110 B E R T H 0 L D IJ A U I<' E R.

are not strictly observed. The indefinite article zig 1s correctly

. . . em-
_
loyed after uouns ending in a vowel, n and m : dgra zag~ gnen
p
zw "'. gtam ztg'
mue nan Zl!J, -~., in V ' 23 is correct owmg "'.to
"'. . rton rin
-o7t o7
. ti d da 1 zag
da drag . 1) cig correctly m my; rgo c'g ' n- 9
the ex1s ng ' . . k d
iutead of sig. Of designations of the genitivep we find -a, Y'' au.
gi, but not gyi: lhai, p'yogs.-kyi, budmyed- kY"' dgun -.gi ' but
. yul-gt
. . . '~. . . tead of m;i. likewise in the instrumental case, gnen-
- '
WAS ODOillC OF PORDENONE EVER IN TIBET?
zan~gt, 1na o7o7 ' ...
BY
gil, gctlft-zan-!JU. The termination of the terminative IS du. zan-
lon-du, qbrin-du, P'yag du (instead of tu), mt'o du (V. 19).i.n.stead BERTHOLD LAUFER.
of mt'o-ru or mt'Of', but dgu-r (V. 11), bzati-por (V. 25), nn-par ,. 1 ..

(v. 27); also ltaBBU (V. 12) is a regular formation. The suffix. tu

after voweIs occurs l n modern manuscripts l'k :1.)
1 ewlse. The particle IN January of this year the Hakluyt Society began to re-issue
te of the gerund, with its varian ts ' is utilized according to rule: Colonel Sir Henry YuLE's memorable work Cathay and the Way

tt kcridd.e, r.ied-de, . si-ste. Thither, published in 1866. We cannot be grateful enough to Pro-
c
~yer-,
fessor H. CoRDIER for having taken upon himself the difficult task
1) Compare the~ rule~ aa. formulatcsd in Za-ma-tog, I. c., p. 584; and above~, p. 61, uotCI 2. of thoroughly revising and re-editing this learned work, the republi-
2) Eill su.lngedicnl d" Bonpo, l. c., P 22. f . t t' n e~mployed by the navigators cation of which meets a long-felt want, the first edition having
N Re~garding thCI crow o onen a lo
A.DDJTIOlU.L OTES. -
also R OTTO FaANK.E . .utg
(Tr. h.atd:- p 166
' aya, . . ,
Gi.ittinge~n,.
1913).
. been exhausted for at least fifteen years. The additional up-to-date
(p. 11, note), aee now . . . b . stablished the~ fact of this practco
. f ~ lf the pnonty Ill avmg e
lt'JU.lfltZ claims or
o( man11en . mse
; bu MI AYEV ' at any rate, was t o
. h
fir.st to explain correctly term .the~ information supplied by the wide erudition of Professor Cordier has
increased tHe bulk of the work to such an extent that in its new
d~a. r 21 the~ following was omitted through an oversight of the~ pr~nter:
On p. 29, after
h
lDO.
t nee fag
' . . ..
nrUIfl t;~gro-uiN'
. "you will set out on a distant
IH!fU'"'o,
garb it will comprise four, instead of the former two, volumes.
journey;" mC~et
ID K. we the aame
t e
Ill oa~n
expre&SCI d In
. the Table in ~Cinuine~ly popular style by lam rilipor
Volume II, containing the description of the journey of Friar Oooaw
tlgol.,.. to 'I''u o see also HIRTH, Sinologilcke Beitriige zur De- of PoRDENotu:, is the one that has now been issued. In Chapter
Note on .. P 95. In regard p D't 1"00 P. 242). The sole object of the note
T .. 1c Yi'llcer lBull ole. St.-~e ., v ' 1 d 45, "Concerning the Realm of Tibet, where dwelleth the Pope of
u!U:lile dw
, '" -
d to -aa to discuss the~ re~lation of the~ Ch'tnCise to the Tibetan. a.ud al ege
u . " .
above re1orre "
Tibetu na.mea.
the Idolaters," Professor Co&DIBB. has added a note, taken from
L. A. WADDt:LL's Lhasa and its Mysteries (p. 425), to this effect:
"As to Friar Odoric's alleged visit, as the first European to enter
I.~basa, it seems to me very doubtful whether the city he visited in
the fourteenth century A. D. could have been this one at all, as
his description of the place is so different from Lhasa as we now
find it . . Now none of the streets of Lhasa are paved, although

