Mapping Early Buddhist Sites in Western Tibet:Recent Findings from Tsamda County, ChinaKarl E. RyavecUniversity of Wisconsin, Stevens Point, WI, USA

In this article, I present recentfield survey findings of earlyBuddhist sites in Ngari or westernTibet during August 2006. Thesites are in the core region of theformer Guge kingdom [Fig. 1],and date from the 10th to 13th

century Second Diffusion ofBuddhism period, known inTibetan as the ‘Chidar’ (phyi dar).This survey of abandoned templesand cave murals at several locales

in Tsamda county of Ali prefecturein the Tibet Autonomous Regionis designed to study the spatialpatterns of newly discovered sitesin relation to the better knownsites of historical importance. Inthis way, it may be possible todeduce approximately how manysites probably lie in the canyonsof Ngari awaiting detaileddocumentation. Historical Tibetanrecords do not contain maps, and

so it is often difficult to locate earlytemples listed. Also, many smallershrines and cave murals are notrecorded in the surviving historicalrecords, and it is thus necessaryto survey areas to document sites.

Interest in western Tibet hastended to focus on the region’shistorical importance inspearheading the SecondDiffusion of Buddhism, and the

i c o n o g r a p h i corigins of TibetanBuddhist art.W e s t e r ns c h o l a r s h i plargely startedwith the expe-ditions andfindings of thenoted Tibet-ologist GiuseppeTucci (1933). Hisinterests weresimilar to thoseof Sir Aurel Steinwho earlier ex-plored ancientBuddhist sitesalong the SilkRoad during thefirst decades ofthe twentiethcentury. In bothcases, theseearly archae-ological and art

Fig. 1. Religious and cultural sites in the core region of the GugeKingdom, ca. 10th-14th centuries CE. Copyright © 2007 Karl E.Ryavec

43

history surveys revealed a regiondessicated by climate change overthe past two millennia withnumerous settlement areasabandoned due to dried-upirrigation sources. Recently,archaeological investigations ofwestern Tibetan pre-Buddhist andBuddhist sites have commencedunder collaborations between theAmerican archeologist MarkAldenderfer (2001, 2004), and theChinese archaeologists Hou Weiand Li Yongxian (Hou and Li 2001)of Sichuan University. And I havestudied the aerial extents ofancient abandoned farmland inseveral canyons of the formerGuge kingdom based on 2-footresolution satellite imagery, andmade some preliminary findingson likely historical populationlevels (Ryavec 2005).

Tsamda county lies in the heartof the canyon country ofsouthwestern Tibet carved by theSutlej river of the Induswatershed, and bordered on thesouth by the Himalayan frontierwith India. This region containsmany ancient acropolis fort sites,some probably dating from thefirst millennium BCE Iron Age.Also, the terrain abounds inhabitable caves. Traditionally,many people l ived in cavesespecially during the cold wintermonths. Under the Tibetan empireca. 7th to 9th centuries, westernTibet was annexed and referred toas Zhangzhung. The indigenousBonpo religion remained strongwhile Buddhism seems not to havemade any inroads, unlike inCentral Tibet where it was fosteredas a court religion of theemperors. Little is known of thispast period, with studies by asmall number of specialistsreferring to Zhangzhung in termsranging from a coalition ofterritorially based lineages togroup of kingdoms, and an empire(Bellezza 2003). However, mostscholars agree that theZhangzhung capital was located atKyunglung on the eastern borderof Tsamda county where the Sutlejriver originates on the Tibetan

Plateau west of sacred MountKailash. After the collapse of theTibetan empire in the 9th century,the new Guge kingdom that arosein the 10th century was sometimesstill referred to as Zhangzhung.

