1hEpybB

The Two Conquests of Zhang zhung and the Many Lig-Kings of Bon 27
reference in the Tang Annals that suggests military collaboration between
‘Tibet’ and ‘Zhang zhung’. I am not yet convinced, but important to retain
here is that the divination text PT1047, which refers to that same conquest
of Zhang zhung territory by Khyung po sPung sad zu tse, explicitly connects
that exploit to ‘kyung lung’ and ‘lIg myi rya’. 21 At least the identity of Lig myi
rhya with Lig snya shur in the mid-7 th c. AD thus seems fairly secure. Macdonald
discusses PT1047 and its weight of evidence at great length in her
masterly and ground-breaking Lalou felicitation article (pp. 272ff.).
The precise dating of many individual Tibetan-language Dunhuang
sources remains highly problematic. The upper limit for closure of Cave 17
is usually referred to the early or mid-11 th century. 22 Macdonald (1971) is
considerably more optimistic about the antiquity of some of the Dunhuang
sources than others are. 23 According to her assessment, at least PT1047 may
be a document that is nearly contemporaneous with the early conquest of
Zhang zhung by Khri Srong btsan sgam po. 24
While PT1288 etc. may be genuine imperial period documents that may
be put on a par with the earliest inscriptions from the late 8 th to the early 9 th
c. AD, PT1287 generally has been dated later, to approximately the 9 th c.
AD; most prefer the first half of that century. 25 But I should like to mention
Michael Walter, who in a careful prologue on Old Tibetan in his outstanding
study on Buddhism and Empire: The Political and Religious Culture
of Early Tibet (Leiden 2009), quite persuasively I must say, argues for a
much later date, putting even as late as perhaps the early 11 th c. AD!
Now, how could a mistaken collation of one Dunhuang scroll, the Old
Tibetan Chronicle PT1287, in a remote corner of North Eastern Tibet, pos-
—————————
21
PT1047:39–47: skang pard la lI byin gchig bab na / [40] btshan pho dang PHYING BA
dang [*LIG] MYI RYA dang KYUNG LUNG gyi ngo ste / RGYAL PHO MKHAR na skyems / [41]
gsol ba’I ngo / bag lI byin bab na’ / [g-]yas g-yos su bzhag la lgyog ryags / [42] gchIg bcos te
bzhag la / lgyog ryags gyi gnyis bsdus te bzhag na’ / lI byin / [43] brgyad de / btshan pho zha
sngar SPUNG SAD ZU TSE dang / STANG RYE MUN glo ba nye ste mchis nas / [44] LIG MYI RYA
la chab srid mdzad na’ / rgyal lam myi rgyal zhes bthab na’ ’dI byung ste / [45] slad gyis yul
sa gchIg las gnyis su skyes shing / lam du zhugs shing grog chen pho / [46] dang prad pha ngo
ste mo bzang rab / srog phya dang srid pya dang dgra pyar bzang gsol ba la / [47] phyi dal
che /::/.
22
Often closure in 1034/35 AD has been presumed (in anticipation of a Tangut attack,
probably in 1036). But cf. Rong (2000), Russell-Smith (2005:72ff.) and Imaeda (2008):
1002 or 1006 AD (Dohi).
23
Such as, notably, Stein (1988)—responding explicitly to Macdonald—but also Takeuchi,
Beckwith, Walter and also others, following the latter.
24
Macdonald (1971), pp. 272ff.; see esp. pp. 279f., cf. Karmay (1998), pp. 115ff.
25
For a brief summary of the various positions and arguments see Bjerken (2001:94f., n.
37).