46~

4fi4
406 B E R T II 0 L D L A U ~' E R.
plenty of stones are locally available for the purpose, and it seems
unlikely that a city which was formerly 'very well paved' should
have so entirely given up this practice and left no trace of it."
The weight of this argument is not very cogent, and hardly presents
a sufficient basis in favor of the desired proof. Still more categori-
cally P. LA. I' DON 1 has given vent to his feelings in the words, "It
seems' clear that he never reached Lhasa." This conclusion, however,
. is not backed up by any evidence; and for the rest, LANDON adheres
to the general view that "0doric appears to have visited Tibet
about 1328.'' Whatever the foundation of these contentions may
be, on reading Odoric's account of Tibet carefully, it seems to me
a fitting time now to raise the broader question, Was Odoric of
Pordeuuut; c:;vcr iu Tibd?
It is with a considerable amount of reluctance and gene that
this. challenge is advanced. No lesser geographer than Colonel Sir
Henry Yule has indorsed the tradition that Odoric, starting from
Peking, turned westward t.hrough Tenduc, the Ordos country, and
Shen-si, to Tibet, and its capital Lhasa, where "we lose all indica-
tion of his further route, and can only conjecture on very slight
hints, .added to general probabilities, that his homeward journey led
him by Kabul, Khorasan, and the south of the Caspian, to Tabriz,
3
and thence to Venice." 2 F. v. RICHTHOFBN and C. R. MAB.KHA.ll'
have shared this' opinion, and Friar Odoric has thus acquired the fame
of baring been the first European traveller to visit Tibet and
Lhasa. Mr. RocKHILL~ opens a history of the exploration of Tibet
in the words: "As far as my knowledge goes, the first European
1 LA., Vol. I, p. (London, lgOfl).
s C#JAtJy, Vol. II,. P 10; again. OD p 25, We are ignorant or hi route from Tibet
weal ward."
a C!iu, Vol. 1, p. 617.
I NtJrrfiJiHI of Ute Jli1liola of George .Bogk, p. XLVI.
I Di4YJ of JorMY tAroJAgll Mo119oU. ad 1'iHt, p. IX.
4G5
W A.S ODORIO. OF PORDENONE EVER IN TIBET? 407
traveller who entered Tibet was Friar Odoric, who, coming from
northwestern China, traversed central Tibet on his way to India in
or about 1325, and sojourned some time in its capital, Lhasa." It
would seem almost cruel to destroy this nimbus, and to depose the
good Friar from the throne which he has so long occupied in the
history of geographical discoveries.
His claim to the honor of being the first Tibetan traveller,
however, is deserving of serious scrutiny. It means a great deal to
strip him of this glory, and such a denial should certainly be
placed on more weighty arguments than the mere matter of street
pavement, Lhasa may have undergone manifo!d changes from the
fourteenth century down to 1904, and the lack of stone pavement
in recent t!mee doee net yet e~c!ude
conditions during the middle ages. It seems unfair, at any rate,
to throw this stone at the poor Friar; and while I am not inclined
to believe that he ever was in Lhasa, I feel perfectly convinced
that he was given the information regarding the well-paved streets.
There IS no doubt that the Tibetans understand the art of cutting
stones and making pavement. The excellent Jesuit Father Ippolito
0&SIDEB.I 1 who lived in Tibet from 1715 to 1721, relates that the
balls, main rooms, galleries, and terraces, in most houses of Lhasa,
were covered with a very fine pavement made from small pebbles
of various colors, and well arranged; between these they put resin
of pine-treeR and various other ingredients, and then for several
days they contiuually beat stones and ingredients together, till the
pavement becomes like a veritable porphyry, very smooth and
lustrous, so that when cleansed with water it is like a mirror. 1
t Le sale, le camere principali, le logge e i terrazzi della maggior parte delle case,
hanno un belliasimo pavimento, fatto di pietruzze minutiasime, di diverai colori e ben
disposte, fra le quali pongono della ragia di pioo, e varii altri ingredienti, e di poi battono
per varii giorni continuamente e pietrozze e iogredienti, fin che il pavimento viene come
un intero porfido, multo liscio e molto lustro; di modo che lavato con acqua, diventa come
466
 408 BERTHOLD LAUFER.
If the people of Lhasa were capable of work of this sort within
their habitations, they could have accomplished the same on their
public high-roads~ 1
The technical term for this kind of mosaic
work is rtsig tio8 bltar-ba. 2
All authors seem to be agreed ou the one point that Odorie'
