – apparently from the possession of the noble

house of gYu-thog75 – are mentioned, under the year of

1935, when gYu-thog (née Zur-khang) rDo-rje gYu-sgron

married into the noble house of gYu-thog.76 Note that

the house of gYu-thog became a member of the highest-

ranking aristocracy as late as the 1820s77, while the

house of Zur-khang is believed to go back to imperial

times (doubtful! [JGK]).78

13. Coif of the noble house of Phun-khang which, in late

1792 or very early 1793, became part of the highest

ranks of Tibetan nobility; thus the coif may at the

earliest date back to the early 1790s. Note that the

pearl coif is here worn by a maid on a red spa-phrug

which is rather surprising; it was, perhaps, just shown

to foreign visitors by one of the maids of the

household to demonstrate the object (Photograph Beger

1938).79

11

14. Coif of the rgyan-bzang-ma of the ya-sor spyi-khyab of

1943, either ‘Bri-yul Tshe-ring dBang-phyug (b. 1916)

or mTsho-sgo sKal-bzang dBang-phyug (b. 1905).80

Photograph Ilya Tolstoy 1943.81

15. Coif probably from the possession of the noble house

of Tsha-rong (originally named gYu-thog) worn – in the

second half of the 1940s or in 1950 – by Phreng-ring

(née Tsha-rong) Tshe-ring dByangs-‘dzom alias “Betty”

lags.82 From what can be seen on this somewhat blurred

photograph it appears that “Betty” lags is wearing the

pearl coif on top of a red spa-phrug, too (see above),

which would not really befit her... Photograph by

Heinrich Harrer (1940s).

16. Coif worn by a rgyan-bzang-ma, in the second half of

the 1940s or 1950. Photograph by Heinrich Harrer.

17. Coif worn by a girl disguised as a bride over a red

spa-phrug during the Byams-pa gdan-’dren ceremony83 at the

end of New Year. Photograph by Heinrich Harrer

(1940s).84

18. Coif of the rgyan-bzang-ma of the ya-sor spyi-khyab of

1949, Ru-thog rgyal-po rNam-rgyal dBang-’dud [sic] (1896-

1965?).85 Note the almost entirely hidden white spot

behind the spa-phrug of the rgyan-bzang-ma. Photography by

Hugh Richardson 1949.86

19. Coif worn by an unknown lady during the Dalai Lama’s

procession from the Potala Palace to Nor-bu gling-ka at

an unknown date in the 1950s.87

12

20. Two coifs (“baskets decorated with pearls”) worn by

the rgyan-bzang-ma in the last week of March 1954.88

21. Coif from the collection of the Fourteenth Dalai

Lama presented, in 1954, to Mao Tsetung (recte: Tzu-tung;

1893-1976) – or rather his wife – during the former’s

stay in Peking.89

22. Coif shown in BGTD III: “lha-lcam gyi chas” at the very

end, probably representing a coif still preserved in

Tibet.

23. Coif published in bKra-shis tshe-ring’s collection

of photographs from Tibet, 9th plate of “Tibetans”.90

24. Coif (or, perhaps, broad hat?) with red brim and

white (artificial?) pearls.91 This coif – of which there

is (as of 1999) a splendid and huge photograph hung in

the Gangpar (Gangs-par) Photo Studio below the Potala –

appears to resemble a Chinese wok rather than a Tibetan

cooking pot! During his stay in Lhasa, in March 2000,

Prof. Peter Schwieger of Bonn was told that this type

of coif was [that of noble ladies (JGK)] of gTsang. If

one, however, looks at the headgear of the gTsang

ladies, it becomes clear that for “technical” reasons

our pearl wok could never be attached to it. Note

further that the pearl wok “from gTsang” is worn on top

of the Lhasa headgear! Nevertheless, the wok is not a

hypertrophied modern version of our coif, as I have

believed for some time. A very similar headgear can be

found on the copy, from the 1920s, of a medical

painting of the late 17th century. On plate 45 of Tibetan

13

Medical Paintings (TMP I 106: fourth and ninth rows) four

women holding a baby can be seen. All of them wear wok-

shaped headgear on their head – without any other

headgear. If, as Fernand Meyer claims, the painting “is

a faithful facsimile of the original which were [sic]

created between 1687 and 1703”92, I may deduce that the

wok-type existed as early as the late 17th century.

25. According to the late Mr André Alexander [Teichman]

(1965-2012) there is also a pearl coif kept in a

generally inaccessible part of the Potala Palace (oral

communication Bloomington 1998; confirmation Lhasa

1999).

26. Coif of the lha rGya-ri family housed in the new

Tibet Museum (Bod-ljongs rten-rdzas-bshams mdzod-khang;

oral communications by Director rNam-rgyal, June 1999,

and Prof. Peter Schwieger, March 2000).93 According to

the latter it was formerly in the collection of the

Nor-bu gling-ka.

27. Pair of coifs, one from Lhasa and another from lHo-

brag (?).94

As I have discovered over two decades ago, many of

the events which involved the rgyan-bzang-ma and Lhasa-

Tibetan dress in general had some Oyirad-Mongol or even

more remote Manchu origin.95 This applies for instance to

some of the robes worn by important officials, such as

the winter court-robe known as khal-kha-gzugs worn by the ya-

sor khri-pa and other highest-ranking government officials

and the sleeveless over-caftans96 worn by the rgyan-bzang-ma

14

and noble ladies of the highest ranks over their phyu-pa

or chu-ba.97 From the excellent work done by Berthold

Laufer (1874-1934) exactly a century ago we know that a

common feature of (pre-Ch’ing?) Manchu imperial jewellery

was the combination of pearls with turquoise. The pearls

were originally river pearls from the Sunggari River98 in

former Manchuria and its tributaries. “They were chiefly

utilised on the crowns of the caps of the royal

princes, ...”99 A statement found in rDo-ring paṇḍita ’s

important biographical work of the early 1800s is to the

effect that, as the Oyirad-Mongol rulers used to wear

earrings made of pearl(s), the Tibetan government

officials got used to doing so, too.100

Note, further, that pearls are not at all mentioned

in Chab-spel’s important collection of Tibetan texts on

handiwork101 and, that by the end of the 17th century

jewellery made of (river-) pearls was often among the

presents given by Mongol noble ladies to the Dalai Lamas

or regents of Tibet.102

Much earlier – from the 1250s onwards – pearls were

rather popular among the Mongols who presented thang-kas

(painted or embroidered scrolls), clothes and documents

adorned with pearls to important Tibetan dignitaries.103

One is somehow or other reminded of the headdresses for

both noble women and men of early 14th-century Mongolia.104

However, reference is made also to the early use of

pearls in Tibet: Tradition claims that there existed a

robe embroidered with bean-sized pearls said to have been

15

made by one of the wives of the Srong-brtsan sgam-po emperor

and later – in the 1950s [sic] – used to be worn during

the annual harvest festival.105

Note that during the 18th and 19th centuries corals

and pearls – let us keep in mind that Tibetan mu-tig, i.e.

pearl, derives from Sanskrit muktikā106 – were also traded

by Hindu trading pilgrims (gosain), together with conch

shells, silks, brocade[d silk]s, indigo, and tobacco.107

However, it seems that the traders only reached gZhis-ka

rtse [Shigatse] in gTsang from where the pearls easily

reached Lhasa.108 And, in 1791, a Chinese author claimed

that “foreign merchants are turbaned Mahommedans, who

sell pearls and precious stones, ...”.109

As seen above, our coifs as well as Tibetan hats of

Mongol origin and Mongol hats have certain features in

common: bamboo as a framework, red parts, and not

necessarily Tibetan-language terms. I, therefore, suspect

that parts of the robes and accessories including the

coif worn by the rgyan-bzang-ma and others are of Manchu

origin through Oyirad-Mongol mediation. Unfortunately, no

proper proof for this hypothesis can as yet be found.

APPENDIX

‘Lost in Translation’:

On Two “Pearl Hats” Presented, in 1780, by the Ch’ien-lung Emperor

To the then Paṇ-chen rin-po-che

As mentioned briefly under coif no. 4, the Ch’ien-lung

emperor presented in return (hui-tz’u) two pearl hats to the

16

then Paṇ-chen who had presented two (!) pearl coifs to

the former’s two most important spouses. The written

Tibetan-language records and their translations into

Chinese and English have somewhat gone astray and nearly

led me to a number of wrong conclusions in the course of

my research.

Unfortunately, the only primary source on one of the

pearl hats is available – at least to me – in Chinese

translation, only. In an undated letter written, in the

sixth month,110 by the then Paṇ-chen to the emperor of

China, the former expresses his thanks for several

presents. Among them a “pearl crown for a scholar” (?

“chen-chu t’ung-jen kuan”) is listed.111 The presentation of

the gifts is also recorded in the Paṇ-chen’s hagiography.

