Thus, when a particular year is to be specified, the Tibetan term for year, Lo, is added to the name of the animal, and it is called Ji-lo, "mouse year;" Lang-lo, "ox year," &c. When the date of an event which has taken place previous to the present duodecimal era is to be indicated, the number of cycles that have passed since the time in question is first put down, and by adding to it the number of the animal year the entire sum of years is accurately arrived at. 2. In books, as well as generally in conversation, the dates of past events are not unfrequently determined by counting back from the current year. For instance, the present year being 1863, the birth of Tsonkhapa, which occurred in 1355 A.D., would be said to have taken place 508 years ago. This method is also applied in the Baidurya Karpo, from which Csoma has extracted his highly important chronological table.2 3. A cycle of sixty years seems to have been in very general use in Tíbet a long time ago. As a novelty, 1 Csoma, "Grammar," p. 147. 3 2 Csoma, "Grammar," p. 181; Huc, "Souvenirs," Vol. II., p. 369. 3 It is curious that the present generation of Tibetans are unacquainted with the historical data of its origin and antiquity. They account for the introduction of this cycle by the supposition that the idea had been taken from the average length of human life. Such, at least, was the assertion of Chibu Lama, the political agent of the Raja of Síkkim, and of several other Lamas. CYCLE OF SIXTY YEARS. 277 it was ordained, probably in the eleventh century A.D., that the cycles of sixty years should be counted from the year 1026, which is the year next to 1025, in which the Kala Chakra system had been introduced into Tíbet (see p. 47). The year 1026 being the first year of the first cycle, 1086 became the first year of the second cycle. If the number of the cycles that have already elapsed were regularly added in books and documents to the definition of the current year, this system would be as precise as our way of counting by centuries; but the number of the cycle being omitted before the year to be determined,' the reader frequently finds it no easy task to assign the correct era by weighing and comparing dates of an indirect nature. The year 1026 was also the first year of the contemporaneous Indian cycle, and thus the identity of the Tibetan and the Indian order of years within the cycle became possible. The first, second, third year, &c., of any Tibetan cycle is consequently the first, second, third year, &c., of an Indian cycle; the number of cycles, however, do not accord with each other, the Indian not dating from the year 1026, but from one, or even two other and anterior epochs." It is already long ago, at least under the dynasty Han, or 206 B.C., that the Chinese began to measure time by cycles of sixty years, a period formed by the combinations of a decimal and a duodecimal series. But As an example see the historical document relating to the Hímis monastery, p. 183; and the Dába document, p. 278. 2 See Csoma, "Grammar," p. 148. between the Chinese cycle and that of the Indo-Tibetan the coincidence was not perfect, a third year of the Chinese cycle being coeval with the first of the Tibetan cycle, and so on. This difference, however, remained without any influence upon Tibetan chronology so long as China possessed no political weight in the country; but when the Chinese government, in 1718,' made Tíbet a dependency, it soon followed that the inhabitants were obliged to adapt the cyclic order of their years to that of the Chinese, and this could only be effected by advancing the number of the year throughout by two. Thus two years are virtually cancelled from the Tibetan calendar, so that the cycles commence two years earlier than before the change; c. g. in 1864 instead of 1866. The altered chronology is used at present in all official matters, and is generally adopted for private business. In support of this explanation I quote the document from Dába. It is dated from the sixth month (month 1 Köppen, "Die Religion des Buddha," Vol. II., p. 196. 2 It is styled Lam-yig-dang-ming-dang-yar-na, "Road prescription, and also denomination how far up," and was made at Nyugcháng, a halting place about eight miles south of Dába. Adolphe engaged to pay a sum of "six Srang (ounces) of gold” (= about £60) to the Chinese officer residing at Dába, if he or his brother Robert should cross the Sátlej river; his head man, called Bara Mani, or also simply Mani, pledged himself to pay this sum. The treaty was written by the Chinaman himself, who added, instead of his signature, the official seal; Adolphe, having no seal at hand, stamped it with the but-end of his riding-whip.-The Lama Gombojew transcribed the original into capital letters, in which it is also printed on Plate XVII. But here again (comp. p. 183) occur so many deviations from the terminology of the sacred books, that it was impossible to arrive at a translation. Prof. Schiefner, who had kindly looked for analogous documents in modern dialects in the St. Petersburg libraries, did not find any which would have afforded the means of detailing quite literally either the Dába or the Himis document. This was in reference to the Routes he and his brother Robert should be allowed to take in Gnári Khórsum. ལམ་ཡིག་དང་མིང་དང་ཡང་ན། ༄༄ ཤིང་ཡོས་ ཟླ་བ་ དྲུག་ པའི་ཆེ་ལང་ཆུ་གཉིས་གོང་མ་ཁྲིམས་འདག་པ་རིན་པོ་ཆེ་ཞབས་ དྲུང་དུ་ཞུས་པ་ལམ་ཡིག་ གུང་ ཐམ་པས་བློས་གླང་བས་མ་ རྒྱུར་པས་ གས་ཆིག་ རྩང་མ་ ཡུལ་ གཉིད་པ་འདིས་ལོ་སྤྱི་གླིང་བོར་སམ་ནས་འདིང་ རྒྱུད་བླ་སྤྱན་གནངས་སོང་འདི་ཕེབས་མི་གྲོལ་ ཞུས་པ་ང་མི་སྤྱོད་གཉིས་༑ ད་འབྲ་སྤང་ཐོག། ལས་གཅིག་རྩེད་གཉིས། གྲན་ཏབ་ལས་སྤེལ་ གཏོག་མ་བཏོགས་ལོགས། གཡས་ལག་གཡོན་གཉིས༑ གོང་ཚིག་ལ་འགལ་ཆེས་ ཁྲིམས་ ཞབས་ཪིན་པོ་ཆེ་ལ་ སེཪ་སྲང་ རྩྭ་ཤུལ་ཆེད་ ཞུལ་ རྒྱུཪ་དོ་དག་སྤྱིའི་བློས་གླང་པ་ ཡས་སལ་ཀྱི་ ཞིན་ནད་ཀྱིས་གནང་ལ་གུ་ཆེམས་གཉིས་ཀྱིས་དག༑༑ TT |