Revue d’Etudes Tibétaines numéro cinquante-six — Octobre 2020 2 Revue d’Etudes Tibétaines numéro cinquante-six — Octobre 2020 ISSN 1768-2959 Directeur : Jean-Luc Achard. Comité de rédaction : Alice Travers, Charles Ramble, Jean-Luc Achard. Comité de lecture : Ester Bianchi (Università degli Studi di Perugia), Fabienne Jagou (EFEO), Rob Mayer (Oriental Institute, University of Oxford), Fernand Meyer (CNRS-EPHE), Françoise Pommaret (CNRS), Ramon Prats (Universitat Pompeu Fabra, Barcelona), Charles Ramble (EPHE, CNRS), Françoise Robin (INALCO), Alice Travers (CNRS), Jean-Luc Achard (CNRS). Périodicité La périodicité de la Revue d’Etudes Tibétaines est généralement bi-annuelle, les mois de parution étant, sauf indication contraire, Octobre et Avril. Les contributions doivent parvenir au moins six (6) mois à l’avance. Les dates de proposition d’articles au comité de lecture sont Novembre pour une parution en Avril, et Mai pour une parution en Octobre. Participation La participation est ouverte aux membres statutaires des équipes CNRS, à leurs membres associés, aux doctorants et aux chercheurs non-affiliés. Les articles et autres contributions sont proposés aux membres du comité de lecture et sont soumis à l’approbation des membres du comité de rédaction. Les articles et autres contributions doivent être inédits ou leur réédition doit être justifiée et soumise à l’approbation des membres du comité de lecture. Les documents doivent parvenir sous la forme de fichiers Word, envoyés à l’adresse du directeur ([email protected]). Comptes-rendus Contacter le directeur de publication, à l’adresse électronique suivante : [email protected] Langues Les langues acceptées dans la revue sont le français, l’anglais, l’allemand, l’italien, l’espagnol, le tibétain et le chinois. La Revue d'Etudes Tibétaines est publiée par l'UMR 8155 du CNRS (CRCAO), Paris, dirigée par Sylvie Hureau. Hébergement: http://www.digitalhimalaya.com/collections/journals/ret/ v Revue d’Etudes Tibétaines numéro cinquante-six — Octobre 2020 Alice Travers A compiled list of Tibetan districts (rdzong) and government estates of the Ganden Phodrang territory (1830-1959) pp. 5-47 Jonathan Stoltz On the Authorship of the Tshad ma’i de kho na nyid bsdus pa pp. 48-69 Joanna Bialek Towards a standardisation of Tibetan transliteration for textual studies pp. 70–88 Duncan Poupard With the power of their forefathers: Kinship between early Tibetan ritualists and the Naxi dongba of southwest China pp. 89–124 William K. Dewey Patrons and Barbarians: The Righteous Dharma King and Ritual Warfare According to Tāranātha pp. 125–160 Alexander Zorin On a “Golden” Khara-Khoto Manuscript Preserved in the Institute of Oriental Manuscripts, RAS pp. 161–169 James B. Apple Kadampa Pointing-Out Instructions pp. 170-262 Michael R. Sheehy Materializing Dreams and Omens: The Autobiographical Subjectivity of the Tibetan Yoginī Kun dga’ ‘Phrin las dbang mo (1585-1668) pp. 263-292 Comptes-rendus Guntram Hazod Toni Huber. 2020. Source of Life: Revitalisation Rites and Bon Shamans in Bhutan and Eastern Himalayas, Volume 1-2 pp. 293-304 4 Table des Matières Dylan Esler Cantwell, Cathy, Dudjom Rinpoche’s Vajrakīlaya Works: A Study in Authoring, Compiling, and Editing in the Tibetan Revelatory Tradition pp. 305-314 Jaako Takkinen Knowledge and Context in Tibetan Medicine, edited by William McGrath pp. 315-323 Per Kværne Katia Buffetrille, L'âge d'or du Tibet (XVIIe et XVIIIe siècles) pp. 324-326 v A compiled list of Tibetan districts (rdzong) and government estates of the Ganden Phodrang territory (1830-1959) 1 Alice Travers (CRCAO, UMR 8155) he Ganden Phodrang (Dga’ ldan pho brang) government (1642-1959) has been often described as maintaining a T remarkably small administration to rule over a comparatively vast territory. This was achieved not only by maintaining the core of political and administrative offices and functions in Lhasa while delegating great power to territorial representatives posted throughout the whole territory, but also by letting portions of this territory be administered semi-autonomously,2 in what has been characterised overall as “a balance between centralisation and decentralisation” (Goldstein 1971). The Ganden Phodrang territory was divided into estates (gzhis ka) given in tenure to three types of landlords, with the ultimate lord of all land being theoretically the Dalai Lama. An estate could thus belong to either the aristocracy and was termed sger gzhis (private/noble estate) or a monastery and was termed chos gzhis (monastic estate), or it was held 1 This compiled list of districts and government estates was first started in the framework of doctoral research on the aristocracy of the Ganden Phodrang and on the careers of lay officials, for which systematic information on all districts’ names and ranks attached to the various positions of their heads was required (Travers 2009). I would like to thank in particular bka’ zur Zhe bo Blo bzang dar rgyas (born 1933), a former lay official of the Tibetan government, for his