There we read of various gifts made at three different

times.112 The first pearl hat is referred to as “dbu-zhwa

mu-tig gi phra-ldan gcig”,113 i.e. “hat with one pearl” or “one

hat with pearl ornament”, while the second hat finds

mention as “paṇ-zhwa114 mu-tig gi phra-ldan”, i.e. a “Pundit’s hat

with pearls”.115 This reference corresponds to the pearl

hat for a scholar mentioned in the Paṇ-chen’s letter

referred to above. The Chinese translation of the Third

Paṇ-chen’s hagiography renders our first pearl hat as

“chen-chu mao-tzu”,116 i.e. pearl hat, and the second as “chen-

chu shih liang-mao”,117 i.e. ‘cool’ (=summer (!)) hat adorned

with pearls, and the relevant entry in the same

hagiography118 is translated in TLPC 547 as “chen-kuei ti chen-

chu shih liang-mao”, i.e. ‘summer (!) hat [adorned with]

17

precious pearls´’. The latter pearl hat is rendered by Ya

Han-chang (1916-1989) as “chen-chu liang-mao”,119 i.e. pearl

summer (!) hat,120 while the Tibetan translation of the

latter renders the term in question as “mu-tig ‘tshem-drub-

ma’i dbu-zhwa leng-rma’o”,121 i.e. liang-mao hat122 “embroidered”

with pearls; the English translation of the Chinese

original refers to it as “pearl hat for summer”.123 As

can be seen from these ‘escapades in translation’, some

Chinese translators were unaware of the employment of the

above-mentioned chen-chu mao for our pearl coif and misused

it for a totally different kind of hat. This misuse has

deflected much of my research for some considerable time.

A third pearl hat is mentioned in the same hagiography as

“mu-tig gi phra-ldan dbu-zhwa”, i.e. hat apparently also with one

or more pearl(s).124

The references of the Third Paṇ-chen’s hagiography

to the first and second hats have been copied with slight

changes into the History of Buddhism in Mongolia by Dam-chos

rGya-mtsho (fl. 1880s) where we find “dbu-zhwa mu-tig gi phra-

ldan gcig”125 (see above) and “mu-tig ṭog [sic] can gyi dbu-zhwa”,126

i.e. hat with a pearl top. In Piotr Klafkowski’s English-

language translation, these two expressions are

translated as “a hat embroidered [sic] with pearls”127 and

“a hat with a pearl top”.128

To make things worse, the great Pundit, Sarat

Chandra Das (1849-1917), published his renditions

(certainly not: translations) of the entries to a pearl

hat in the Paṇ-chen’s hagiography in some of his outdated

18

works well over a century ago. During his stay at Taika

(~T’ai-ho [tien?] within the ‘Forbidden City’ in

Peking?), the Paṇ-chen is said to have received an

imperial letter “accompanied by a Lama crown studded with

pearls, …”129 Later, during his stay at Dolonor (Mongol:

Doluan Naur) he was, on the emperor’s 69th birthday in

the autumn of 1780, presented with a “yellow satin hat,

the top of which was adorned with a pearl as large and

regular as a hen’s egg.”130

From the above it appears that the pearl hat

presented to the Third Paṇ-chen may very well have been

similar to a splendid hat formerly worn by the Fourteenth

Dalai Lama and photographed, in the mid-1950s, by one or

two Czech journalists.131 This hat is similar in shape to

a hat made of palm-fibre (? tsung-mao) from the middle

ages.132

Now, as to “summer hat”, I have no idea as to how

the translators came to ‘date’ our hat. I wonder whether

it is probably because both hats were presented in the

(late) summer of 1780. Or, could it just be a mistake in

the understanding of paṇ-zhwa?

Another hat has virtually ‘crept’ in our medley of

coifs and hats: In a recent article mu-tig brgyan-pa’i dbu-

zhwa, i.e. hat adorned with pearls,133 is mentioned. I am at

present unable to identify this type of hat. Note that

the Tibetan reference appears to be a translation of an

originally Chinese term (*chen-chu shih liang-mao, see above).

19

ABREVIATIONS & BIBLIOGRAPHY134

AN Hsü: Bod rigs kyi rgyan gos sgyu rtsal / Art of Tibetan Costume andOrnaments/ Tsang-tsu fu-shih i-shu 藏藏藏藏藏藏, Peking 1988.135

BECKER, Andrea: Eine chinesische Beschreibung von Tibet aus dem 18.Jahrhundert, München 1976.

BELL, Charles (1875-1945): The People of Tibet, Oxford 1928. BERGER, Patricia & Terese Tse BARTHOLOMEW: Mongolia the

Legacy of Chinggis Khan, London/San Francisco 1995.

134 Unfortunately, one very recent work could not be consulted duringthe writing of the above notes: Chen-pao (Precious Things), Chao-huaPublishing House, Peking 1999. According to NGAPOI 3 it containsphotographs and commentaries of 115 documents and “historicalrelics”. I am unable to say whether NGAPOI’s “crown inlaid with gems”(p. 6) refers to our coif.135 My thanks are due to the late André Alexander [Teichman 1965-2012]of Berlin/Lhasa for having put this work at my disposal during mystay in Lhasa.7 BIČURIN 1828: 149.8 KLAPROTH 1829: 246 n. 1: vaïdzia alias Chinese li 藏 . For a noteconcerning the value of Klaproth’s translation (of the Russiantranslation/rendition [by Bičurin] of the Chinese original) seeROCKHILL 2.9 BECKER 93 f., 232 n. 50; see my rather unfortunate review inZentralasiatische Studien 14/2 (1980) 247-251.10 For a somewhat similar medallion see SINGER 109: 37.11 PL; BKDT 18; BGDT 2101; YUTHOK 322; DODIN 118.12 For a note on the etymology of the term – based on a fifteenth-century dictionary, the Li shi’i gur khang (LSGK 20), – see LAUFER 1916:454 no. 30. For the etymology of this term from an Indological pointof view see HARA 168f. n. 1 and the literature cited.13 Note that in Tibet seven kinds of pearls were known “some of whichare fabulous, others real” (TED 967a.) For more on pearls in Indiasee also CDKC 459 and CLARKE passim. Pearls also reached Tibet fromIndia (see PETECH 1950: 336).It may be worthwhile recalling that a member of the imperial familyof Tibet bore the name of Mu-tig* (“pearl”) btsan-po.Note further the term for another kind of pearl, namely mu-thi-la ormu-thi-li, i.e. pearl from the north-eastern part of China, Manchuria(BGTD 2102). According to the quintoglot dictionary it stands forManchu and Mongol tana (WTCWC 65a/3106 = 11687; see alsoBRETSCHNEIDER II 125). Thus, mu-tig would correspond to Mongol subud;for both see note 98 below.* Also Mu-rub, Mu-rug; see among many SØRENSEN 1994: 407 n. 1403.14 It appears that DODIN 119 does not fully understand the differencesbetween “spa-thug”* (“Kopfputz”) and “thu-khog”** (“Käppchen”).According to the author thug-khog is a spa-phrug without (sic!) pearlswhich is not correct at all. The former was merely a precious

20

BGTD: CHANG I-sun (ed.): Bod rgya tshig mdzod chen mo Tsang Hanta tz’u-tien 藏 藏 藏 藏 藏 (Tibetan-Tibetan-Chinese Dictionary),three volumes, Peking 1985, 1986.

BIČURIN, Archeminite Hyacinthe (1771-1822): Opisanie tibeta vnyneshnem ego sostojanii, Sanktpeterburg (sic) 1828.

BJND: Bod ljongs gnas bdus, Hsi-Tsang kai-k’uang, A Survey of Tibet, n.p. (Lhasa?) 1987.

BKDT: SHAN-KHA-BA ‘Gyur-med bSod-nams sTobs-rgyas (1896-1967), ed. by Thub-bstan Sangs-rgyas (1910-1990s): Bod kyidus ston (Festivals of Tibet); full title: Bod ljongs rgyalkhab chen po’i snag srol lo re’i gzhung ‘grel dga’ ston gyi mdzad chen rnams

accessory of the latter. Note that thug-khog is also mentioned in MGLG19.* Recte: spa-phrug.** Recte: thug-khog. DODIN appears to follow BKDT 18.15 BGTD II 1163.16 TED 152.17 JÄSCHKE 43.18 BGTD 1195: “sngar bod kyi lha lcam tsho’i mgo rgyan mu tig las bzos pa’i zhwa mo ltabu zhig”.19 BGTD 1194.20 According to one informant thod-sgor appears rather to be a circletleaving the skull uncovered (PK) which appears correct.21 KRUEGER III 300; cf. also Ordos-Mongol t’og<ô (MOSTAERT II 664, 676).22 LESSING 817; cf. RAMSTEDT 1949: 270 (cf. Qalq-a “t’ogōɒ”) after GALE1911: 235: Sino-Korean (?) “togani” (‘crucible for metal or glue’).23 HEISSIG/MÜLLER 1989 Catalogue 42f. No. 58.24 See KARSTEN 1983 passim.25 BIČURIN 149; KLAPROTH 1828: 246; ROCKHILL 188; BECKER 93f. I wonderwhether “vaïdzia” could be a corrupt Russian transcription [by aChuvash author] of the Chinese transcription of Tibetan *wa-zhwa, i.e.fox fur head which head was worn by high-ranking lay officials duringimportant events such as New Year, etc. Note that no terms similar to“vaïdzia” can be found in the Chinese original.26 GRLG 49. Thod-rgyan is also mentioned in TED 593 and BGTD 1195,which latter dictionary merely explains as head ornament. For a somewhat outdated account on the noble house of lha rGya-ri see KARSTEN 1980: 163-168. For another more recent and ratherdetailed account (in Tibetan) see GRLG passim.28 There were in Lhasa – from an unknown date until 1959 – two typesof hair-dresses known as spa-phrug*: one red type and a white one.**Among the latter were evidently several types of white “headgears”:mu-tig spa-phrug (ZHWA-SGAB-PA I 73; GLANG-MDUN 43), mu-tig dbu-phrug, andmu-tig thod-rgyan (GRLG 49). The red ”headgear” was known as g.yu-byur spa-phrug, as it was covered with both coral and turquoise,*** only(ZHWA-SGAB-PA I 73; SSLG 141; YUTHOK 321 no. 1 (1)). The whiteheadgear is identical with the headgear “bedecked with pearls,turquoises, and corals on a wooden framework.” (BELL 1928: 21). Foran interesting note about the mu-tig spa-phrug see YUTHOK 189.

