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

92

the great range in transverse valleys. In this case, therefore, the Transhimalaya is shown as one very strong range, a new forerunner to the range of Hodgson and Saunders. It has only small ramifications, most of them on the northern side. The region between the Gang-dis-ri and the upper Tsangpo is represented as an elevated, comparatively flat plateau-land with a steep slope to the river at its southern edge. Only Buksiri is a small isolated range, N.N.E. of Shigatse. Along the southern bank of the Tsangpo there is sometimes a double mountain system situated.

The Tsangpo is correctly shown as coming from Damtschuk Kabab (Tamchokkabab, though this mountain has assumed a rather unusual form. The source branches have not at all been improved from d'Anville. The source of the Indus is comparatively well placed, and the source of the Satlej is perfectly correct; even the Tage-tsangpo may be suspected on Grimm's map.

It seems indeed curious that a map of Tibet from 1832 can be quite filled up with detail. There are scarcely any white patches at all, everything seems to be known, even the names of mountains, rivers and lakes. And still there is nothing that depends upon European researches, except a few names from Georgi's book. All the rest is Chinese, and at a few places the interpreters' names are put within brackets (d'Anv., Klapr.). D'Anville has here played the same part as Ptolemy formerly did, but on a smaller scale both as regards time and space.

Comparing Grimm's map of 1832 (Pl. XII) with Klaproth's map of 1836 (Pl. III) we find that the hydrography is about the same in both cases, but that the mountain ranges, except Himalaya and Kara-korum, are very different. Instead of Grimm's and Ritter's range of Dzang which stretches from west to east as one very regular wall, Klaproth's »third chain», between the Kailas and the »Niantsin tangla gangri» is very irregular, and, in its eastern part, broken up into several ranges and ramifications. From this point of view, and especially regarding the Nien-chentang-la part of the Transhimalaya, Klaproth's map is by far superior to Grimm's.

Pl. XIII is a reproduction of Tibet as shown on H. BERGHAUS' map of Asia, published in 1843. It should be compared with Grimm's and Klaproth's maps. It is easy to find out the resemblances and differences. I will only point out that Berghaus has rejected the Hor or Khor Range completely. The hydrography is the ordinary Chinese one. The orography of the Transhimalayan system is exactly the same as on Klaproth's map, though the method of drawing is somewhat different. He has one mighty head-range with many ramifications to the north and south. As he has followed Klaproth's orography, his map is much better than Grimm's.2 Berghaus also follows Klaproth's example in not giving the Transhimalayan mountains one common name. He has the same names for different parts of the system like Klaproth, only changing the spelling from French into German.

MAPS OF TIBET FROM 1820 TO 1850.

I This is a part of Blatt 2 (China und Japan) in Berghaus, Atlas von Asia, Gotha, Justus Perthes, 1843.

2 Compare Berghaus' map of 1834 in Stieler's Hand-Atlas Vol. II, Pl. XXII.