account of Tibet is a rather thin fabric woven of slender threads,
and that it is certainly not what. we ought to expect from a man
who is reported to have traversed Tibet from one corner to the
other, and to have even sojourned at Lhasa. The first question to
be brought on tbe tapis, then, is this, - Is his information that
of an eye-witness,. or of one who drew it. second-hand from the
interviews of Chinese or Mongols rega.rding Tibet? If it contains
such striking features as could only come to the notice of a personal
observer of ~hings and events, \Ve are compelled to admit that Odoric
did dwell within the boundaries of Tibet proper. Odoric, however,
imparts nothing that would immediately force upon us such a
conclusion: his scant notes could have been gathered at that time
in China or as well in Mongolia. Tibet then "'"' subject to the
sray of the Great Khan; and Tibetans, those of the clergy and the
laity, swarmed at his Court. Plano Carpini, who was not in Tibet,
nevertheless .had occasion to see Tibetan people, and to observe
their custom of plucking out the hairs of their beards with iron
3
tweezers. Marco Polo's notice of Tibet is succinct, yet more graphic
iioo IJlfiCCiaio. - C. PuiNt, Il Ti!Jet, p. 59 (.Roma, li04.). To YuLE's note oa p. ~8,
lamenting the lou or the recorda of Deaideri aad Samuel YaD de Putte, it should
added that Deeideri'a maauacript has been rediaeoYered and edited by Puini under the title
quoted, and that the remaina of Putte's diary have been published by P. J. Vnu (De
Nederlmccuch# ri!Uigw &uel Nn de Putte, 1'ijthcA.rift .,.. Jut .dardri)ltlk.llfiig G61100t
clap, 1876, deel II, pp. 6-19).
I D:liSIDK&I (1. c., P ~8) apeaka or a "cammiuo largo, e beu fabbricato."
2 ScHI.UNI!:B, Jlilnge1 tuialiq11e1, Vol. VIJ, p. 6S4, note 6.
3 Hi piloa in barba non hebent, imo ferrum q11oddam in manibus, sicut vidim11e,
(lOrtant, cum quo eemper harbam, ai forte crioia aliquia in ea creacit, depilant (Li6ellru
AutorieJU, Cap. X).
467
WAS ODORIC OF PORDENONE EVER IN TIBET ? 409
and lively than Odoric's, and presents the result of border information,
presumably picked up at Ya-chcm fa or t.hereaboni. 1 Half of Odoric's
chapter on Tibet is devoted to a description of the burial-practice;
and he tells with manifest intenst the story of how the corpses are
cut to piece& by the priests and devoured by the eagles and vultures,
bow the son cooks and eats his (ather's head and makes his skull
into a goblet, from which he and all of the family always drink
deYontly to the memory of the deceased father; and they say that
by acting in this way they show their great respect for their father. l
The same ~ reported in substance. by his predecessors, Plano Carpini
(1246) and W,illiam of Rubruk (1253), the latter honestly adding
that ail eye-witness had told it to him. 3 Certainly these two writers
were not copied by OdQric, but e!!ch of the three independently
reported a tradition which be had heard from the Mongols. Here
we are allowed to apply the same verdict as pronounced by YuLE 4
in regard tO Odoric and Marco Polo having in common the story
of the Old Man of the Mountain, - uBoth related the story in the
pop~lar f4rm in which it spread over the East." Their peculiar
burial-practice was that characteristic trait of the 'fibetans by which
their neighbors were most deeply struck, and which also was
a Yu&.& and Coao1u, 7'48 B~ of &s- JI~UJ PaiD, Vol. ll, p. 4.5.
2 This ia ia 1trikiag qreemeot witlt what H &ROOOTUB (IV, 26) relates concerning the
beedooiua, who hue 'beea ideatilied hy W. Tomucbek with the forefathers of the Tibetan
(compare aleo HaaoooTus, 1V, 611). Regardiag akulla aa drinking-cups in \he country of
DOW be Chao aod among the Hiung-nu, aee CH.t.'YANIIIB (I.e: Jlemoirc Aistoriql4el de. &-ma Tl'iera,
Vol.\', pp. 60, 4.811). Compare R. AIIDJU:I, Z. d. Yn-ein~ fur Yollakuade, 1912, p. 1-33.
3 Plano Carpini (Cap. XI) aaya, "Hi consoetudinem habeni mirabilem, imo potius
mieerabilem. Cum enim alicuiua pater humanae naturae 110lvit debilum, congregant omnem
parentelam, e.t comedunt eum." And William of Rubruk relates, "Poet illoa aunt Tebet
homines aoientes comedere parentea auos defunctoa,' ut calli& pietatia non facerent aliod
eepulchrGm ei1 nisi vieeera sua. Modo tamen hoc dimiaerunt, quia abominabile11 erant omni
naticni. Tamen adhuc faciunt pulchroa ciphoa de capitibna parentam, ut illia bibentes
habeant memoriam eorum in iocundidate sua. Hoc dixit mihi. qui Yiderat.'
' Cathay, Vol. II, p. 267, note 3.
468
 410 BERTHOLD LAUFER. WAS ODORIC OF PORDENONE EVER IN TIBET? 411