21

dang/ rgyal sa lha sa’i dus ston khag g[i] lo rgyus rdzogs ldan lang tsho,Dharamsala 1974.

BLACK, C.E.D.: “New British Markets II Tibet”, in: TheNineteenth Century 38/1 (1895) 247-260.

BRETSCHNEIDER, E.: Medieval Researches from Eastern Asiatic Sources,two volumes, London 1910.

CAMMAN, Schuyler (1912-1991): “The Panchen Lama’s Visitto China in 1780: An Episode in Anglo-TibetanRelations”, in: The Far Eastern Quarterly IX (1949) 3-19.

~ Trade through the Himalayas, Princeton 1951.

For rather early photographs of two white headgears see LAUFER1913 (Turquoise) plates III und IV. Note further that the hugeheadgear worn by the women of gTsang is known as spa-phrug spa-sgor****(ZHWA-SGAB-PA I 73). For a good depiction dating from 1908 see LAUFER1913: plate I.*The earliest reference to this term known to me can be found, underthe year of 1775, in DRNT 254. Another spelling is spa-drug (DAGYAB437). sPa-mjug in the French translation of TSYBIKOV 113, 320, 324,appears to be pulled out of thin air. “Pa drug” (recte: spa-drug) inMÜLLER/RAUNIG 163 is incorrect, too. Note that a spa-drug (zur-gsum)(*triangle-shaped headgear) is mentioned in DTKP 20a which referencedates back to the days of the Tibetan empire of the 7th to 9th

ceturies!** I wonder what kind of head gear was the spa-phrug ljang-khu, i.e. thegreen headgear mentioned in an undated petition (probably mid-19thcentury) from Kun-bde gling (KDL Doc. 40).*** I wonder, again, whether this is supposed to be identical withthe rin-po-che’s brgyan-pa’i cod-pan***** shown in SU’O 12 which, of course,shows our mu-tig thug-khog, instead.**** sPa-gos in TSYBIKOV 324 appears somewhat strange, too; “sgor”reminds one of the final syllable as in wa-sgor – also: wa-sgir/kir******– a round fur hat, for which see KARSTEN 1983: 138f., and SHAN-KHA-BA 1984: 15, 24.***** Cod-pan, here, refers to a precious cap or crown (BGTD 736).****** For an early (1796) reference to “wa-nag gid-ko” see TT8: 440.29 Such a pearl coif was also worn by a girl in a procession behind animage of Maitreya during the festival known as Byams-pa gdan-’dren. See a photograph of the girl by Heinrich Harrer in HUMMEL 1961: 42f.n. 25; for more about the procession see RICHARDSON 1993: 52-55 andKARSTEN 1983: 125.30 To the best of my knowledge there were – during early twentieth-century New Year festivals – only two rgyan-bzang-ma (KARSTEN 1983:135; note that SHAN-KHA-BA 1984: 18 mentions a “junior” rgyan-bzang-ma; thus, there must have also been a *senior rgyan-bzang-ma)employed. However, in 1788, under the 22nd day of the ninth month orshortly later, 21 rgyan-bzang-ma* are mentioned (DRNT 519) and, underthe year of 1797, seven rgyan-bzang-ma, apparently maids of a noblelady, are mentioned (DRNT 1105), too. The earliest references to thisterm in a Tibetan source known to me is under Tibetan New Year of

22

CAMMAN, Schuyler V.R.: “The Making of Dragon Robes”, in:T'oungPao 40/4-5 (1951) 297-321.

CHAB-SPEL Tshe-brtan Phun-tshogs and others (eds.): bZorig nyer mkho bdams bsgrigs (Collection of Ancient Books andRecords Concerning Tibetan Handicraft), n. p. (Lhasa)1990.

CDKC: SANGS-RGYAS RGYA-MTSHO (1653-1705): mChod sdong‘dzam gling rgyan gcig rten gtsug lag khang dang bcas pa’i dkar chag thargling rgya mtshor bgrod pa’i gru rdzings byin rlabs kyi bang mdzod

1788 (DRNT 538). SGLG 141 is evidently not aware of the differencebetween rgyan-bzang-ma and khrung-zhu-ma; therefore, one “first” and twoother rgyan-bzang-ma are referred to. For more on the khrung-zhu-ma seeKARSTEN 1983: 133. Note that the statement given in MÜLLER/RAUNIG 163to the effect that rgyan-bzang-ma means ‘pearl crown’ is due to someinexplicable misunderstanding.* I am not sure whether these ladies had anything to do with thoseknown as dpal-gsol-ma, for who see YUTHOK 202 f., and also followingnote.27 Note that, as the spa-phrug (for which see next note) underwentconsiderable changes during the last centuries, the coif originallyappears to have covered the head itself or a much smaller “ancestor”of the modern spa-phrug, as can be seen on murals at bSam-yas (asphotographed by myself in 1999). Apparently only in recent decades –until 1959 – the coif had been worn upon the spa-phrug. A study on the(Mongol?) origin and development of the spa-phrug in Tibet by theauthor (JGK) is in progress.31 The earliest references to this term known to me are 1) under the21st day of the 12th month of 1696, i.e. early 1697 (DL6, 156b) and 2)under New Year of 1788 (DRNT 538 = GZMR 451: dpal-gsol* rgyan-bzang-marnams); note that, under the year of 1797, the same source mentionsseven rgyan-bzang-ma, apparently maids of a noble lady (DRNT 1105=GZMR933), and, under the year of 1791, ‘many’ (mang-po) are mentioned,too (DRNT 805). Note further that the Chinese translation of DRNTrenders rgyan-bzang-ma as ‘splendidly decorated women’ (TJPC 235; seealso BGTD 545) and merely as ‘beautiful women’ (TJPC 491). For moreon the rgyan-bzang-ma see KARSTEN 1983: 135; BSHADSGRA 141; SHAN-KHA-BA 1984 passim; DODIN 118f.; TSEPAK RIGZIN 16; RICHARDSON 1993: 31;GLANG-MDUN 41; SHUGUBA 159, etc. The “ancestor” of our rgyan-bzang-mamay well be the bud-med rgyan-bzang-pos brgyan-pa of the second third ofthe fourteenth century mentioned in SKDR 397. Note that a fourteenth-century historical work mentions “twenty-five beautiful maidens” who,around 640, accompanied the Wen-ch’eng Princess 藏藏藏藏 (d. 680) on herway from Ch’ang-an (now: Hsi-an [Xi’an]) to Lhasa (SØRENSEN 1994:234, 244=GSML 47a/96, 51a/103). For a photograph of a post-liberationrgyan-bzang-ma see GLANG-MDUN 44.* This is a contraction of dpal-lha’i gzab-gsol, the “Brilliant Invocationof the Glorious Goddess [by the monks of the monastery of rMe-ru andthe rgyan-bzang-ma]”, as mentioned in RICHARDSON 1993: 30. For another

23

(History and Catalogue of the Fifth Dalai Lama’s Stupa;completed in 1701), Hsi-ning 1990.

CHOU Hsün and KAO Ch’un-ming: Chung-kuo fu-shih wu-ch’ien nien(5.000 Years of Costumes in China), Hong Kong 1984.

