National Institute of Informatics - Digital Silk Road Project
Digital Archive of Toyo Bunko Rare Books

As to the Chema-yundung it is not mentioned in Ogawa's version either.
The following tributaries from the north seem very doubtful, at any rate their
derivations. A-la-chu-ho is d'Anville's Artchou R., but the Sha-la-mu-kang cannot
be identified. The Na-yu-ko-tsang-pu is d'Anville's Naouc Tsanpou R. and is probably
identical with Ryder's Nakchak and Nain Sing's Chu Nago. It is said to come
from the lake Sang-li, d'Anville's Sanc-li, which, perhaps, may be Senit-tso, a lake
situated on the southern side of the Transhimalayan water-parting as the Tibetans
told me. But the river Na-yu-ku-tsang-pu cannot be S.W. of Cho-shu-tê, if this is
the district of Toshut or Hor-toshut as I believe, for then it is N.W. of that district.
The mountains from which the tributaries come are as yet impossible to identify,
unless Ya-la-ling is Yor-la, one of the chief passes of the Transhimalaya.
In the description of the many tributaries of Sa-chu-tsang-pu or Tsachu we
easily recognise the reality. Most of the water of this river seems to come from
Lunpo-gangri and flow to the S.W. The Man-chu-tsang-pu is my Men-chu.
The general description of the course of Sa-ko-tsang-pu is admirable. It is
the same river which Nain Sing more than a hundred years later called Charta
Sangpo and which I call Chaktak-tsangpo. The Chinese author simply gives it the
same name as the province in which it is situated, Sa-ko, the Sarka-jong of Nain
Sing, Saka-dzong of Ryder and myself. It is said to come from lake La-pu on
the N.E., and indeed, as I found in 1908, it comes from a lake Lap-chung-tso situ-
ated N.N-E. of its junction with the Tsangpo. It is also perfectly right to say that
the river first flows south-westwards and, after receiving several tributaries, turns
south-eastwards to join the Tsangpo. But when he comes to the explanatory details
within brackets, he is difficult to follow. The La-pu-kang-chung-shan is all right,
for the whole country round the lake is called Lap-chung, and there may easily be
a Lap-chung-gangri. Kang-lung-shan may be my Kan-chung-gangri. The length
he gives to the river, 1,000 li, is very much exaggerated, if the distance between
the Kailas and the Tamchok-kabab shall be used for comparison and which is given
as 300 li. For the distance from the Lap-chung-tso to the mouth of the Chaktak-
tsangpo is not even so much as 300 li. But the general description of the river is
incomparably better and more correct than the fantastical representation given on
d'Anville's map, where the river in a straight line goes to the S.W. the whole way.
The Lio L. of d'Anville is meant to be the La-pu lake of Chi Chao Nan. About
half way between the lake and the mouth of the river d'Anville has a range of
mountains he calls Lop M., an echo from the Lap-chung mountains. He calls the
river the Sanki Tsanpou.
We have seen that some of the Chinese writers make the Chema the principal
branch, coming from Tamchok-kabab, others say that Chema is only a tributary
joining the Kubi. In all instances, both western and eastern, the Kubi-tsangpo has,
however, been almost ignored. The Chinese authorities do not mention its name,
although at least in one case, it is called the Yere-tsangpo. Only Kawaguchi seems