DOI Seite / Zitierlink:
https://doi.org/10.11588/diglit.36958#0136
1977: 414-427). The discussion will be concluded only by the dis-
covery of inscriptions of the Patola Sähis at Skardu or its neigh-
bourhood. For the moment to avoid confusion of my readers, I
preserve the traditional expression "sovereigns of Gilgit" which in
any case cannot be entirely wrong since the Patola Sähis were
(also) established at Gilgit. I want to add that the location of the
ancient town is not known. I do not believe that it was identical to
that of modern Gilgit."
This short remark is to be considered as an important and helpful
challenge, namely to present the arguments for my supposition
with adequate clarity - and to delineate the consequences in case
that this supposition were accepted.
Eventually, so far I did not succeed to make my thesis lucid
enough. (A study presenting more detailed argumentation - deliv-
ered to the editor of "Pakistan Archaeology" in spring 1991 - is
still unpublished).
We must start a realistic discourse by admitting that a term used
in several variations for one and a half millennia presumably may
have changed its meaning. The size and location of the territory in
question did hardly remain stable. In order to discern early from
late references, I use the term "Palur" (proposed by PELLIOT
1959: 91) for the earlier group (mostly quotations from Chinese
sources). I accept "Bolör" for all mentionings recorded during the
"Islamic" period (cf MiNORSKY 1937: 63, 71).
The situation is complicated by the fact that the Chinese sources,
especially those concerned with the political development discern
between "Little Palur" and, further to the east, "Great Palür". All
scholars dealing with the problem agree that Little Palur was
located in the Gilgit valley, the term Great Palur means the area,
which at present is called Baltistan. For Little Palür the Tibetans
consistently used the term Bru-za. I concluded (JETTMAR 1977)
that this was the indigenous name of the country, which had been
integrated by conquest into the realm of the Patola Sähis.
It is advisable to start in the 4^ century AD. Inscriptions of the
site Alam Bridge mention a group of persons appearing under the
name of Palalo/Palala/Pälolo between the 4^ and the 7^ century
AD (cf FussMAN 1978: 39-51, HuMBACH 1980: 107). HUMBACH
came to the conclusion that names of that kind must refer to a
tribe (or the territory of a tribe). Even in present times related
78
covery of inscriptions of the Patola Sähis at Skardu or its neigh-
bourhood. For the moment to avoid confusion of my readers, I
preserve the traditional expression "sovereigns of Gilgit" which in
any case cannot be entirely wrong since the Patola Sähis were
(also) established at Gilgit. I want to add that the location of the
ancient town is not known. I do not believe that it was identical to
that of modern Gilgit."
This short remark is to be considered as an important and helpful
challenge, namely to present the arguments for my supposition
with adequate clarity - and to delineate the consequences in case
that this supposition were accepted.
Eventually, so far I did not succeed to make my thesis lucid
enough. (A study presenting more detailed argumentation - deliv-
ered to the editor of "Pakistan Archaeology" in spring 1991 - is
still unpublished).
We must start a realistic discourse by admitting that a term used
in several variations for one and a half millennia presumably may
have changed its meaning. The size and location of the territory in
question did hardly remain stable. In order to discern early from
late references, I use the term "Palur" (proposed by PELLIOT
1959: 91) for the earlier group (mostly quotations from Chinese
sources). I accept "Bolör" for all mentionings recorded during the
"Islamic" period (cf MiNORSKY 1937: 63, 71).
The situation is complicated by the fact that the Chinese sources,
especially those concerned with the political development discern
between "Little Palur" and, further to the east, "Great Palür". All
scholars dealing with the problem agree that Little Palur was
located in the Gilgit valley, the term Great Palur means the area,
which at present is called Baltistan. For Little Palür the Tibetans
consistently used the term Bru-za. I concluded (JETTMAR 1977)
that this was the indigenous name of the country, which had been
integrated by conquest into the realm of the Patola Sähis.
It is advisable to start in the 4^ century AD. Inscriptions of the
site Alam Bridge mention a group of persons appearing under the
name of Palalo/Palala/Pälolo between the 4^ and the 7^ century
AD (cf FussMAN 1978: 39-51, HuMBACH 1980: 107). HUMBACH
came to the conclusion that names of that kind must refer to a
tribe (or the territory of a tribe). Even in present times related
78