It is not clear what sort ofbroader cultural influences mayhave interacted with the historicaldevelopment of Zhangzhungduring the pre-Buddhist period.The nearest major cultural hearthin this part of the world was theHarrapan, or Indus valleycivilization that flourished c. 5000– 2000 BCE, long before availablearchaeological evidence pertainingto Zhangzhung appeared. Whatimpact the urban Harrapan culturemay have had on historicaldevelopments in western Tibet isspeculative at best, as outlined byGeoffrey Samuel (2000).Furthermore, George van Driem(1998) postulates that thenorthern Neolithic culture ofKashmir (2500 – 1700 BCE), muchcloser to western Tibet, representsa colonial exponent of the northChina Majiayao Neolithic culture(ca. 3900 – 1800 BCE). Van Driemaptly points out that this provides

an explanation for the fact thatTibeto-Burmans inhabit both sidesof the Himalayas, the greatestnatural land barrier on earth.Certainly it is reasonable toassume these settlements in theupper Sutlej River valley had anagrarian base long beforeBuddhism arrived, but some timeafter the historical domesticationof the important grain crop plantsof wheat and barley in the MiddleEast about 10,000 years ago.According to J. P. Mallory andVictor Mair (2000), the weight ofcircumstantial evidence for theearly settlement of eastern CentralAsia during the Mesolithic periodindicates western origins. Inaddition to the cultivation ofcereals, archaeological evidencefor the domestication of sheep alsofavors this western originhypothesis. The extent to whichwestern Tibet was geographicallyconnected with these earlydiffusions and later tradingnetworks requires further detailedinterdisciplinary research.

Most of the Buddhist monas-teries in western Tibet were builtunder patronage of the western

Fig. 2. The acropolis fort complex above the present-day village andmonastery of Mangnang. Note the numerous caves of the former resi-dents. Photograph copyright © 2006 Karl E. Ryavec.

44

Tibetan Guge dynasty (ca. 10th to17th centuries CE), which becameinstrumental in supporting a

resurgence of Buddhist art andliterature. During this period manyacropolis fort sites were re-developed to accommodatetemples. In fact, the former Gugecapital at the fortress of Tsaparangis the main destination of mosttourists going to Tsamda countytoday, and is described in detailin guide books to western Tibet.

Yet almost every canyon in thecounty has an ancient acropolisfort complex that saw the addition

of Buddhist temples during the‘Chidar’ period. Buddhist monksalso painted cave murals as theydid throughout the Silk Roadregion.

New Sites

The acropolis fort complex [Fig. 2,facing page] above the village ofMangnang [Fig. 3] contains aruined temple with an approx-imately 4 m 12th-century Buddhiststatue still largely intact [Fig. 4].Mangnang is well known as thesite of an 11th century templewhere the famed Bengali Buddhistmaster Atisha was invited to stayone year ca. 1043 before travelingto Central Tibet where he passedaway. Available guidebooks toNgari make no mention of thisimportant surviving statue in thefort above the Mangnang villagetemple complex.

Bedongpo village lies in a smalltributary of the Sutlej atapproximately 4,200 m. Ruins ofa fort/monastery complex towerabove the vil lage [Fig. 5].Historical records show that themonastery of Bedongpo was abranch of the main monastery ofToling constructed in 996 CEduring the beginning of theBuddhist period in western Tibet.Various other ruined temples arealso found in the Bedongpo valley,

Fig. 3. Mangnang village, and ca. 11th century temple complex. Himalaya fron-tier between Tibet and India in background. Photograph copyright © 2006 KarlE. Ryavec.

Fig. 4. Ca. 12th century ruined statueof a Buddhist deity, approximately 4m tall, on the top of the Mangnang fortcomplex. Photograph copyright © 2006Karl E. Ryavec

Fig. 5. Ruined ca. 12th century fort/temple complex above the village ofBedongpo. Note small new Buddhisttemple at foot of site. Photographcopyright © 2006 Karl E. Ryavec

45

but only near the village was asmall temple rebuilt after China’spolitical and economic reforms inTibet during the 1980s. About 2km downstreamfrom Bedongpois a relativelyunknown sitecalled Drisa[Fig. 6]. Num-erous chortendating fromcirca the twelfthcentury lie onthe valley floorbelow an exten-sive complex ofcaves and anacropolis fort.Traces of redpigment on thewalls of at leastone of theruined fortb u i l d i n g si n d i c a t ep o s s i b l etemples. No traces of houses,however, are noticeable, indicatingthat the former farmers probablylived year-round in the caves. Theentire valley here below Bedongpovillage consists of large tracts ofabandoned farmland, alsoindicated by a surviving chortennear the edge of an ancient field[Fig. 7].