doubtless exaggerated by them. Carpini's and Rubruk's versions it i& not of such a specific or intimate character that it could be.
show us that this report was a current story circulating among the explained only through an actual visit to Tibet. All this, and more,
Mongols, and Odoric must have derived it from exactly the same could have been learned at that time from the Chinese and the
source. He simply relates it as "another fashion t~ey have in thiR Mongols. It is somewhat a matter of regret that Colonel Sir Henry
country;" but he does not say that this custom came under his Yule~s note on Odoric's Abassi has been allowed to remain. This
own observation, or that it was communicated to him directly by word has no connection whatever with lobaes, uba1h.i, or balcshi, 1

Tibetans. The fact that Odoric shares this part of his information
concerning Tibet with Carpini and Rubruk, who had never been in
Tibet, constitutes evidence that this account cannot be utilized for
a plea in favor of his personal experience with Tibetan affairs.
In analyzing the remaining portion of his chapter, we have to
discriminate between statements which are correct, and data which
are inexact or out and out wrong. Odoric is perfectly correct on
three points: he is acquainted with the geographical location of
Tibet on the confines of lndia proper; he 1s familiar with the law
of Lhasa, prohibiting bloodshed within the precincts of the holy
city; 1
and he knows that "in that city dwelleth the Abassi, that is,
in their tongue, the Pope, who is the head of all the idolaters, and
who has the disposal of all their benefices such as they are after
2
their manner." All this is true, but rather general ; at any rate,
t Thia law, of courae, ia merely theoretical, u intimated also by M. Coanra by the
insertion of a note culled from a letter of Deagodina. King gLan-dar-ma wu aaaauinated
in Lhasa by . a Lama, and civil war ahook the city under the rule of the Ualai Lamu.
Executions are conducted in the open atreet before the people, and apparently culprits
auier not far from the temple, and not outside the city, Buddbiat injunction notwithstanding.
Wheu Nain Singh Yiaited Lhasa, he aaw a Uhiriaman beheaded in p11blic" (G. S.uoa.ao,
Ti/Mt au tlte TJIJeta"' p. 191, London, 1906). The holy city hu alao ita meat-market
(la k'rom). According to E. KAWOUCBI (Tiaret Ye11r1 in Tibet, p. 286), there ia a apecial
I'lace near the monastery ~Braa-apnila, some milea weat from Lhaaa, where yaka, goat., and
aheep, aeyen in number, are daily butchered for the table of the Dalai Lama.
2 It is a debatable point whether the Sa-akya hierarchs really tO:. up their permanent
residence in Lhasa. The famed ~P'aga-pa Blo-groa rgynl-mta'an, the apiritual adYiser of
Kubilai, on his return from Uhina, wended hia way back in 1265 to "the great residence
dpal-ldan Sa-akya" in southern Tibet, and \here he returned again in 1276 after hia aecond
nor is it necessary to resort to such extravagances. Odoric plainly
states that the word is of the Tibetan language; and it bas to be
sought, therefore, in Tibetan only. KoPPEN's 2 explanation, over-
looked by YuL, remains the only one that is admissible. The
8a-akya hierarchs, who practically ruled Tibet in the age of the
Mongols, bore the Tibetan title g,Pag1-pa ("eminent, excellent"), a
journey (HUTH, Gucllicit1 rk1 B:~ddiiU.u1 iA tkr .Uregoun, Vol. II, pp. U,, 167). Hia
biography makes no allnaion to hia residing in Lhua. Our knowledge of Tibetu hiatorical
aourcea ia 'till 10 limited that we cannot be poaitiYe on thia point. The ~liter probability
aeema to be that the abode of the Sa-akya wu their uceatnl aeat. th.e aonutery of Sa-ak:ra.
Lbua, ~nertheleu, may have ooatinued u the eapital of political admiaietration.
1 fhe word Ni1/ai ia not, u atated by Yuu: (alao .M11rco Polo, Vol. I, p. SU.),
connected with Skr. 6Aii1AM. The Tibetans are acquaiated with both worch, traulatiag
the laUer by the term dgNlon, and writing the former pag-Ji (J A:scau'a 1pelling pa-Ji ia
inexact). The Tibetan dictionary .Li-Jii gur i'an, fol. 23a (aee Tfnlflg-Pao, liH'. p. 86),
explains thia word by 6tm11-pa ("reapectahle, reverend"), and atatea that it ia deriYed from
the language of the Turks (Hor). The word eeema to be, indeed, of T11rkiah origin (V ADXU,
Priaitwe Ct~lliU', p. 24:8; R.. DLO.rr, WorterheA der 'hiri-dialecle, Vol. IV, col. HoU).
I DitJ lllmt~ilcll6 "Hurarc!ie, p. 106. J.t io notable that BoLLuna text in the .Acta
&neetorw, u quoted by ICoeppea, Abbaui, quod aonat Papa in illa lingua" (14. Coaor&&
quote. the aame reading from the maauacript or Berlia), dill'en fro tbe texta of Y11le
(Latia yenion, Lo Abuai, id eat Papa in liaaul aal;" Italiaa Yenion, il Ataui, ebe
Yiene a dire in noatro modo il Papa"). h eeema to me .aach more probable that Bolland
hu preaened the true, original reading. Odoric means to aay that the Tibetaa word which
is written tt-lagpa (varying in ita pronnnciatioa) wu heard by bim fM-u, ~. aad 10nnda
in their lugnage alao like fHITM (p''pa). The compariaon with the Pope would almost
aaYor of a heresy in the aonth of the piolll Friar, and the Pope" waa ao doubt dragged
in by the later copyiata. - N lUna (Ducription of 1'i!Jfl, in Ruuianl Vol. I, 1, p. 80)
attempt. to explain A6a.ui u an ineuci tnn~eription of fJLo-hun Ju-ral, ''a common &iUe
of the higheat Buddbiat clrrgy." I aee no pouibility of each an interpretation; this term,
moreover, ia .leither a colbmon title nor a title at aU, bot merely a peraonal name.
3 ~ige-med nam-mk'a tells a little anecdote in explanation of thit title (HuTH
1

