DOI Seite / Zitierlink:
https://doi.org/10.11588/diglit.36958#0017
expand their influence deeper into the mountains. Maybe, during
an official visit to a frontier province, the ruler of the Dâradas,
Merekhisû, was hailed and heartily welcomed (with a memorial in-
scription) by the non-Indoeuropean population of the Gilgit valley.
(The exotic name of the ruler does not mean that he was a man
from Gilgit. The ruler of Odi (FUSSMAN 1982) had an ancestor
called Ismaho - an enigmatic name as well.) In any case, the old
name of the Gilgit valley was Bru-za, the main part of the popula-
tion were most probably Burushos, maybe mixed with other moun-
tain tribes. BUDDRUSS and BERGER agree that we do not have to
reckon with linguistic and ethnic homogeneity (personal informa-
tion). Perhaps the bold insistence of Makar-singh that he is a
Känjuti does not mean that he is a Burusho, even if the terms are
synonymous today. Känjuti could be a term originally aiming at a
minority ruling with the support of the Hephthalites. Maybe the
title "Sarängh of Gilgit" occuring in the Hatun-inscription is a
heritage from this period. It seems that the governors of Bru-
za = Little Palûr were proud of an ancestral line as long as that of
their Patola overlords.
I myself was drawn into this thicket of disturbing suggestions and
deviant explanations when I tried to prove that the so-called Gilgit
Manuscripts were not written in or near Gilgit. Little Palûr was
ruled by governors so independent and powerful that the Patolas
had great difficulties to find a safe and moderately comfortable
niche there, when they had to surrender their former residence to
the Tibetan armies. The short political comeback for the Patolas
became possible with the support of the Tibetans, and that
allowed the transfer of the library to Gilgit, formerly belonging to
the monastic community directly associated with the royal court in
the capital of Great Palûr. This is a summary of my own contribu-
tion to this volume.
I made several attempts to get an overview and to find an explana-
tion for the inscriptions in Chinese characters discovered by our
team. The only one offering immediate historic evidence (already
published in ANP 1) was commented by the late MA YONG. In my
introduction I expressed doubts whether a delegation on the way
to Mäymurgh, southeast of Samarkand, would undertake such an
extraordinary detour. Using the Hunza route the delegation had to
XIII
an official visit to a frontier province, the ruler of the Dâradas,
Merekhisû, was hailed and heartily welcomed (with a memorial in-
scription) by the non-Indoeuropean population of the Gilgit valley.
(The exotic name of the ruler does not mean that he was a man
from Gilgit. The ruler of Odi (FUSSMAN 1982) had an ancestor
called Ismaho - an enigmatic name as well.) In any case, the old
name of the Gilgit valley was Bru-za, the main part of the popula-
tion were most probably Burushos, maybe mixed with other moun-
tain tribes. BUDDRUSS and BERGER agree that we do not have to
reckon with linguistic and ethnic homogeneity (personal informa-
tion). Perhaps the bold insistence of Makar-singh that he is a
Känjuti does not mean that he is a Burusho, even if the terms are
synonymous today. Känjuti could be a term originally aiming at a
minority ruling with the support of the Hephthalites. Maybe the
title "Sarängh of Gilgit" occuring in the Hatun-inscription is a
heritage from this period. It seems that the governors of Bru-
za = Little Palûr were proud of an ancestral line as long as that of
their Patola overlords.
I myself was drawn into this thicket of disturbing suggestions and
deviant explanations when I tried to prove that the so-called Gilgit
Manuscripts were not written in or near Gilgit. Little Palûr was
ruled by governors so independent and powerful that the Patolas
had great difficulties to find a safe and moderately comfortable
niche there, when they had to surrender their former residence to
the Tibetan armies. The short political comeback for the Patolas
became possible with the support of the Tibetans, and that
allowed the transfer of the library to Gilgit, formerly belonging to
the monastic community directly associated with the royal court in
the capital of Great Palûr. This is a summary of my own contribu-
tion to this volume.
I made several attempts to get an overview and to find an explana-
tion for the inscriptions in Chinese characters discovered by our
team. The only one offering immediate historic evidence (already
published in ANP 1) was commented by the late MA YONG. In my
introduction I expressed doubts whether a delegation on the way
to Mäymurgh, southeast of Samarkand, would undertake such an
extraordinary detour. Using the Hunza route the delegation had to
XIII