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

220   ANTIQUITIES OF WESTERN TIBET   [VoL. II

TRANSLATION

1 [Nag-se-tsi-kabah-be-mu-dzab-na-mu-na-lam-bar 2 (` number two ') bá-pata-j i-min - gar-pa-nra-ko-khri-Bar-bog ( province of Bar-lhbog ' ). ]

Kul-Bar-bog   The Chief Bkra-sis-rgya-tsho   Ját-Khra-Kur-rus-bkah-su-ba

Nu-bkah-bkra-sis Pad-kar-ókra-sis Rgyal-tshan Chos-grub-rnam-rgyal

The Chief Rnam-rgyal   Tshul-krim • Phun-tshog   Drug-de-lag

Tshar-rtan-dzin   Tshaii-nor-bu

I   ~

Tshaii-rnam-rgyal Man-su

Ra-ta-na

Tshan-drug-gya   Rnam-rgyal

~   Ì   ~

Tan-dzin-chos-rgyal   Tan-grin   Ce-pa (he died)

Bil-cun

So-nam-chos-phel Rnam-rgyal-tshe-rin Phe-tse-No-no Sin-ga-rám.

(This genealogy of the chiefs [was copied] from the one that has been preserved in MS. with the chiefs of Bar-hbog. According to a statement by the old [ex-]chief who lives there, it is said to have been written during the reign of the Kula Raja Man-Singh.

And their power or jágir remained firmly established down to the chief Bil-cun or Cull-nun. After that they were left without a jágir and [now they] earn a livelihood as peasants. Written by Bzod-pa of Kye-lan. )

iL

As we know from other documents from Lahul, Jo-Bkra-sis-rgya-mtsho was a contemporary of the Kulű king, Partáb-Singh, who reigned from 1560 to 1584. Bil-cun and his four cousins, on the other hand, were contemporaries of the Kula king, Man-Singh, 1674-1717 A.D. Thus the genealogical tree has to be placed between the years 1570 and 1700. This is a comparatively short time, if we consider that it comprises nine generations. There must be a mistake somewhere. The genealogical roll was not continued after the chiefs were deposed by Man-Singh. From another document we learn, in addition, the name of a chief who preceded Jo-Bkra-§is-rgyamtsho. It is Tshe-riii-sa-bgrub, a contemporary of the Kulű king, Bahádur Singh, and of Tshe-dban-rnam-rgyal I of Ladakh.2

It is very probable that the chiefs of Bar-hbog were placed in authority by Tshe-dban-rnam-rgyal I of Ladakh on the occasion of his conquest of Kulű, which included that of Lahul. The chiefs of Bar-hbog had to watch over the interests of the Ladakhi kings. They probably took the side of the Ladakhi kings when Man-Singh of Kula conquered Lahul, and that may have been the reason why they were deposed.

' [On the transliteration and purport of this formula see p. 209, note 1.—F. W. T.]

2 It is the Bar-hbog document that commemorates the acquisition of a Sűtra Za-ma-tog in the time of Partáb-Singh of Kulü.

A .‘ ; ~~

I