4&9 470
 412 B E R T H 0 L D L A U F E R. WAS ODORIC OF PORDENONE EVER IN TIBET? 413

and were spoken of as the q,pcagspa bLa-ma, This word, variously generally employed by Tibetan women for making the parting ot
1
articulated p'ags-pa, p'ag-pa, pcas-pa, 1 p'a';)pa, ia the source of their hair. Odoric's remark that the women have their hair plaited
Odoric's Abasai. 2 1n more than a hundred tresses applies only to the pastoral tribes
A striking assertion made by the Friar ia that "they have in it of northern and north-eastern Tibet; 2 and if he had really crossed
great plenty of bread and wine as anywhere in the world." Such Tibet to Lhasa and beyond, he could not have failed to notice that
a statement cannot pos~ibly be advanced by any one who has had quite different Mty les of hair-dressing prevail in other parts of the
but t.be slightest contact with the Tibetan borderlands and the most country. This matter is not very serious, but an error of grave
superficial acquaintance with Tibetan people. First of all, there is account is tbe observation that "the folk of that country dwell in
nothing li\te bread in Tibet, where even the preparation of dough tcut.s made of black felt.'' Certainly the Tibetans understand the
is unknown. Parched barley-flour mixed with tea or milk into a art of makiug felt; ll but the teo~ inhabited by the pastoral tribes
porridge forms the staple food; and the alcoholic beverage called of Tibet, throughout the country, are covered with a black cloth
CCan, obtained from fermented barley, is neither wine nor b4:ler, but woven from yak-hair. ' In this respect, and in its quadrangular
a liquor sui generis. 3
Even granted that OJoric simply committed structure, the Tibetan tent represents a dwelling-type of its own,
a mistake in the choice of his wor,ds, auJ merely intended to say which is plainly distinguished from the Mongol circular felt tent.
that food and drink abound in 'I'ibet, his statement nevertheless It is impossible to assume that in the days of Odoric there may
remains very strange. The majority of Tibetans eke out a wretched have been Tibetan nomads living in felt tents, and thus come to
living as poor shepherds or farmers, and earn . enough to be kept the Friar's rescue. The mode of habitation is one of the most
from staryation; but emphasis on the food-supplies being as abundant permanent and enduring factors in the life of all peoples, which is
as anywhere in the world is thoroughly ont of place . for a poor but 'tery seldom sacrificed to outward influences. The conclusion
couutry like Tibet.
1 I doubt very much the correetneaa of Yule's atatement that the women in Tibet
The assertion that the women have a couple of tusks as long
commonly uae boar'11 tuska &II ornaments, both attached to the head and hung round ~he
as those of wild boars has been attributed by Yule to an error of neck. I paid particular attention to ornaments in Tibet, and never aaw a woman wearing
boar's teeth on her head or neck. Among the nomadli o'f l>erge I observed now and then
the scribe. I am rather under the impr~ssio~ that it is a bit of
a man wearing a plerforated boar's tooth u a protective a.mulet, &ometimes two auch teeth
information misunderstood on the part of Ouoric. Boar's tusks .are are joined togetller a$ their baaea anti held by a braaa hoop.
i See, for instance, the plate oppoaite p; 18 in GHUKGazntAILOa /)c:;criplio of a
Jouncey i 1Ye1tenc C.4a~ta (1n Ruuiao, Vol. H, St. Peteraburg, 1907),
G61chicll/e de1 Bxddhinnu1 in dcr Mollflolci, Vol. II, p. 14.1). The same is narrated in 1
The process i11 described by RocKHILL (Notu o11 lite Etlmnlngy of TilJet, p. 100).
l'"iiolll lhi (Ch. 202, p 1), where the word is writte!i ~a Jt wr B . F. Gauuo (Million 1ciAt. da,., Ia halllle A1i4, Vol. II, p. 372) is certainly right in
1 The apelling Pass6(;a appears in the L#trc.r edifU;nt~1, nouv. ed., Vol: XXl V, p. 9 eaying that Tibetan felt is rather mediocre, and very inferior to the Chinese and Kirgiz
(Paris, 1781). 'fhe Mongolii pronounce the word papa (PALLAS, &mmlungen, Vol. II, p. 87). specimens.
:& Koeppen's theoretical ~p'agl-frt, which does not exist, must be discarded. 4
See RociHJLL, l. c., p. 701, and Tlte Land of #ole LartttU, pp. 75-77; Ga.&Nuo,
1 The grapt-wine mentioned by Mr. RocKHILL (.T. R.. A. S., 1891, p, 227, note l) u I. c., p. :137. l do not concur with Grenard in the view that the Tibetan tent ia in every
being made in small quantities, and high-priced, ia almost restricted to reiigioua offerings, reapect much inferior to the Mongol one; for myself, I prefer the Tibetan tent aa mort.
and playa no part in the life of the people. No foreign traveller has ever seen or tasted it. practical and durable, and a more efficient means cf protection against beat and cold.