CK2: CHU-BZANG III Ngag-dbang Thub-bstan dBang-phyug(1725-1796): rDo rje ‘chang lcang skya rol pa’i rdo rje ye shes bstan pa’isgron me dpal bzang po rnam par thar pa dad pa’i padmo rnam par ‘byedpa nyi ma ‘od zer (Hagiography of lCang-skya II Rol-pa’irdo-rje, 1717-1786), published in KÄMPFE.

reference to this ceremony – under the year of 1788 – see DRNT 538.32 For more on these officials see KARSTEN 1983: 117-149; DODIN 115;and RICHARDSON 1993: 31-58.33 YUTHOK 322.34 Note that it is not listed among the twenty-odd pieces of jewelleryworn during the wedding of a noble bride, in 1775 (DRNT 254f.).35 See the important studies by Paul Pelliot and Berthold Laufer, aswell as those by Professors Luciano Petech, Satō Hisachi andYamaguchi Zuihō.36 For a very brief note on this text see PETECH 1972: 7 n. 1. Notethat the description of the pearl coif has its locus classicus in thisvery work at fol. 43a-b; this description has been copied into theWTSL (“1262”=BECKER 1976: 93f.) and accordingly into the WTTC(=BIČURIN 149; KLAPROTH 1829: 246; ROCKHILL 1891: 225) as well asother texts.37 Chiao Ying-ch’i was Prefect of Ching-yang in Shan-hsi, in 1711. In1715 – during the campaigns of the Dzungar ruler, Cevang Arabdan(1697-1727) –, he was sent to work in Hami. Two years later, in 1717,he went to Hsi-ning in the company of prince Yün-t’i (1688-1755) aliasYin-t’i* where they met the infamous Nien Keng-yao (1665-1735)** inconnection with the Seventh Dalai Lama (see SHEN 1-3).* The latter should not be confused with his brother, prince Yin-t’i(1672-1734); see ECCP 929f.** For a biographical sketch see ECCP 587-590.38 Note that chen-chu mao is also the term employed in TS’AI 15 legendto plate 7. ROCKHILL 1891: 225 speaks of a “pearl-set cap” whichcorresponds to BECKER’s “perlenbesetzter Hut” (p. 93).39 HTC 1721 I 43a-b.40 Note that the “material used for Mongolian hats is plaited bamboo”(HANSEN 204).41 YUTHOK 322. It is described as ‘round as a lid’ in YTJC 11/21b.Note that the headgear of the women of mNga’-ris is also studded withpearls and turquoises (HTIS plate 1).42 YUTHOK 185.43 See THURMAN/WELDON 76f. no. 33.44 HANSEN 204.45 HTC 1721 I 43a-b.46 ROCKHILL 1891: 25: “... with a wooden crown like a li straw hat...”;BECKER 93 translates somewhat incorrectly as “aus einem ausgehölten

24

CLARKE, John: “Hindu Trading Pilgrims”, in: Alex MCKAY(ed.): Pilgrimage in Tibet, Richmond 1998: 52-70.

CLAUSON, Gerald: “Three Mongolian Notes”, in: WalterHEISSIG (ed.): Collectanea Mongolica, Asiatische Forschungen17, Wiesbaden 1966: 29-34.

CLEAVES, Francis Woodman (1911-1995): “The Sino-MongolInscription in Memory of Jigüntei”, HJAS 14 ½ (1951) 1-104.

~ “Tomuγa/T’o-mu-hua”, HJAS 17 ¾ (1954) 445-452.

Stück Holz gearbeitet”, instead.47 Note that also Mongol hats had red linings inside (HANSEN 239 no.276). Note further that, according to one Tibetan informant, the latePha-lha Thub-bstan ‘Od-ldan (1910-1985), all “Tibetan” hats havingred parts are of Mongol (sog-po) origin. See KARSTEN 1983: “Glossary”.48 TSAI 1994: 15. For another unidentified piece of jewellery from thelate seventeenth century made of 1,080 pearls see CDKC 495.49 Compare the remarks on the gtsug-g.yu thag-pa (see below) in YUTHOK322: “Placing a turquoise on top of the bride’s head is an ancientTibetan custom”. gTsug-g.yu is also mentioned in the description of theFifth Dalai Lama’s Stūpa from the very early 1700s (CDKC 472, 473,474, 475, 632). For more on turquoise in Tibetan bridal customs seeSARAT CHANDRA DAS’s Marriage Customs of Tibet, 12 (not seen) as quoted inLAUFER 1913: 15, and other works cited in the latter study. For otherpearl objects see CDKC 476-485; reddish or pink pearls are mentionedon page 485 of the latter work (cf. also TMP 217 no. 47).50 HTC I 43a-b.; note that TSAI 1994: 15, incorrectly ascribes thisdescription to Huang P’ei-ch’iao’s Hsi-Tsang t’u-k’ao of 1886 (HTTK 6/20b)which merely copies HTC in a slightly different manner, instead, asdoes WTTC/ROCKHILL 1891: 225: “... pearl-set cap with a wooden crownlike a li straw hat, but thick; inside it is varnished red, outside itis inlaid with gold and has a turquoise on the top. All around thecrown there is a row of pearls*. Some of these hats cost a thousand(tranka) lit. “pieces of money.” For a German translation of thesimilar passage according to the Wei-Tsang shih-lüeh see BECKER 93f. Notethat her relevant endnote incorrectly identifies our coif withcertain type of monk’s hats, instead.*Recte: ...“are rows of pearls”; note that there is no plural inWritten ‘Classical’ Chinese.51 For some important dates see KOLMAŠ 1994: 63 no. 165, and WU 1938III chüan 1.52 On the calculation of this very date see LAUFER 1913: 562 n. 1.53 Note that the Amban’s description in his diaries is at timessurprisingly childish and, therefore, difficult to translate intoproper ‘adult’ English. My thanks go to Chou San-yu (Zhou Sanyou) ofRanui (Auckland) for her help in understanding difficult parts of thediaries.54 YTJC 11/11a. The size of the pearls (from Manchuria?) is alsodiscussed in LAUFER 1913: 62 n. 2. For other large pearls see below.

25

CPLC: HSÜ K’o (fl. 1900s-1925): Ch’ing-pai lei-ch’ao(Collection of Miscellanies of the Ch’ing Dynasty,compiled in 1916), 13 volumes, Peking 1982.

CLSL: Kao-tsung Ch'un huang-ti shih-lu (Veritable Records of theCh'ien-lung Emperor), comp. by CH'ING Kuei (1735-1816),WANG Chieh (1725-1805), TUNG Kao (1740-1818), CHU Kuei(1731-1807) and NAYANCENG (1764-1833), [Peking 1799-1807], photomechanical reprint Tokyo 1937.

DAS, Sarat Chandra (1849-1917): “Contributions on theReligion and History of Tibet”, in: Journal of the Asiatic

55 KKFCHT 71f. sub 5. 56 I am very well aware of the fact that some fellow scholars will notbe ‘amused’ about my love – if not passion – for lists, as in thecourse of my doctoral work I have experienced negative criticism fromdoctoral advisors and supervisors. I do, however, believe that afterall these lists will help all of us to get a clearer idea aboutcertain features of Tibetan (or any other) culture. Moreover, asTibetan culture has suffered much terrible losses during the lastfour decades, these fragmentary lists may often represent historicalevidence or documentation.57 A study by the author on the date of the very painted scroll is in progress (see note 6 above).58 MITN III 18.59 HTC 1721 I 43a-b.60 See also FCIS Chinese-language legend to no. 96 which apparentlypoints to a connection to the pieces nos. 93-95.61 Letter by Ms Ge Wanzhang, Taipei, dated 31 March 1998. The visit ofthe Paṇ-chen was studied in detail in CAMMAN 1949; for a more recentaccount see CAMMAN 1951: 69-80.62 To the best of my knowledge no references to the presentation of acoif appear in either PC3, CLSL, YHIG or CSSL. 63 PCTA 201 no. 271 (document from 6th month of 1780); PC3 II 135b (=LGYT 1989: 264), 137a; CK2, 109b=KÄMPFE Plate 55: reference topresents without specification; HCB 1987 307; DAS 1882, 66f; DAS1893=1965, [23]; YA 1987: 133; YA 1992: 280; YA 1994: 147; TLPC 547;LOO 118 has, unfortunately, not translated the details about thepresents.64 For another photograph see TS’AI 1994: 15 plate 7.65 A similar mistake can be found in BECKER 232 n. 50 where the coifis believed to be identical with certain hats for high-ranking monks.Note that, in the 1880s and 1890s, Sarat Chandra Das (1849-1917)referred to the pearl hat mentioned in the appendix below as “Lamacrown studded with pearls” (DAS 1882/1970: 66/130; DAS 1893/1965[23]); see appendix below.66 FCIS Legend to plate 96.67 MÜLLER/RAUNIG 163. Private collection of Hilmar and Romy Pabel, D-Ratzing.68 She was a daughter of Zur-khang mda’-dpon bSod-nams dBang-chen (d.1901); see DAS 1885: 152. For a biographical sketch of the father see

26

Society of Bengal L (1881) 187-251; LI (1882) 1-85, 87-128;reprinted, in 1970, by Virendra Kumar, BibliothecaHimalayica III/I, New Delhi 1970.

~ Indian Pandits in the Land of Snow, edited by Nobin ChandraDas, Calcutta 1893; reprinted and introduced by NirmalChandra Sinha, Calcutta 1965.

~ W[illiam] W[oodville] ROCKHILL (ed.): Journey to Lhasa andCentral Tibet, London 1904.

