________________
APRIL, 1907.]
ARCHÆOLOGY IN WESTERN TIBET.
91
likely to have been a local Daru chief, and he cannot have been one of the Purig chiefs, because their dynastic names were quite different. Nor can he have been a Balti chief, because the Baltis were Musalmans at the time that they overran Ladakh. And, lastly, there is no history of the arrival of any Central Tibetan kinge after 1000 A. D.
These considerations preclude any identification of this king outside the line of Leh, and there is, moreover, much to show that Lha-chen-kun-dgā-rnam-rgyal must belong to that line. The names of the Tibetan kings generally consist of two parts: the dynastic name, and the proper name. The dynastic name of the ancient line of the kings of Lhasa was bТsan or b Tsanpo, and is found in many of their names, e. 9., Nya-kbri-btsanpo, Srong-btsan-sgampo. The dynastic name of the first dynasty of the kings of Leh was Lha-chen, and is found in most of their names, e. g., Lha-chen-dpalgyi-mgon, Lha-chen-naglug. Whenever it does not occur, as in the name bKrashis-mgon, it may be presumed that the king was not the eldest but a younger son of his predecessor. As the second dynasty of the kings of Leh was descended directly from the first, the name Lha-chen was added to many of their names at their pleasure. The dynastic name of this second dynasty was rnam-rgyal, and it is found at the end of every one of their known names. This dynasty is particularly well known, not only from the chronicle Gyal-rabs, but also from its many inscriptions. Such a name, therefore, as Lha-chen-kan-dgå-rnam-rgyal would be that of a king of the second dynasty, but it is carious that the name kun-dgā-rdam-rgyal does not occur in the chronicle, although even after the second dynaty had been robbed of its power by the Dogras, the syllables kundga occar as part of a very long royal name in 'aJigsmed-(etc)-rnam-rgyal.
If, then, Kun-dgā-rnam-rgyal is to be held to, bave been one of the kings of Leh, and cannot be found among the list of kings of the second dynasty, it remains to be seen if he can be placed among the kings of the first dynasty. There is a passage in the rGgyalrabs, hitherto held to be doubtful, which may enable us to so place him. Karl Marx's MS. A. of the rGyal-rabs pats king Lha-chen-jo-dpal directly after king bKrashis-mgon, but Marx notes that Schlagintweit's text of the rGyal-rabs (which is quite in accordance with his own MS. A., at any rate in those early parts) places a king, Lha-rgyal, between them. .
Lha-rgyal, taken by itself, is & strange form, and suggests the omission of something between tha and rgyal. My explanation of the circumstances is as follows:- The ancient MS. from which both Karl Marx's M8. A. and Schlagintweit's original MS. were copied had some fault in the place where some such name as Lha-chen-kun-dgā-rnam-rgyal originally stood. Several things may have happened to create the omission; e. g., the right bottom corner of a page may have been torn off in such a way that only Lha remained of the first part of the name, the last syllable royal being preserved on the left top corner of the next page. If a European scholar were to find a MS. in such a condition, he would feel it to be an obligation to inform his readers of the fact. It is different with a Tibetan. He believes he has done wonders if he copies all he can make out. Usually he simply leaves out a doubtful passage altogether, and goes on as if nothing were missing. These habits will account for the difference between Schlagintweit's and Marx's MSS.
The presence of the dynastic name of the second dynasty in the names of this king creates a difficulty ; but it may be pointed out here that the name mam-rgyal was not new when it was made a dynastical name in c. 1500 A. D., but can be found in central Tibetan Dames about the year 1000 and perhaps earlier.
If, therefore, this theory of the identity of Lha-chen-kun-dga-rnam-rgyal with the Lha-rgyal of Schlagintweit's MS. of the Gyal-rabo be correct, we have to date this king o. 1250-1276 A. D., which date would very well account for the ancient character of this part of the inscription.