471 472

._____________________________________________..~.'''.a----------------------~----------~------~-~~
 414 BERTHOLD LAUFER.
WAS ODORIC OF PORDENONE EVER IN TIBET ? 415
prompted by the ethnological point of view, that the Tibetan tents
Tibetans, that, although they have towns formed by huts, they are
of yak-hair stafts go back to a venerable age, is fully corroborated
loath to live there, but prefer to dwell in tents made from p,ieces
by the records of the Chinese. Both Sui shu and T'ang shu tell in
of soft animal hair joined together, and that those styled "big
regard to the Tang-hiang Jt Jfi, a Tibetan tribe living in south-
tents'' (ta fu-lu) are capable of holding several hundred men. 1

western Kan-su _and in the vicinity of the Kuku-nor, that their

From whatever point of China Odoric may have transgressed
habitations are made from weavings of the hair of yak-tails and
the Tibetan boundary, be could not have failed to observe the
1
sheep. The Annals of the T'ang Dynuty relate, in regard to the
peculiar tents which have struck the eyes of all subsequent travellers,

I a- 4=- JU lt J! JM ~ ~ ~ li (Sui shu, Ch. 83, p. 2 b)

and at none of these points are felt tents to be seen.
vious beyond any doubt that Odoric's observation refen, not to
3 It is ob-

*i- JIJ ~~at II A--~ (T'ag:4~t,Ch. 2211:, p lb).- When

Tibetan, but to Mongol tents, which he may have encountered in
Ki Ta~~g aAu 196 J:, 1
(Ch.the p. b) aaaerta that Tibetan nobles dwell in large felt tenta

calledfw-lu ( Jt A ~ ~*It~ :::t jim Iii TouxgPao,l91,, [aee the Ordos coantry a or while crossing Mongolia on his way back
p. 92]), it ia not contradictory to the fact, &I atated above. In the sentence preceding this
one the queation is of the houses in which the Tibetan people ordinarily live, covered with
to Europe. It seems to me infinitely more probable that Odoric,
fi11t roof~ !!!!! r!!llchi!lg a height up tc t<:n fut. Iii thi> ca&t:, acconliutciy, it is the sedeniary coming ont of the Ordo; aud K&u-au, roturuad by WiaJ of Mongolia,
agricultural portion of the populace which ia spoken of, but not the pastoral tribe. These
on a similar route as Carpini and Rubruk, than that he should
Tibetan nobles were not nomads, but warriors, with a stationary residence among the
~edentary farmen,-and they undoubtedly imitated the custom of the Turkish chieftains (at
a later date adopted by the Mongols) of residing in felt tents (sh~a) as a mode of living species wu first de~eribed by B. H. HooosoN (0 tlte Two Tl'"ild Sp~cie of SJup it&Ubitig

better suiting their warlike occupation (compare Tib. p'yin gur ("felt tent, a Tartar hut'') tlu HiRallzya Regi4m, J . .d. S. B., Vol. X, 18,1, p. 281), then by W. T. Buuo:ao
in JA.sCHKI'a IJictionary, p. 850). The probability that Odoric might have struck such (Faqu of Britid India, p. 499, with illustration). Thia ltW-lii, u a word, ia perhapa

war-tent. ia 10 slight that it merits no discussion. His statement, moreover, is generalized related to k~rli, though 1be two certainly refer to different animala. The h-li mentioaed

to the effect- that the folk of that country dwell in tents made of black felt. - The above above in Si 1hu mu.ei be a domestic sheep, ita wool being utilized, while hi-IM ia a wild

word hi-li (hi is written alao tjl' ) is recorded both in Erh ya and Shuo wen. Li Shi-
sheep. Mr. RocKHILL remark& that "tbeae eharacten are uaed phoDe&ically, they have ao
meaning in Chinese;" but I can trace uo Tibetan or Lepcha word which they could be
eh&. (Ph tl'ao lca"g su1, Ch. fiO J:, p. 11 b) defines it as a sheep with plenty of hair.
intended to tranacribe.
.ICon Taung-ahi, in hia Pe11 ta'ao !J81A i of 1116, says that its habitat is in Shen-si and
Ho-tnng iPJ JJ{
authors, in their deacriptiona of Sikkim (Pai .,,. jung * Jl,
(Shan-ai), and that ita hair is very strong, long, and thick.
E:J
~BrtU-IIW ljon, pronounced hii or drii mo jun, a Land of Rice;" the identity of the namea
Chinese
tranacrip~ion of Tib. a ~~~~~~~~-~~~~~-*m
fl.. It a A
2 U ia a gratuitoua
(Tog" Ch. 218.1:., p. 1).
speculation of C. Pv!Nl (ll Ti/Jet, p. x:n) when. he make Odoric
hu been recognized neither by KLA.PROTH, DtJac1iption du 'Jluht!t, p 275, nor by RocKHILL, rl~>ecend from Tenduc to Si-ngan fu, "e di ll, per entrare nol Tibet, aegnl probabilmea~ Ia

a apecies of sheep atyled "big kil-lu heep''

recorded in K 'ang-bi) f. (1Y

* 1lj1:5 ifl
J. B. A. S, 189 I, p. 131; the lattu'a identification with Pari-djong ie untenable), apeak of

ei 1/a"9 t'ug chi

~i
~
(these two cbaracten are not

~ , Ch. ~II, p. 1a b,
via ~rcona da M aroo Polo, o Ill ne tenne fone pi~ a aettentrione; ma il aoatro frate
france~eano 1 j apinse uaai pi~ oltre, giungendo ftDo a Lhau." Jf Odoric ahould laue taken
tbi. beate11 ~rack, which . i1 eo familiu to me, I 1hould be very poaitive in denying tbat

l8V6, anonymoua, aut mentioned by Rockhill).