CSSL: WU Han (comp.): Ch’ao-hsien Li-ch’ao shih-lu <Chosŏn Yijo sillok>chung-ti Chung-kuo shih-liao (Historical Materials Concerning

PETECH 1972: 150.69 BLACK 252. Note that on page 119 in the 1902-edition of DAS 1885 aswell as the edition of 1904 pg. 161 the coif is described somewhatdifferently as “crown-shaped ornament studded with precious stonesand pearls of every size.” The accompanying photograph does not showPha-lha lha-lcam but the queen of Sikkim, lHa-sdings Ye-shes sGrol-maalias sKal-bzang sGrol-ma, who, in 1882, married king mThu-stobs rNam-rgyal (1860-1914).70 TSYBIKOV 113f.71 TSYBIKOV 156.72 TSYBIKOV 156.73 KAWAGUCHI 473.74 YTJC 11/11a.75 For a history of the family see PETECH 1973: 28-32; for interestingnotes about the origin of the family see YUTHOK 28ff.76 YUTHOK 188 with indirect reference to page 142.77 PETECH 1973: 28 f.78 PETECH 1973: 144 ff.; YUTHOK 28f.79 I am indebted to Mr Hans Roth M.A. of Bonn, for having drawn myattention to this rare photograph.80 For biographical sketches see PETECH 1973: 140 (mTsho-sgo), andKARSTEN 1983: 130 notes 75, 76.81 TUNG plate 110, TTSR 111, and YUTHOK 27th plate.82 For the identification see PETER 1963: 436 + table 42 and TARING1970: 275.83 Note that HUMMEL 1961: 44 n. 25 has confounded this with the gtor-rgyab ceremony. For some notes on this ceremony see RICHARDSON 1993:31ff. and KARSTEN 1983: 125. Its origin may go back to New Year’sDay, 1409, when Tsong-kha-pa held the first Maitreya Festival; seeChö-yang I/2 (1987) 94f., BERGER/BARTHOLOMEW 62, 74 n. 58, 174f. nos.42, 43.84 HUMMEL 1961: 42n. 2585 For a biographical sketch see KARSTEN 1983: 131 n. 80.86 See the photograph taken, in 1949, by Hugh Richardson published inRICHARDSON 1993: 32, and ZWALF 136 plate 79.87 THONDUP photograph at bottom of page 71.88 SHUGUBA 150.89 See the photographs in SU’O 12 and Chen-pao. For accompanyingpresents see also op. cit. 15.

27

China in the Veritable Records of the Yi-Dynasty ofKorea), 13 volumes, Peking 1980.

DL5: DALAI LAMA V Ngag-dbang Blo-bzang rGya-mtsho (1617-1682): Za hor gyi ban de ngag dbang blo bzang rgya mtsho’i ‘di snang‘khrul pa’i rol rtsad rtogs brjod kyi tshul du bkod pa du ku la’i gos bzang(Autobiography), 3 volumes, written in 1665, 1676 and1681 respectively, n. p. (Lhasa); modern reprint in 3volumes, Hsi-ning 1991.

DL6: SANGS-RGYAS RGYA-MTSHO (1653-1705): Thams cad mkhyenüa drug pa blo bzang rin chen tshangs dbyangs rgya mtsho’i thun mong

90 A slightly enlarged copy of this photograph can be found on thecover of Krung go'i bod ljongs 1999/4 (no. 37)91 BJND 130; see also AN 62(1). A drawing of the same can be found inTSCN 291.92 TMP I 1, 6.93 Note that this coif is apparently not mentioned in the history ofthe family; see GRLG passim.94 FCPS 11.95 See KARSTEN 1983 passim.96 For good descriptions and photographs of Mongol over-caftans seeHANSEN 77-89. A study of the court-robes and the sleeveless over-caftans worn by Tibetan noble women will be published in the farerfuture. Note that the latter is very similar to the over-caftan wornby the wives of high-ranking Manchu and Mongol aristocrats andofficials of the 19th-to-20th centuries.97 Note that a study on Arab and Persian loanwords in Tibetan by thepresent writer is in progress.98 Cf. the “bastard pearls” (MARKHAM 125) which are identified as“probably freshwater pearls from the Sunggari” (CAMMAN 1951: 60).99 LAUFER 1913: 62 n. 2; HAUER 1926: 621 note 16; TY 759: “pei-chu”(“northern pearls”) or “tung-chu” (“eastern pearls”) were pearls fromthe Sunggari, en vogue during the Liao and Chin dynasties (907-1125,1115-1234). Note that the Chinese considered the combination ofturquoise and pearls as bad taste (LAUFER 1913: 31).100 SPERLING 1998: 329.101 See CHAB-SPEL passim.102 CDKC 615ff., 846: reference to an official (of probably Mongoldescent) from Northern Tibet (Ngam-ru). Note that, in 1268, theMongol emperor, Qubilayi, presented ‘Phags-pa with a pearl as largeas a piece of dung from a camel’s foal (sic; see SCHMIDT 1829: 117; inSAGANG SEČEN 1985: 141 Walther Heissig renders as “vollkommeneundurchlöcherte Perle von der Größe eines Taubeneis” (i.e. perfect[and] ‘hole-less’ pearl of the size of the egg of a pigeon, instead!See his explanation pg. 493 note 16). The pearl was originally a giftby Qubilayi’s father-in-law, *Surγatu Marγaja of the Merkit tribefrom the area of River Selenga* (SCHMIDT 1829: 119) south (-west) ofLake Baikal and north (-east) of Uliyasutayi in the northern part ofMongolia (HANSEN 282f.). For another early reference to pearls inconnection with Yüan-dynasty Mongols see SKDR 67 (under the year of

28

phyi’i rnam par thar pa dukùla’i ‘phro ‘thud rab gsal gser gyi snye mo(Hagiography of the Sixth Dalai Lama), n. p. (Lhasa)1700s.

DTKP: DGE-’DUN CHOS-’PHEL (1903-1951): Bod chen po’i srid lugsdang ‘brel ba’i rgyal rabs deb ther dkar po (History of ImperialTibet), Lhasa (Hor-khang) n. d. (1940s).

DODIN, Thierry: Das Fest des Jahreswechsels in Lhasa, unpublishedMA thesis, University of Bonn 1987.136

DOERFER, Gerhard: Türkische und mongolische Elemente imNeupersischen, Veröffentlichungen der Orientalischen

1244) as quoted in LGYT 1986: 187, and SKDR 93 (1253) as quoted inLGYT 1986: 206; see furthermore LGYT 1986: 208, 282. Note that aremark made, in 1966: by the late Gerald Clauson, to the effect that“it was fundamentally improbable that an island people like theMongols would have had their own name for so exotic a marine productas the pearl, ...” (CLAUSON 1966: 33) has to be revised in view ofthe fact that the Mongol term in question (subud) might well refer toriver pearls, instead. This is also suggested by the fact that alarge pearl from the east was known as tana** (WTCWC 65a/3106=11678;BRETSCHNEIDER II 124f.; HAENISCH 1957: 19 no. 383; see also DL5 II374 and CDKC 459, 463, and 638: “tha-na”; BKYT 61: 1652; see abovenote 10); another large pearl is mentioned in SKDR 140. Note furtherthat according to a late 18th-century quintoglot dictionary tana is afreshwater pearl (WTCWC 65a/3106=11687) while the above-mentionedsubud stands for a pearl from an oyster (WTCWC 65a/3106=11688).BRETSCHNEIDER II 124 merely understands subud as pearl and on page125 informs us that the Chinese transcription as su-bu-tu (“subudu”) isalso mentioned in the official history of the Yüan dynasty(1260/1271-1368), the Yüan-shih; cf. CAMMAN 1941: 301 note 1. I wonder whether the “mu-sog” (SYKC 261) is an abbreviation formu-*tig sog-*po, i.e. Mongol pearl. There is also a reference to a rgyamu-tig bya-sgong, apparently a large (egg-sized) pearl either from Chinaor India (DL5 II 374; cf. DAS 1882: 39 = DAS 1970: 131 ~ DAS1893/1965: [25].). For references to pearls as relics in Buddhist stūpas in Khotanin rather ancient times see THOMAS I 57, 81, 314. For a reference toseed (?) pearls as gifts to a Tibetan noble see THOMAS II 381. For anote on “pearls bright like the moon” from the Roman Orient seeLAUFER 1913: 341 n. 1. One may also mention a piece of garment ofgold ornamented with pearls (na bza’ gser dang mu tig gis spras pa’i snam sbyar)referred to under the year of 1253 in SKDR 165.* Recte: *Selengge (vocal harmony!)?** One may add that tana itself is a loan-word from either Persiandāna or Turkish tana, i.e. mother-of-pearl (POPPE 1955: 41; LESSING776). It is – to my surprise – not discussed in DOERFER’s importantwork. See, however, CLEAVES 1951: 96f. n. 124 and ibid. 1954: 445notes 5, 12, in his discussions of early 14th-century Mongol pearl‘hats’. 103 SKDR 140, 159f., 162.

29

Kommission [der] Akademie der Wissenschaften und derLiteratur XIX, 4 vols., Wiesbaden 1963-1975.

DRNT: RDO-RING bsTan-’dzin dPal-’byor (1760-c. 1809):dGa’ bzhi ba’i mi rabs kyi byung ba brjod pa zol med gtam gyi rol mo(Biography of rDo-ring paņdita, ca. 1810), two volumes,Ch’eng-tu 1986 (Chinese translation: TJPC, q .v.).

FCIS: HO Hao-t’ien (ed.): Chung-kuo fo-chiao i-shu (BuddhistArt in China), National Museum of History, Taipei 1978.

