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

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 lo 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 Hsi-
no-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 enter-
tained about Mo-ling-tsan and Hsi-no-lo. Mo-ling-tsan (*Muət-ljəng-tsân) seems to render 'Briñ-
bcan. As for Hsi-no-lo (*Sjět-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 三波河 San-po-ho of Hsüan-tsang and the 大羊同 'Great Yang-t'ung'
of the Shih-chia fang-chih, and the kingdom of Hsi-li.

San-po-ho (*Sâm-puâ-χâ) occurs in Chinese literature only in Hsüan-tsang, who says that Suvar-
ṇagotra, alias the Eastern Kingdom of Women, borders to the west on San-po-ho, and in the Shih-
chia 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 Jālandhara
(闍爛達羅 Chê-lan-ta-lo), Kulūta (屈露多 Ch'ü-lu-to), Śatadru (設多圖盧 Shê-to-t'u-lu), etc.
In the notice on Kulūta (north of the Sutlej and reaching the southern slopes of the Himālaya, 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 洛護羅 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 秣盧
娑 Mo-lo-so (*Muât-lâ-sâ).» An original note to the text adds : « [Mo-lo-so] is also called 三波河
San-po-ho » (cf. JULIEN, Mém., I, 205). The passage has been copied into the Shih-chia 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 *Laghūla 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
Kulūta, 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 Lahūr or Lauhūr in Al-Bīrūnī (SACHAU, I, 208, 317), and in the pseudo-« Kulutalahoda » (? 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-