calla thia animal h c~o JJ.i J:l
KuP&OTB, dea mouton ou ch~nes appelee h
(HOC.I.HILL ..-ritea JM *,
The 11rei T1ang t'u c.ti (Ch. T., p. 32)
and tran~eribea cAti-1Aao;
tcAao ;" both without uplanatiou) This
he could have found aay felt teuu oa this route. , From Ta-tlien-ha to Ba-tang and beyond,
from Ta-laieu-la to Derge and Cb.amdo, further, in north-weatern aad aorthern Su-eb'IWI,
iu aodhern and weatera Kan-au, and in the region of the Kakai!Or, -
to be met with a aingle felt tent.
nowhere ia then
A lao KiiNu (1. c.) hu Odoric travel through Sban-.i,
ia doubtleu the burrel ahup (Ouil naAwra), found io conaiderable ftock11 at high altitudea
Shenai Sae-ch uan, and Tibet.
Sikkim (Rw.&r, GUIItleer of SiUim, p. 239) and througho~t Ttbet, and called by tbe
~here ~earee,
i11
3 felt tenta , are now the Moagola usually living ia ho111e1 of plaited
Tibetan g....lla, colloquially ~W-po, .ao, .aw, Nepalese iilur: hence the J:oological aAIU"&
wicker-wotk plutered with clay (aee PoT4NIK, TM 1'a"fft/Jo- Tilna Bordlrlad of CA;..,
(Jiachke'a esplaaalion "antelope"' ia wroDg, Chandra Oaa ia corrert), Lflpcha Ull'O. The
io R011iao, Vol. I, p. 108, St. Petersborg, 1898).

473
474
416 BERTHOLD LAUFER.
WAS ODORIC OF' PORDENONE EVER lN TIBET? 417

have performed the long and fatiguing journey across Tibet. True but of stories reproduced from. hearsay. The story of Tibet moves

it is, he himself tells us that he came to a certain great kingdom along the same line as the following stories of the rich man in

called Tibet, and there is no reason whatever to question his vera- Manzi, the Old Man of the Mountain, the devil exorcisms in Tartary,
1
city. Odoric was earnestly _and henestly convinced of having come and the valley of terrors. No principiA of geographical order is

to Tibet, but coming to Tib~t does not yet mean e.nteriog and observed in the arrangement of these concluding chapters, which is

crossing Tibet. The geographical notion "Tibet" was always con- sure evidence of the fact .that Odoric terminated the narrative of

ceded a liberal interpretation on the part of traveller$; ~he days are his journey at the moment when he turned his back to Cathay.

not so far behind us when men nearing the outskirts of Tibet, In Chapter 46 he reverts to the province of Manzi as the theatre

touching Ladakh, Darjeeling, Ta-tsien-lu, Ba.;.tcang, or Si-ning, had of action for the plot of the rich man; and in the ned chapter

all been "to Tibet;" and the books on Tibet whose authors were we are told that he reached a certain country which is called

around but never in the country are numerous. Ifo doubt Odoric Millestorte, the residence of the Old Man of the Mountain, but,

came . in contact with Tibetans somewhere in Kan-su 1

or on its very curiously, after he had left the lands of Prester John and ~

borders, but this is the utmost concession that can be mado to hiw. travelling toward the we~t Where, then, is Tibet? If he had

It is incredible that he should have traversed Tibet, nor does he ever crossed 'l,ibet, he would naturally have located Millestorte to

himself make any statement to this effect. He makes no pretence the west of, or beyond, Tibet; but he. bas forgotten Tibet, and

whatever to having been in Lhasa. All these allegations are prepo- takes us back to Prester John. Tibet has left no profound or lasting

sterous inferences of his overzealous admirers. The fact remains impression upon his mind, because he rubbed elbows but superfi-

that the diary of his travels abruptly closes and absolutely termi- cially with its north-eastern borderland. If the case were further

nates with the first sentence of Chapter 45. What follows it, down supported by negative circumstantial evidence, it would lead to no