FCPS: CHANG Ying (ed.): Fu-chuang p'ei-shih (“Costumes andOrnaments), Hsi-Tsang min-chien i-shu ts'ung-shu ~ Bod

104 CLEAVES 1951: 33, 96f.: “1308”.105 SHUGUBA 78. I wonder whether it is similar to a “Chinese dress” “…now [as of the 1940s] in rags. But some rings and ear-rings survive”,as is stated by Hugh Richardson in FERRARI 113 n. 123.Let us remember that much earlier, in the Sung-period (960-1126), animperial robe with coiled dragons worked in pearls was presented bythe first Sung Emperor (r. 960-976) to one of his officers, namelyTung Ch’iu-hui (CAMMAN 195: 300 n. 2). Moreover, there were “robesfor officials' wives sewn with gold-plated ornaments and pearls, aswell as others in a variety of different fabrics the exactdefinitions of which could only be determined by long research”(loc.cit).106 See also LSGK 20 and LAUFER 1916: 454 no. 30.107 See CLARKE 53-55.108 CLARKE 64.109 ROCKHILL 1891: 237.110 This date can be deduced from the contents of the letter (PCTA 202n. 1).111 PCTA 201 no. 271.112 Unfortunately and for no known reason, Dr Loo has refrained fromtranslating this very passage. Note that in the hagiography of theSecond lCang-skya (CK2: 109b=KÄMPFE Plate 55) reference to presentsis made without specification, as can also be found in HUTH 314.113 PC3 II 135b; see also HCB 1987/1889: 175/362.114 This type of hat is – strangely enough – not mentioned in thepolyglot dictionary of the 1770s (WTCWC).115 PC3 II 137a. Phra-ldan is not very clear. A somewhat similarlyunclear expression might be zhwa phra-can (hat with a jewel) whichcorresponds to Chinese tiao-ch’an kuan, (WTCWC 20b/4580=17196=HTWC442), i.e. cap or hat with [a jade?] ‘cicada’ [set in gold and] ‘sable’(HYTTT X 1335 with illustration; HAUER 590). Note that the latterheadgear has nothing to do with any hat from Tibet; it was, moreover,worn in the Sung dynasty (960-1126/1127-1278/9).116 PC6: 448.117 PC6: 449.118 PC3 II 135b.119 YA 1987: 133.120 Note that according to WTCWC 2a/3240=12185=HTWC 439 Chinese liang-mao (summer hat) is translated into Tibetan as dbyar-zhwa. The

30

ljongs dmangs khrod sgyu rtsal deb tshogs ~ Tibetan FolkArt Series [III], Chungking 2001.

GALE, James: A Korean-English Dictionary, Yokohama 1911. GLANG-MDUN dPal-’byor [lHun-grub] (b. 1941): “lHa sa

ba’i rgyan gos” (Accessories and Costumes of [the Noblesof] Lhasa), in: Krung go’i bod ljongs 1992/1: 40-44.

GRLG: LHO-KHA SA-GNAS SRID-GROS LO-RGYUS RGYU-CHA‘TSHOL-BSDU TSHOGS-CHUNG and KO-TSHA bSod-nams sTobs-rgyas: “lHa rgya ri’i lo rgyus phyogs sgrig” (History ofthe Noble House of lHa rGya-ri), in: Bod kyi lo rgyus rig gnasdpyad gzhi’i rgyu cha bdams bsgrigs 10 (19), Peking 1996.

GSML: [‘KHON Rin-chen sgang-pa] bSod-nams rGyal-mtshan(1312-1375): Bod kyi chos rgyal rim par byon pa/ blon po’i tshogs dangbcas pa rnams kyis/ thabs du ma’i sgo nas bstan pa dar zhing rgyas parmdzad pa’i rnam thar/ chos ‘byung gsal ba’i ne long (History ofBuddhism in Imperial Tibet) compiled 1368, edited byB.I. KUZNETSOV: rGyal rabs gsal ba’i me long (The Clear Mirror of RoyalGenealogies), Scripta Tibetana I, Leiden 1966. Translatedin SØRENSEN (q. v.).

GZMR: Different edition of DRNT, one volume, n. p.Lhasa and/or Hsi-ning? 1988.

HAENISCH, Erich (1880-1966): “‘Eine chinesischeBeschreibung von Tibet’, vermutlich von Julius Klaprothnach Amiot’s Übersetzung bearbeitet”, in: Sven HEDIN:Southern Tibet, vol. IX, part IV, Stockholm 1922: 1-66.

~ Sinomongolische Glossare I. Das Hua-I ih-yü, Abhandlungen derDeutschen Akademie der Wissenschaften zu Berlin, Klassefür Sprachen, Literatur und Kunst, Jahrgang 1956 Nr. 5,Berlin 1957.

HANSEN, Henny Harald (b. 1900): Mongol Costumes, edited byIda Nicolaisen (b. 1940), London 1993.

Japanese explanation of the term is straw hat (WTCWC 2a/3240).121 YA 1992: 280.122 For a Ch’ing-dynasty liang-mao see CHOU/KAO 184 no. 311.123 YA 1994: 147.124 LGYT 1989, 281.125 HCB 1889, 175.126 HCB 1889: 176.127 HCB 1987: 306.128 HCB 1987: 307.129 DAS 1882: 38 = DAS 1970: 130 ~ DAS 1893/1965: [23].130 DAS 1882: 39 = DAS 1970: 131 ~ DAS 1893/1965: [25].131 SÍS/VANIŠ 120; mentioned briefly on page 40.132 CHOU/KAO 138 no. 235.133 SU’O 15.136 My thanks are due to the author for having put his thesis at mydisposal.

31

HARA Minoru: “The Pearl in Sanskrit Literature”, in:Memoirs of the Research Department of the Toyo Bonko 57 (1999) 157-174.

HAUER, Erich: Huang-Ts’ing K’ai-kuo fang-lüeh, Berlin/Leipzig1926.

HCB 1819: gu-shri dka’-bcu (Blo-bzang) Tshe-’phel (b.1780?): Chen po hor gyi yul du dam pa’i chos ji ltar byung ba’i tshul bshadpa bstan pa rin po che gsal bar byed pa’i sgron me (History ofBuddhism in Mongolia), completed in 1819, edited andtranslated into German by Georg HUTH in his Geschichte desBuddhismus in der Mongolei, 2 volumes., Strassburg 1892,1896.

HCB 1889: DAM-CHOS RGYA-MTSHO: Chen po hor gyi yul du dam pa’ichos ji ltar dar ba’i tshul gsal bar brjod pa padma dkar po’i phreng ba(History of Buddhism in Mongolia), completed 1889,translated into English by Piotr KLAFKOWSKY: Rosary of theWhite Lotuses, Being the Clear Account of How the Precious Teaching ofBuddha Appeared and Spread in the Great Hor Country, AsiatischeForschungen 95, Wiesbaden 1987.

HCB 1987: KLAFKOWSKY, Piotr (trsl.): Rosary of the WhiteLotuses, Being the Clear Account of How the Precious Teaching of BuddhaAppeared and Spread in the Great Hor Country, AsiatischeForschungen 95, Wiesbaden 1987. Translation of HCB 1889(q.v.).

HEISSIG, Walther (1912-2006): new edition of SCHMIDT1828. Manesse Zurich 1985.

Walther HEISSIG & Claudius C. MÜLLER: Die Mongolen,Innsbruck/Frankfurt aMain 1989.

HH: Written communication to Veronika Ronge by HeinrichHarrer, 1994.

HR: Written communications to both Veronika Ronge andJoachim Karsten by the late Hugh Edward Richardson(1905-2000), 1998.

HTC: CHIAO Ying-ch’i (c. 1665-after 1736): Hsi-Tsang chih(Account of Tibet), n. p. 1721, preface 1730s; edited asvolume 19 of the Chung-kuo pien-chiang ts’ung-shu,Taipei 1966.

HTIS: Hsi-Tsang i-shu - Min-chien kung-i chüan (The Arts of Tibet– Folk art), Shanghai 1991.

HTTK: HUANG P’ei-ch’iao and others: Hsi-Tsang t’u-k’ao(Illustrated Account of Tibet), Peking 1886.

HUMMEL, Siegbert (1908-2001): “Boy Dances at the NewYear’s Festival in Lhasa”, in: East and West (N.S. 12/1),March 1961: 40-44, (13/1) March 1962: 24-26.

32

HYTTT: LIU Kao (ed.): Han-yü ta tz’u-tien (Great Dictionary ofChinese Language), 12 vols. + supplement, Hong Kong1995.

JÄSCHKE, Heinrich August (1817-1883): A Tibetan-EnglishDictionary with Special Reference to the Prevailing Dialects, London1881.

JONES, Schuyler: Tibetan Nomads, London 1996. KÄMPFE, Hans-Rainer: Ñi ma’i ‘od zer/Naran-u gerel, Monumenta

Tibetica Historica II/1, S[ank]t. Augustin 1976. KARSTEN, Joachim: “Some Notes on the House of lHa rGya-

ri”, in: TS II 163-168. ~ “A Note on Ya sor and the Secular Festivals Following

the sMon lam chen mo”, in: Ernst STEINKELLNER and HelmutTAUSCHER (eds.): Contributions on Tibetan Language, History andCulture, Proceedings of the Csoma de Kõrös Symposium heldat Velm-Vienna, Austria, 13-19 September 1981, WienerStudien zur Tibetologie und Buddhismuskunde, Heft 10,Wien 1983, vol. I, pp. 117-149.