help and for the time he dedicated to checking a first draft of this list in 2003 and 2005. The list was recently reviewed and expanded in the framework of the ANR-DFG project TibStat (“Social Status in Tibetan Societies”) thanks to the addition of the information available in Bshad sgra and Nor nang 1956 (presented below); I am very grateful to Josayma Tashi Tsering (AMI) who shared a copy of this source. All errors and uncertainties left in the final version of this work remain mine only. 2 These semi-autonomous sub-entities were Tashi Lhunpo labrang (Bkra shis lhun po bla brang), Sakya (Sa skya) monastery (often referred to, along with the Lhasa government, as “gzhung bla sa gsum” (lit. “the [Lhasa] government, the [Tashi Lhunpo] bla brang and Sakya [monastery]”), and Lhagyari (Lha rgya ri). Alice Travers, “A compiled list of Tibetan districts (rdzong) and government estates of the Ganden Phodrang territory (1830-1959)”, Revue d’Etudes Tibétaines, no. 56, October 2020, pp. 5-47. 6 Revue d’Etudes Tibétaines directly by the government and termed gzhung gzhis (government estate) or more often only gzhis ka.3 The district (rdzong),4 which encompassed several such estates, was the basic territorial administrative unit of the Tibetan government during the entire Ganden Phodrang period. Districts were placed under the authority of one or two District Commissioners (in official documents rdzong sdod and more informally rdzong dpon) 5 based at the fortress used as the district headquarters (rdzong).6 It was there that, outside the capital of Lhasa, justice was administered and taxes were collected. In the last phase of the Ganden Phodrang rule, and in the context of extending and modernising its administration,7 another level was added between the districts and the Central government in Lhasa, namely the regional provinces, whose number progressively increased during the first half of the 20th century. These provinces 3 In Tibetan sources such as lists of districts and estates where it is obvious that the estate is administered directly by the government, the generic term gzhis ka is often only used. 4 The Tibetan term “rdzong” originally designated simply a fortress. The exact time of its semantic extension, also to encompass the territorial unit over which the fortress ruled, and the exact time of the generalisation in Tibet of the administrative unit rdzong based on their eponymous fortress requires further research. It has been attributed to Ta’i si tu Byang chub rgyal mtshan’s rule in the 14th century in Tibetan (Shakapa 1981: 30) and Western (Kapstein 2006: 118) secondary literature, but there is no evidence to support this claim in the autobiography of Byang chub rgyal mtshan (Petech 1990: 90 and 120; Van der Kuijp [1991] 2003: 431). According to Petech, during the Ganden Phodrang period, rdzong meant first only a fortress and only progressively took the meaning of “district”, replacing the former khul; see Petech 1973: 12 and his explanation of khul in his “Glossary of Administrative Terms” of the Ganden Phodrang government: “this term originally indicated a district, but was later replaced by rdzong. It is still used, with the more vague meaning of region or province” (ibid.: 236). 5 From the very beginning of the Ganden Phodrang rule, the officials in charge of the fortresses and their associated districts (khul and later rdzong, see above) were termed rdzong dpon: see Cüppers’ study on the duties of a rdzong dpon (Cüppers 1999), though as Petech remarks in non-Tibetan sources (Chinese and Nepalese) of the 18th to 20th century, they continued to be referred to by their earlier title of sde pa (Petech 1973: 13). 6 A short note of explanation on the choice made here regarding the English translation of the districts’ incumbents: though the translation “District Governor” is also sometimes to be found, in Petech’s work for instance, I have translated rdzong sdod (literally “district resident”) and rdzong dpon (literally “district chief”) as “District Commissioner”, following the common translation found in British archives of the period, and keeping “Governor” for the positions of spyi khyab. The term “district head” renders the term, also used in Tibetan sources, of rdzong ’go. 7 On which see Travers 2009. A compiled list of districts (rdzong) 7 were placed under the authority of one or two Province Governors (spyi khyab) who were entrusted with military responsibilities, in addition to the task of supervising the districts of their province. Nonetheless, until 1959, the district or rdzong remained the basic level of the State administration. To the above-mentioned government estates (gzhung gzhis or gzhis ka) were appointed Estate Managers (gzhis sdod)8—an office that was often assimilated to that of District Commissioners (although it was of inferior status, as will be seen later); therefore, districts and government estates were often listed together, and referred to as “rdzong gzhis, a collective name for administrative units outside Lhasa” (Petech 1973: 13).