DOI Page / Citation link:
https://doi.org/10.11588/diglit.36958#0018
face a second crossing of the main range (in the Central Hindu-
kush) followed by further crossings of the ranges of Tienshan and
Alai. But maybe to enter territories controlled by the Hephthalites
as soon as possible was so advantageous that even hundreds of
miles of additional travelling were accepted.
Most of the Chinese inscriptions render names, without titles and
rather strangely composed. One of the colophones of the so-called
Gilgit Manuscripts mentions a respectable Chinese, apparently
attached to the court (v. HINÜBER 1980: 67, 72). In the 10^ centu-
ry, after the collapse of the systematic policy established by the
Tang rulers, the Saka Itinerary mentions villages of the Chinese
north of the mountain belt (BAILEY 1968: 71). In the Tibetan
Annals, recently commented by BECKWITH, it is mentioned that
the King of Little Palm - traditionally a supporter of Chinese
interests - had submitted to the King of Tibet (BECKWITH 1987:
116 n. 45). A Chinese envoy consented to a similar submissive
gesture. Perhaps such personalities, badly needed for profitable
embassies to China, remained in the service of the local rulers.
Prof HEISSIG (personal communication) sees the possibility that
adventurers of various extraction, who had obtained a knowledge
of Chinese, acted as interpreters for barbarian chieftains. They
could have been the bearers of the spurious names attested by
Prof HÖLLMANN's readings.
The remarkable group of petroglyphs, inscriptions and renderings
of stüpas were observed on the right bank of the Gilgit river,
almost opposite of the hamlet Hatun. In our volume they are
published by Prof SAGASTER. Since the inscriptions are all in
Tibetan script, the term could be used. In several
cases the translation is relatively clear, in other cases there is no
understandable text; so Prof SAGASTER recommended an explana-
tion as Bon-po Tantras. The shape of the drawings
would support such an interpretation. Here, however, we find
Tibetans in a stressed situation. Maybe the sanctuary of the
officers being in command of the Tibetan garrison recently posted
in Hatun was located on the opposite bank of the river, because
their soldiers were still heathens. The officers, however, were
Buddhists, they used the Tibetan script but they came from many
tribes, subjects and allies of the Tibetans in the heyday of their
XIV
kush) followed by further crossings of the ranges of Tienshan and
Alai. But maybe to enter territories controlled by the Hephthalites
as soon as possible was so advantageous that even hundreds of
miles of additional travelling were accepted.
Most of the Chinese inscriptions render names, without titles and
rather strangely composed. One of the colophones of the so-called
Gilgit Manuscripts mentions a respectable Chinese, apparently
attached to the court (v. HINÜBER 1980: 67, 72). In the 10^ centu-
ry, after the collapse of the systematic policy established by the
Tang rulers, the Saka Itinerary mentions villages of the Chinese
north of the mountain belt (BAILEY 1968: 71). In the Tibetan
Annals, recently commented by BECKWITH, it is mentioned that
the King of Little Palm - traditionally a supporter of Chinese
interests - had submitted to the King of Tibet (BECKWITH 1987:
116 n. 45). A Chinese envoy consented to a similar submissive
gesture. Perhaps such personalities, badly needed for profitable
embassies to China, remained in the service of the local rulers.
Prof HEISSIG (personal communication) sees the possibility that
adventurers of various extraction, who had obtained a knowledge
of Chinese, acted as interpreters for barbarian chieftains. They
could have been the bearers of the spurious names attested by
Prof HÖLLMANN's readings.
The remarkable group of petroglyphs, inscriptions and renderings
of stüpas were observed on the right bank of the Gilgit river,
almost opposite of the hamlet Hatun. In our volume they are
published by Prof SAGASTER. Since the inscriptions are all in
Tibetan script, the term could be used. In several
cases the translation is relatively clear, in other cases there is no
understandable text; so Prof SAGASTER recommended an explana-
tion as Bon-po Tantras. The shape of the drawings
would support such an interpretation. Here, however, we find
Tibetans in a stressed situation. Maybe the sanctuary of the
officers being in command of the Tibetan garrison recently posted
in Hatun was located on the opposite bank of the river, because
their soldiers were still heathens. The officers, however, were
Buddhists, they used the Tibetan script but they came from many
tribes, subjects and allies of the Tibetans in the heyday of their
XIV