KAWAGUCHI Ekai (1866-1945): Three Years in Tibet, London 1909. KDL Doc. 40: Undated petition from the archives of the

monastery of Kun-bde gling, probably from the mid-19th

century, Tibetan Archives Lhasa no. 012/1-1/5/2. KKFCHT: Ku-kung fa-ch’i hsüan-ts’ui – Masterpieces of Chinese Tibetan

Buddhist Altar Fittings in the National Palace Museum, Taipei 1971. KLAPROTH, Julien (1783-1835): “Description du Tibet,

traduite du chinois en russe par le Père Hyacinthe, etdu russe en française par Mxxx, revue sur l’originalchinois, et accompagnée des notes”, in: Journal asiatique1829 : 81-158, 241-324; 1831: 161-246, 321-350.

KRUEGER, John R[ichard III]: Materials for an Oirat-Mongolian toEnglish Citation Dictionary, 3 parts, Bloomington 1984.

LAUFER, Berthold (1867-1934): Notes on Turquoise in the East,Publication 169 of the Field Museum of Natural History,Anthropological Series vol. XIII/1, Chicago 1913.

~ (1913: 315-364) “Arabic and Chinese Trade in Walrusand Narwhal Ivory”, in: T’oung Pao XIV (1913) 315-364.

~ (1913, 569-596) “The Application of the TibetanSexagenary Cycle”, in: T’oung Pao XIV (1913) 569-596.

~ “Loan-words in Tibetan”, in: T’oung Pao XVII (1916) 403-552.

~ Sino-Iranica, Publication 201 of the Field Museum ofNatural History, Anthropologigal Series XV/3, Chicago1919: 185-630.

LESSING, Ferdinand D[ietrich], Mattai HALTOD [QaltodMaadbürin], John Gombojab HANGIN [Qangin Gombojab] and

33

Serge KASSATKIN: Mongolian-English Dictionary, Berkeley/LosAngeles 1960.

LGYT 1986: ‘PHRIN-LAS CHOS-GRAGS (ed.): Krung go’i bod sa gnaskyi lo rgyus yig tshang phyogs btus (Collection of HistoricalMaterial from Tibet), Lhasa 1986.

LGYT 1989: TSHE-RING PHUN-TSHOGS (ed.): Krung go’i bod sa gnaskyi lo rgyus yig tshang phyogs btus (Collection of HistoricalMaterial from Tibet), Lhasa 1989.

LIU Xinru [Liu Hsin-ju]: Ancient India and Ancient China: Tradeand Religious Exchanges AD 1-600, Oxford 1988/Delhi 1994.

LOO, Margaret Shu-yi: The Biography of the III Panchen Lama, Blo-bzang-dpal-ldan-ye-shes-dpal-bzang-po, Examined in Light of Sino-TibetanRelations during the Late 18th Century, PhD thesis, University ofWashington 1970.

LSGK: SKYOGS ston Rin-chen bKra-shis (fl. 1470s): brDa gsarrnying gi rnam gzhag li shi’i gur khang (Tibetan Dictionary of Oldand New Terms), comp. in 1476, Peking 1981.

MARKHAM, Clements R. (ed.): Narratives of the Mission of GeorgeBogle to Tibet, and of the Journey of Thomas Manning to Lhasa, London1879.

MGLG: RGYAL-RTSE rNam-rgyal dBang-’dud: Bod ljongs rgyal khabchen po’i srid lugs dang ‘brel ba’i drag po’i dmag gi lo rgyus rags bsdus (AMilitary History of Tibet), Dharamsala 1976.

MITN: Luciano PETECH: I missionari Italiani nel Tibet e nel Nepal, 7parts, Rome 1952-1956.

MOSTAERT, Antoine: Dictionaire Ordos, 3 parts, Peking 1941,1942, and 1944.

MÜLLER, Claudius C[ornelius] and Walter RAUNIG (eds.):Der Weg zum Dach der Welt, Innsbruck/Frankfurt a/M n. d.[1982].

NGAPOI Ngawang Jigmei [Nga-phod Ngag-dbang ‘Jigs-med (b.1910)]: “Record on History Traversed by Both Tibet andthe Motherland” [sic], in: China’s Tibet 10/3 (1999) 3-6.

PC3: ‘JAM-DBYANGS BZHAD-PA II dKon-mchog ‘Jigs-meddBang-po (1728-1791): rJe bla ma srid zhi’i gtsug rgyan paṇ chenthams cad mkhyen pa blo bzang dpal ldan ye shes dpal bzang po’i zhal snganas kyi rnam par thar pa nyi ma’i ‘od zer (Hagiography of the ThirdPaṇ-chen covering the years of 1738-1776), 2 volumes,bKra-shis-‘khyil 1786 (?).

PC6: CHIA-MU-YANG Chiu-mei wang-p’o [‘Jam-dbyangs bzhad-pa II II dKon-mchog ‘Jigs-med dBang-po (1728-1791)]: Liu-shih Pan-ch’an Luo-sang pa-tan (Translation of PC3), translatedby Hsü Te-ts’un and Cho Yung-ch’iang, annotated by Ch’iShun-lai and Li Chung-lin, Lhasa 1990.

PCTA: ANONYMOUS: Liu-shih pan-ch’an ch’ao-kuan tang-an hsüan-pien(Selection of Archives Concerning the Audiences Granted

34

by the Ch’ien-lung Emperor to the Sixth Paṇ-chen),Peking 1996.

PETECH, Luciano (1914-2010): “The Missions of Bogle andTurner According to the Tibetan Texts”, in: T'oung Pao 354/5 (1950) 330-346.

~ China and Tibet in the Early XVIIIth Century, Monographies duT’oung Pao I, Leiden 1972.

~ Aristocracy and Government in Tibet 1728-1959, Serie OrientaleRoma XLV, Roma 1973.

PETER, HRH Prince of Greece and Denmark (1908-1980): AStudy of Polyandry, The Hague 1963.

PK: Oral communication to the author by Phu-khang mkhan-sprul I Byams-pa skal-bzang, Bonn 1999.

PL: Oral communication to the author by the late Pha-lhaThub-bstan ‘od-ldan (1909-1985), CH-Rämismühl-Zell 1981.

POPPE, Nicholas (1897-1991): “The Turkic Loanwords inMiddle Mongolian”, in: Central Asiatic Journal I (1955) 36-42.

PRNZ: BRAG-G.YABS IX Blo-ldan Shes-rab (b. 1939): Bod kyidpon rigs rnams nas gna’ srol na bza’ bzhes lugs chas rgyan rim ‘god(cursive manuscript from the 1960s on the clothing ofthe Tibetan aristocracy with glosses in a running handby the late Kun-bzang rtse bSod-nams dbang-’dus (1901-1971) on whom see PETECH 1973: 94f.137

RAMSTEDT, G[ustav] J[ohn] (1873-1950): Studies in KoreanEtymology, Suomalais-Ugrilaisen seuran toimituksia XCV[1] 2, Helsinki 1949, 1953.

RG: Oral communication to Veronika Ronge by the lateNamgyal Gompo Ronge (Rang-dge rNam-rgyal mGon-po), D-Ittenbach/Königswinter.

RICHARDSON, Hugh Edward: Ceremonies of the Lhasa Year, London1993.

ROCKHILL, William Woodville (1854-1914); “Tibet. AGeographical, Ethnographical, and Historical Sketch,Derived from Chinese Sources”, in: Journal of the Royal AsiaticSociety 1891: 1-133, 185-291.

BSHAD-SGRA dGa’-ldan dPal-’byor (b. 1922): “sGer dga’ldan bshad sgra ba’i khyim tshang mi rabs kyi lo rgyusrags tsam bkod pa” (Concise History of the Noble Houseof bShad-sgra), in: Bod kyi lo rgyus rig gnas dpyad gzhi’i rgyu chabdams bsgrigs 5 (14), Peking 1992: 1-225.

137 My (JGK!) thanks are due to the author for having put thisimportant, yet otherwise unknown work at my disposal. Note that DrRonge was unaware of the text at the time of the writing of thepresent article; I am sorry for having to say that she is, moreover,unable to speak, read or write Tibetan.

35

SHAN-KHA-BA ‘Gyur-med bsod-nams stobs-rgyas (1896-1967):Bod gzhung gi sngar srol chos srid kyi mdzad rim (The Sequence ofReligious Ceremonies of the Tibetan State According toAncient Custom), Dharamsala 1984.

~ Rang gi lo rgyus lhad med rang byung zangs (Memoirs),Dharamsala 1989 or 1990.

SHEN Yün-lung: “Ying-yin [Hsi-Tsang chih] ch’ien-yen”(Foreword to the Photomechanic [Edition of the] Hsi-Tsangchih, in HTC 1-3.

SHUGUBA: Summer CARNAHAN with Lama KUNGA RINPOCHE [bla-maKun-dga’ rin-po-che Blo-bzang Kun-dga’ ‘Gyur-med, b.1935]: In the Presence of my Enemies-Memoirs of Tibetan NoblemanTsipon Shuguba rtsis-dpon Shud-khud-pa ‘Jam-dbyangs mKhas-grub (1905-1991), Santa Fe 1995.

SINGER, Jane Casey: Gold Jewellery from Tibet and Nepal, London1996.

SÍS, Vladimír and Josef VANIŠ: Der Weg nach Lhasa,[Prague]/Hanau, n. d. [1956].

