国立情報学研究所 - ディジタル・シルクロード・プロジェクト
『東洋文庫所蔵』貴重書デジタルアーカイブ

706   230. FEMELES (ISLAND OF WOMEN)

from the Su-p'i, the T'u-yü-hun, and the Yang-t'ung, the Su-p'i always heading the list (cf. Hsin T'ang shu, 216 B, 7 a).

It will be noticed that, while the Hsin T'ang shu speaks of « Hsi-no » in the paragraph devoted to the Su-p'i, it gives « Hsi-no-lo » in the chapter on the Tibetans. The second form is the correct one, and to has certainly been omitted by error in the passage which gives « Hsi-no ». Moreover, in the T'ang itinerary to Lhasa, the Stage of Hsi-no-lo certainly contains the same name. Since it was to the north or north-east of the Hu-mang Gorge, and consequently within the territory of the Su-p'i, it is probable that it derived its name from that of the prince; and, if so, the Stage of Hsino-lo was probably not established before c. 755, and this is in agreement with the date which I assign to the itinerary. On the other hand, while some hesitation is possible about the Tibetan connection of the names and titles of the Kingdom of Women (pin-chiu, kao-pa, etc.), no doubt can be entertained about Mo-ling-tsan and Hsi-no-lo. Mo-ling-tsan (*Muat-bang-tsân) seems to render 'Brill-bean. As for Hsi-no-lo (*Sjét-nâk-lâ), it must be remembered that, for a reason still unknown (perhaps a dialectal Chinese pronunciation), no (*nâk) renders -tag of Tibetan names in T'ang times (cf. TP, 1915, 8, confirmed by more recent research) ; the original is almost certainly Stag-sgra « Tiger-voice », a name well attested in Tibetan.

Before attempting to discuss the geographical and historical value of all these texts, something

must be said about the   Ü7 San-po-ho of Hsüan-tsang and the 3   Ïäß 'Great Yang-t'ung'
of the Shih-chic fang-chih, and the kingdom of Hsi-li.

San-po-ho (*Sâm-puâ-xâ) occurs in Chinese literature only in Hsüan-tsang, who says that Suvarnagotra, alias the Eastern Kingdom of Women, borders to the west on San-po-ho, and in the Shihchia fang-chih and the Hsin T'ang shu, where it has been taken from Hsüan-tsang. In a former section, speaking of the region of the upper Sutlej, Hsüan-tsang had devoted notices to Jalandhara

0,M   jzt   Chê-lan-to-lo), Kuluta (a   Ch'ü-lu-to), atadru (,R yq   41i Shê-to-t'u-lu), etc.
In the notice on Kulûta (north of the Sutlej and reaching the southern slopes of the Himâlaya, the modern Kulu or Kullu), there is the following digression : « From there, going north for 1.800 or 1.900 li, the road is very dangerous, crossing mountains and passing valleys, and [then] one arrives

at the Kingdom of qi   Lo-hu-lo (*Lâk-yuo-lâ). From there to the north, for over 2.000 li,
the road is very difficult, with cold wind and flying snow, and one arrives, at the kingdom of,

Mo-lo-so (*Muât-lâ-A).» An original note to the text adds : « [Mo-to-so] is also called   . n J
San-po-ho » (cf. JULIEN, Mém., I, 205). The passage has been copied into the Shih-chin fang-chih (loc. cit., 93 b), but, while the Lo-hu-lo is stated to belong to « northern India », a note expressly says that Mo-lo-so « is not within the precincts of India ».

Lo-hu-lo, which supposes a Sanskritized form *Laghûla of a native non-Sanskrit name, has been correctly identified with Lahul; but CUNNINGHAM was mistaken in believing that Lahul represented a Tibetan name Lho-yul, « Southern Land » (cf. WATTERS, I, 299) ; Hsüan-tsang heard the name in Kulûta, and, even now, Lahul is used only by the people of Kulu (cf. A. H. FRANCKE, in JRAS, 1908, 189). I do not preclude the possibility that the same name may occur in that of the fortress of Lahûr or Lauhûr in Al-Birûni (SACHAU, I, 208, 317), and in the pseudo-« Kulutalahada » (? read « Kuluta, *Lahoda ») of the same writer (SACHAU, I, 302).

Mo-lo-so, since it lay north of Lahul, can hardly be anything but Ladakh, as asserted by CUN-