to the end of the book, consists, not of observations of the traveller, end of di~Jcussions: be lisps not a word as to the nature and physical
conditions of Tibet, and whoever enters Tibet from China is soon
aware of being transferred into another w01ld. There is no need,
J beliue that hia province ealled Ka.u is rather Kanaa than Shenai, as extJlained
t
by Yule; thouah Yule alao ia inclined to regard it u Sheo-ai and Kao-au united, as the however, of invoking thia striking lack of personal experience and
two proYiocea were indeed under the Sung; the name Kanu appeari only from under the
observation. Odoric of Pordenone has never traversed Tibet proper,
Yiiao. Odoric'a refereoce to rhubarb as growing in thia province, aad in such abundance
that yoa may load an ua with it for laa than aix groata," ftta Kan-1u Car better than
I
Shen-ei, True it ia, that rhubarb gro..a alao in Sben~ai (PAR&NtHN, Let1re1 edijia5/e1, nouv.
I
6d., Vol. XIX, p. 807; Bar:rscuNEIDElt, Bot. Si,.., pt~ 3, p. 230; Lilt of Cltitu:1e Medici~<el, l 1 It is certainly out of the question to utilize tile alleged localities of these atorica
for reconstructing the ataga of Odoric'a return journey, u attempted, for inatanoe, by
p. 4.80,. Shanghai, lSSg), bot the output is not so large that it wou(d strike the casual
traveller. Kan-au, the adjoining !mdo regiou, then Sze-ch'uan and Tibet, were always the PurNI (l. e., p. :uYI), who remarka that Od~ric, coming out of Tibet, tells us that, leaving
~laaaieal land of rhubarb; and it ia in the mountain of Tao gut that, according to M.uco that country, he betook himaelf to Millestorte. Odoric, of coune, does not even expreaa

PoLO (ed. of YuLII: and CoaoJKR, Vol. I, p. 217), rhubarb ia found in gre~t abundance, and himself in this manner; but he came to Milleatorte by joarncying towards the west, after

where merchant& come to buy it and carry it. ali' :o~ter the world. Hence :we may take it . leuing_ the lands of Preater John. - KiiNa:a (l. c., notes, p. 23) reads mu~:h between the

for granted that likowiae Odoric did not he~r ~bout rhubarb before reaching the territory linea when he distils out of Odoric the inference that, according to him, Tibet is situated

of Kan-su. between the pouetsiona of Preater John and the Old Man of the Mountain.

475
476
418 BE R T H 0 L D L A U F E R.

1
has never been at Lhasa, - a feat with which he has been
unduly credited for so long, and to which be himself lays no claim.
The honor of being the first Europeans to have reached Lhasa is
justly due to the two Jesuit Fathers Grueber and Dorville, who
spent two months there in 1661.
MELANGES.
t .He doea not even make mention of the very name Lhaaa, but apeakl only of "the
chief and royal city,'' and in thia city." Only the French venion adds, "Elle eat appelee
Got&;" and M. Colii.DID juatly annotate& that there ia no city. called Gota. This name
certainly ia mere fancy. b it credible thet a man who baa visited Lhua ahoold not even
CHINESE TRANSCRIPTIONS OF TIBETAN NAMES.
record the name of the city? And where does Odoric aay that he visited it at all P How
did modern writere ever get at tbe auoring statement that he sojourned there for some
I have read with keen interest M. Pel~iot's :;tudy Quelques tmnscript-ions
time P Surely this is a repetition of the miracles attributed to the good Friar after bia
chinoises de noms tibetains (this volume, pp. 1-26), which is as ino;tructhe
death, and of which he himaelf waa innocent.
and illuminating as his recent, \"ety important contribution Les noms prop1es
dans les traductions chinoises du Milindapa1ihc' (J. A., 1914, Sept.-Oct.,
pp. 379-419). M. Pelliot i~ an excellcut phonetician, and commands an aomitahle
knowledge of ancient Chinese phonolol!y, such as is possessed by no othea
contemporary. It is only to be hoped that he will publish some day, for the
benefit of oil of us, an rettvre l.l'ensemble on this complex subject, which is still
so much obscured., M. Pelliot's criticism is most a:;suredly welcome, always
founlcd, as it is, on serious and solid information, and inspire'd by no othea
motive than the ideal desire to sel"\'e the common cause. It is a privilege anti
a stimulus to co-opemte with such a sympathetic and highly intelligent worker,
for whom I have an unbounded adrnimtiun, and to be guided by his fl"iendly
advice and effectual support. Indeed, without committing an indi:;cretion, I may
l'ay that in the present case this c~iticism was voluntarily solicited on my part,
as ! l1ave nevea flattered myself for a moment that all difficulties presented by
the Sino-Tibetan transcriptions ha,e been solved by me; on the contrary, I am
wide a wake to the f,,ct that my feeble attempt in this direction was n~erely a
tentative ~eginning, which :should be c.mtinned and imptoved Lyan abler haud.
I am \ery happy that M. Pelliot l1as taken up this problem with such mi.nute
care and unque:;tionable success, and I need hardly assure him of my keen sense
of obligation fot his untiring efforts and the inspiring instruction which I have
deaived faom his comments.
What M. Pelliot obsencs undea 1-5 on the tmnscription of the Tibetan
prefixel:i vi:;ible in the Chinese final consonants meets with my heartiest ap-
proval; indeed, this is the logical amplification of what I myself had noted on
the tmnsJI'iption of tcam-tcwt (p. 86, Tcoung Pao, 1914).
Pelliot No. 5: The Tibetan reading k'od-ne brtsan is coarect. No. 6: The
Tibetan reading gof' is justified, and plainly appears as such in Bushell's plate.

-477
478