SKDR: NGAG-DBANG KUN-DGA’ BSOD-NAMS [GRAGS-PA RGYAL-MTSHAN] (1597-1662): ‘Dzam gling byang phyogs kyi thub pa’i rgyaltshab chen po dpal ldan sa skya pa’i gdung rabs rin po che ji ltar byon pa’itshul gyi rnam par thar pa ngo mtshar rin po che’i bang mdzod dgos ‘dodkun ‘byung (Genealogy of the House of ‘Khon; dated 1629),Peking 1986.

SØRENSEN, Per K: Tibetan Buddhist Historiography [:] The MirrorIlluminating the Royal Genealogies[.] An Annotated Translation of theXIVth[-]Century Tibetan Chronicle: rGyal-rabs gsal-ba’i me-long,Asiatische Forschungen 128, Wiesbaden 1994.

SPERLING, Elliot: “Awe and Submission: A TibetanAristocrat at the Court of Qianlong”, in: The InternationalHistory Review 20/2 (1998) 325-335.

SU’O Wun-chin [*SO Wen-ch’in?] (translated by Nam-mkha’seng-ge): “Tà la’i bla ma dang paṇchen er te ni rnamgnyis kyis ma’o kru’u zhir phul ba’i phyag rten ‘ga” (OnSeveral Gifts Made by the Dalai Lama and Paṇ-chen rin-po-che to Chairman Mao), in: Krung go’i bod ljongs 1993/4 (10/7)11-15.

SYKC: BSHAD-SGRA (née sPel-bzhi) dBang-phyug rGyal-po(1790s-1864): Rab ‘byams dag pa’i zhing gi yon tan kun tshang dpallugs gsum mi ‘gyur lhun gyis grub pa’i gtsug lag khang rten dang brten parbcas pa legs gso’i srid zhu ji ltar bsgrubs pa’i tshul gyi khyad par brjod pa’idkar chag skal bzang dad pa’i sgo ‘byed ngo mtshar rgya mtsho’i lde’u mig(History and Description of the Monastery of bSam-yas),completed in 1854, ed. LOKESH CHANDRA: The Samye Monastery,Satapitaka 14, New Delhi 1961.

36

TARING Rin-chen Dolma [Phreng-ring (née Tsha-rong) Rin-chen sGrol-ma (1910-2000)]: Daughter of Tibet, London 1970.

TED: SARAT CHANDRA DAS: A Tibetan-English Dictionary with SanskritSynonyms, revised and edited by Graham SANDBERG and A.William HEYDE, Calcutta 1902.

THOMAS, F.W.: Tibetan Literary Texts and Documents Concerning ChineseTurkestan, Oriental Translation Fund N.S. XXXII, XXXVII,XL, XLI, 4 volumes, London 1935, 1951, 1955, 1963.

THONDUP, K. [mKhas-grub Don-grub]: Gekido Chibetto nokiroku/Tibet in Turmoil [:] a Pictorial Account 1950-1959, Tokyo 1983.

THURMAN, Robert A.F. & David WELDON: Sacred Visions, NewYork 1999.

TJPC: T’ang Ch’ih-an (translated) and Cheng Tui(annotated): TAN-CHIN PAN-CHU-ERH: To-jen pan-chih-ta chuan -Ka-hsi shih-chia chi-shih (Chinese Translation of DRNT), Peking1995.

TLPC: TAN-CHU ANG-PEN: Li-pei Ta-lai la-ma yü Pan-ch’an erh-te-ni nien-p’u (“Chronicle of the Genealogy of the Dalai Lama andBainqen Erdini” [sic]), Peking 1998.

TMP: GYURME DORJI and Fernand MEYER (eds.): Tibetan MedicalPaintings, two volumes, London 1992.

TS II Michael ARIS (1946-1999) and AUNG SAN Suu Kyi(eds.): Tibetan Studies in Honour of Hugh Richardson, Warminster1980.

TS VI: Per KVAERNE (ed.): Tibetan Studies, The Institute forComparative Research in Human Culture, Occasional PapersI, 2, 2 vols., Oslo 1994.

TSAI Mei-fen: “Art between Tibet and the Ch’ing Court:Tibetan Religious Objects in the Collection of theNational Palace Museum”, in: TS VI II 889-905.

(TS’AI [sic] Mei-fen): “Ku-kung Tsang-ch’uan fa-ch’i lai-yüan chih-i” (Tibetan Religious Objects in theCollection of the National Palace Museum, Part I), in:Ku-kung wen-wu yüeh-k’an 136 (July 1994) 4-25.

[TSAI Mei-fen]: Huang-ch’üan yü fo-fa – Monarchy and Its BuddhistWay, Taipei 1999: 17.

TSCN: Trachten und Schmuck chinesischer Nationalitäten, Ch’eng-tu1988.

TSEPAK RIGZIN [Tshe-dpag Rig-’dzin]: Festivals of Tibet,Dharamsala 1993.

TSYBIKOV, Gombozhab Tsebekovich. T.: Un pèlerin bouddhisteau Tibet, Paris 1992; translation by Bernard Kreise ofBuddhist palomnik u svjatïn’ Tibeta, po dnevnixam, vedennïm v 1899-1902;Petrograd 1919.

TT8: (Se[-]r[-a]-stod mkhan-chen rgyal-dbang sprul-sku) BLO-BZANG ‘PHRIN-LAS RNAM-RGYAL: rTa tshag no min han chen po ye

37

shes blo bzang bstan pa’i mgon po’i rnam thar dad pa’i padmo ‘dzum byed,comp. 1813, Tibetan original over 447 folia; excerptspublished in: LGYT 1989: 399-457.

TUNG, Rosemary: A Lost Portrait of Tibet, London 1980. TY: Tz’u-yüan (Etymological Dictionary of Chinese

Characters), 4 volumes, Peking 1979-1983. WANG Yao: “Treasures of Taibei Palace Museum”, in: China’s

Tibet 1994/6: 34f.; rendition of: ~ [“WANG Ya’o”:] “Ching gong ma’i srid gzhung gis bod

bde skyong byas tshul la dpang rtags yod”, in: Krung go’ibod ljongs 1995/1: 32-39.

WTCWC: Wu-t’i Ch’ing-wen chien (Quintolingual Dictionary),compiled at an unknown date [shortly] before 1794;translated and explained by TAMURA Jitsuzo, IMANISHIShunju and SATO Hisashi, 2 vols., Kyoto 1968.

WTSL: SHENG Sheng-tsu (fl. 1750s[?]-1790s): Wei-Tsang Tsangshih-lüeh (Report on Tibet), in: Hsiao fang-hu chai yü-tits'ung-ch'ao, 1st text of 3rd volume, Shanghai 1897.

WTTC: HO-LIN (d. 1796) and/or SUNG-YÜN (1752-1835): Wei-Tsang Tsang t'ung-chih (Monograph on Tibet), completed in orshortly after 1797; ed. WU Feng-p'ei (1908-1996), Lhasa1982.

WTTS: MA Shaoyun (fl. 1734?) and SHENG Mei-ch’i (=Sheng-tsu): Wei-Tsang Tsang t’u-shih (History of Tibet withIllustrations), original edition with preface by LUHuazhu dated 1792; translated in BIČURIN, KLAPROTH andROCKHILL (qq. v.).

YA Han-chang (b. 1916): Pan-ch’an erh-te-ni chuan (Biographiesof the Paṇ-chen), n. p. [Lhasa] 1987.

YÀ Han-krang: Paṇ chen sku phreng rim byon gyi mdzad rnam, trsl.Into Tibetan language by Blo-bzang phun-tshogs and rTa-mgrin ‘brug-grags, n. p. (Lhasa?) 1992.

YA Hanzhang: The Biographies of the Dalai Lamas, transl. by WangWen-chiung, Peking 1991.

YHIG: [Yŏn’am] PAK Chiwŏn (1737-1805): Yŏlha138 ilgi 藏 藏 藏 藏(Diary from Jehol 1780, completed 1793), ed. in KojŏnKugyŏk ch’ongsŏ, vols. 18-19, Seoul 1967 (and Taipei1956 after the original Korean print).

YTJC: YOU-T’AI (1846-1910): You-t’ai chu Tsang jih-chi (Diariesof the 165th Amban of Tibet Covering the Years 1902-1906), selected (!) and edited by WU Feng-p’ei, n. p.(Peking or Lhasa?) 1988.

YUTHOK Dorje Yudon gYu-thog rDo-rje g.yu-sgron (b.1912): House of the Turquoise Roof, edited by Michael HARLIN,Ithaca, N.Y. 1990.

138 Also spelt as Yŏrha (North-Korean reading), instead.

38

ZHWA-SGAB-PA dBang-phyug bde-ldan (1908-1989): Gangsljongs bod chos srid gnyis ldan gyi rgyal khab chen po’i srid don gyi rgyalrabs gsal bar ston pa zla ba ‘bum phrag ‘char ba’i rdzing bu’am/blo gsarbung ba dga’ ba’i rol mtsho, published under the title of Bodkyi srid don rgyal rabs - An Advanced Political History of Tibet, twovolumes, Kalimpong 1976.

ZWALF, W.: Heritage of Tibet, London 1981.

ENDNOTES

39