The Khyunglang cave [Fig. 8]contains 3 walls with surviving

circa twelfth-century murals [Figs.9, 10, facing page]. There aresome other caves in the valley, butladders are required to access

them. The Khyung-lang cave lies about5 km upstream fromShangtse fort, thereputed summercapital of the Gugekings.

Conclusion

Tsamda county con-tains many surviving

early Tibetan Buddhist forms of artand architecture relativelyunknown except to a handful ofspecialists. The area’s importanceas one of the core agrarian basesof the kingdoms of Guge andPurang starting in the tenthcentury led to royal patronage forsubstantial temple construction.

There are several problems,however, that make it difficult ifnot impossible for scholars andtourists to visit most of these sites.In recent years, tourists to Tsamdacounty have generally only beengranted access to the maintemples at Toling in the countyseat, the nearby fort and templesat Tsaparang, and the Dungkarcaves and fort easily accessedfrom the main road into thecounty. Chinese border securityconcerns place most of the other

sites off limits,ostensibly dueto sensitivityabout the loca-tions of militarybases andpatrols. Chinamight do wellto learn fromits neighborIndia, whichnow allowsscholars totravel within 1km of itsclaimed border

Fig. 6. Drisa fort complex with ca. 12th century chorten. Photograph copyright© 2006 Karl E. Ryavec.

Fig. 7. Ca. 12th century chorten and aban-doned farmland in the Bedongpo valley.Note the numerous caves of the formerresidents. Photograph copyright © 2006Karl E. Ryavec.

Fig. 8. Entrance to the Khyunglang cave.Photograph copyright © 2006 Karl E. Ryavec.

46

with China. But China, unlikeIndia, has to deal with its citizensattempting to flee the country.Thus the wider off-limit areas onthe Chinese side reflect, in part, amethod of preventing people fromgetting close enough to the borderto walk into India. A second

concern relates to efforts byChinese cultural offices preventingphotography at the sites. Thisproblem could be easily solved ifthose scholars who have alreadytaken high-resolution photos (andofficial Chinese-sponsored surveyshave already done this) made

them freely available. This wouldthen make it possible for morepeople to visit the sites without theneed to take photographs of themurals, as complete images wouldalready be available.

Acknowledgements

I would like to thank the TibetanAcademy of Social Sciences andProf. David Germano of theUniversity of Virginia for facilitatingmy field research in the TibetAutonomous Region of Chinaunder the general auspices of theTibetan and Himalayan DigitalLibrary project.

About the Author

Dr. Karl E. Ryavec is an AssistantProfessor in the Geography/Geology Department at theUniversity of Wisconsin, StevensPoint. His Ph.D. dissertation(University of Minnesota, 2002)was entitled “Land Use Change inCentral Tibet, c. 1830-2000.”Starting in 2004, Dr. Ryavecconducted field research inTsamda county in China tounderstand better the growth anddecline of the western TibetanGuge kingdom. E-mail:<kryavec@uwsp.edu>.

References

Aldenderfer 2001Mark Aldenderfer. “Piyang: aTibetan Buddhist Temple andMonastic Complex of the 10th -11th

Centuries AD in Far WesternTibet.” Archaeology, Ethnology, &Anthropology of Eurasia, 2001,4(8):138-146.

Aldenderfer and Moyes 2004Mark Aldenderfer and HolleyMoyes. “Excavations at Dindun, apre-Buddhist village site in farwestern Tibet.” In: Huo Wei andLi Yongxian, eds. Essays of theInternational Conference onTibetan Archaeology and Art.Chengdu, China: Center forTibetan Studies, Sichuan UnionUniversity, 2004: 47-69.

Fig. 9. One of the three c. 12th century mandala murals in the Khyunglang cave.Photograph copyright © 2006 Karl E. Ryavec.

Fig. 10. Detail of a Guge warrior in one of the three c. 12th century mandalamurals in the Khyunglang cave. Photograph copyright © 2006 Karl E. Ryavec.

47

Bellezza 2003John V. Bellezza. “Ancient Tibet:Bringing to Light the Forgotten. Acomprehensive survey: of Pre-Buddhist sites in Upper Tibet(1992-2002).” Athena Review, 3/4 (2003), online at <http://w w w . a t h e n a p u b . c o m /12tibet.htm>.

Huo and Li 2001Huo Wei and Li Yongxian. “XizangZhada Xian Piyang-Dongga Yi Zhi1997 Nian Diaocha Yufa Jue”[Survey and Excavation of thePiyang-Dongga Site in ZandaCounty, Tibet in 1997]. ActaArchaeologica Sinica, 3 (2001):397-426.

Mallory and Mair 2000J. P. Mallory and Victor H. Mair. TheTarim Mummies: Ancient China

and the Mystery of the EarliestPeoples from the West. London:Thames & Hudson, 2000.

Ryavec 2005Karl E. Ryavec. “Aerial Survey ofAbandoned Agricultural Fields inthe Ancient Tibetan Kingdom ofGuge: Recent Findings from 2-footResolution Quick Bird Imagery ofBedongpo and Environs.” AerialArchaeology Research GroupNewsletter, 30 (2005): 18-25.

Samuel 2000Geoffrey Samuel. “The IndusValley Civilization and Early Tibet.”In: Samten G. Karmay andYasuhiko Nagano, eds. NewHorizons in Bon Studies. BonStudies, 2. Osaka: NationalMuseum of Ethnology, 2000: 651-670.

Tucci 1933Giuseppe Tucci. Secrets of Tibet:Being the Chronicle of the TucciScientific Expedition to WesternTibet. Translated from the Italianedition by Mary A. Johnstone.London; Glasgow: Blackie & Son,1933.

Van Driem 1998George Van Driem. “NeolithicCorrelates of Ancient Tibeto-Burman Migrations.” In: RogerBlench and Matthew Spriggs, eds.Archaeology and Language. Vol.2. London; New York: Routledge,1998: 67-102.

48

Han Lacquerware and the WineCups of Noin UlaFrançois LouisBard Graduate Center, New York

Lacquer work is today recognizedas one of the centrally distinctivecomponents of Han materialculture (206 BCE–220 CE). What’smore, the Former Han period (206BCE–8 CE) has come to becelebrated as the apogee ofChinese lacquer art (see Wang1982, 80–99; Prüch 1997; Fuzhou1998; Barbieri-Low 2001; and Li2004 for further reading on Hanlacquer). These insights arerelatively recent and entirely theresult of archaeological dis-coveries. Precisely a century haspassed since the firstarchaeological discovery andidentification of a lacquer vesselfrom Han China. In the spring of1907, while surveying the Hanborder fortifications north ofDunhuang — and just weeksbefore coming upon thesensational medieval library at theMogao Caves — Aurel Stein dryly

recorded his historic find, awooden ear cup with scrollornament from the ruins of a Hancommand center (Stein 1921, Vol.2, 645; Vol. 4, pl. LII). SinceStein’s discovery, and especiallyover the past forty years,archaeologists have unearthedthousands of Han and even pre-Han lacquer artifacts, severalhundred of which are fortunatelystill in fine condition.

We now know that the use oflacquer as a protective, water-proof coating made from the sapof the lacquer tree (rhusverniciflua) goes back to Neolithictimes in China. But as anartistically emancipated craft,lacquering came into its own onlyin the late fifth century BCE in thestate of Chu in southern China.From that time on it was thepreferred means of decoration for

all types of wood-based artifacts,whether vessels, boxes, furniture,musical instruments, arms,chariots, or coffins. By the Qin(220–206 BCE) and early Haneras, lacquering had become soprominent a craft that certainvessels were even produced as‘pure’ lacquer artifacts without awood substrate, using insteadlacquer-drenched ramie fabric tobuild a core.

As a commodity, lacquer workwas in many respects akin towoven silk during the Han era.Both had relatively little intrinsicmaterial value. Made fromrenewable resources, silk andlacquer products, unlike artifactsmade of jade and gold, werevalued primarily on the basis oftheir design and manufacture.This meant that they could bemade to cater to a relatively broadspectrum of the population. Plainsilk fabric and utensils simplyvarnished in raw brown lacquerwere widely available andessential commodities. Butpatterned silks with complexweave structures and glossy,colored lacquers with artfullypainted red and black decoration