Defence and Offence

Federica Venturi, Alice Travers

► To cite this version:

Federica Venturi, Alice Travers. Defence and Offence: Armour and Weapons in Tibetan Culture. Annali di Ca' Foscari. Serie orientale, 57 (Supplement), pp.325, 2021, 10.30687/AnnOr/2385-3042/2021/02/006 . hal-03512878

HAL Id: hal-03512878

https://hal.science/hal-03512878

Submitted on 5 Jan 2022

**HAL** is a multi-disciplinary open access
archive for the deposit and dissemination of sci-
entific research documents, whether they are pub-
lished or not. The documents may come from
teaching and research institutions in France or
abroad, or from public or private research centers.

L'archive ouverte pluridisciplinaire HAL, est
destinée au dépôt et à la diffusion de documents
scientifiques de niveau recherche, publiés ou non,
émanant des établissements d'enseignement et de
recherche français ou étrangers, des laboratoires
publics ou privés.

<figure><img src="image_1.png" /></figure>
Annali
di Ca' Foscari

Serie orientale

Vol. 57

Dicembre – Supplemento – 2021

e-ISSN 2385-3042

<figure><img src="image_2.png" /></figure>

Edizioni
Ca'Foscari
e-ISSN 2385-3042

**Annali di Ca' Foscari**
Serie orientale

Direttore
Antonio Rigopoulos

**Edizioni Ca' Foscari - Digital Publishing**

Fondazione Università Ca' Foscari

Dorsoduro 3246, 30123 Venezia

URL http://edizionicafoscari.unive.it/it/edizioni/riviste/annali-di-ca-foscari-serie-orientale/
# Annali di Ca' Foscari. Serie orientale

## Rivista annuale

**Direzione scientifica** Antonio Rigopoulos (Università Ca' Foscari Venezia, Italia) Aldo Ferrari (Vicedirettore) (Università Ca' Foscari Venezia, Italia)

**Comitato scientifico** Frédéric Bauden (Université de Liège, Belgique) Giuliano Boccali (Università degli Studi di Milano, Italia) Adriana Boscaro (Università Ca' Foscari Venezia, Italia) Michel Bozdemir (INALCO, Paris, France) Lucia Dolce (SOAS, London, UK) Mahmud Fotuhi (Ferdowsi University of Mashhad, Iran) Roger Greatrex (Lunds Universitet, Sverige) Christian Henriot (Université Lumière-Lyon 2, France) Elguja Khintibidze (Tbilisi State University, Georgia) Ross J. King (The University of British Columbia, Canada) Michel Lagarde (Pontificio Istituto di Studi Arabi e d'Islamistica, Roma, Italia) Gregory B. Lee (Université «Jean Moulin» Lyon 3, France) Olga Lizzini (Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Nederland) José Martínez Delgado (Universidad de Granada, España) David R. McCann (Harvard University, Cambridge, USA) Francesca Orsini (SOAS, London, UK) Tudor Parfitt (Florida International University, Miami, USA) Giuliano Tamani (Università Ca' Foscari Venezia, Italia) Theo M. van Lint (University of Oxford, UK)

**Comitato di redazione** Attilio Andreini (Università Ca' Foscari Venezia, Italia) Giampiero Bellingeri (Università Ca' Foscari Venezia, Italia) Giovanni Bulian (Università Ca' Foscari Venezia, Italia) Paolo Calvetti (Università Ca' Foscari Venezia, Italia) Piero Capelli (Università Ca' Foscari Venezia, Italia) Marco Ceresa (Università Ca' Foscari Venezia, Italia) Vincenza D'Urso (Università Ca' Foscari Venezia, Italia) Franco Gatti (Università Ca' Foscari Venezia, Italia) Antonella Ghersetti (Università Ca' Foscari Venezia, Italia) Tiziana Lippiello (Università Ca' Foscari Venezia, Italia) Daniela Meneghini (Università Ca' Foscari Venezia, Italia) Toshio Miyake (Università Ca' Foscari Venezia, Italia) Luca Maria Olivieri (Università Ca' Foscari Venezia, Italia) Stefano Pellò (Università Ca' Foscari Venezia, Italia) Sabrina Rastelli (Università Ca' Foscari Venezia, Italia) Marco Salati (Università Ca' Foscari Venezia, Italia) Gaga Shurgaia (Università degli Studi di Napoli «L'Orientale», Italia) Silvia Vesco (Università Ca' Foscari Venezia, Italia) Ida Zilio-Grandi (Università Ca' Foscari Venezia, Italia)

**Editor associato** Marcella Mariotti (Università Ca' Foscari Venezia, Italia)

**Direttore responsabile** Anna Morbiato (Università Ca' Foscari Venezia, Italia)

**Redazione** | **Head office** Università Ca' Foscari Venezia | Dipartimento di Studi sull'Asia e sull'Africa Mediterranea | Palazzo Vendramin dei Carmini | Dorsoduro 3462 - 30123 Venezia | Italia | annali.orientali@unive.it

**Editore** Edizioni Ca' Foscari - Digital Publishing | Dorsoduro 3246, 30123 Venezia, Italia | ecf@unive.it

**Stampa** Logo srl, via Marco Polo 8, 35010 Borgoricco (PD)

© 2021 Fondazione Università Ca' Foscari

© 2021 Edizioni Ca' Foscari - Digital Publishing per la presente edizione

<figure><img src="image_3.png" /></figure>

Quest'opera è distribuita con Licenza Creative Commons Attribuzione 4.0 Internazionale

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License

This volume has been published with the support of the East Asian Civilisation Research Centre (CRCAO-UMR8155), CNRS, EPHE-PSL, Collège de France, Université de Paris.

<figure><img src="image_4.png" /></figure>

<figure><img src="image_5.png" /></figure>

<figure><img src="image_6.png" /></figure>

Certificazione scientifica delle Opere pubblicate da Edizioni Ca' Foscari - Digital Publishing: tutti i saggi pubblicati hanno ottenuto il parere favorevole da parte di valutatori esperti della materia, attraverso un processo di revisione anonima sotto la responsabilità del Comitato scientifico della rivista. La valutazione è stata condotta in aderenza ai criteri scientifici ed editoriali di Edizioni Ca' Foscari.

Scientific certification of the works published by Edizioni Ca' Foscari - Digital Publishing: all essays published in this volume have received a favourable opinion by subject-matter experts, through an anonymous peer review process under the responsibility of the Scientific Committee of the journal. The evaluations were conducted in adherence to the scientific and editorial criteria established by Edizioni Ca' Foscari.
## Sommario

### DEFENCE AND OFFENCE: ARMOUR AND WEAPONS IN TIBETAN CULTURE

edited by Federica Venturi and Alice Travers

#### Armour and Weapons in Tibetan Culture
An Introduction

Alice Travers, Federica Venturi 731

#### Some Reflections on the Question of Military Innovation in Tibet
A Preface

Johan Elverskog 745

#### Armour and Weapons in Tibet from Yongle to Younghusband. Learning from Object-Driven Research

Donald La Rocca 755

#### Arms and Armour in Ancient and Medieval Tibetan Literature. A Lexicographical Approach

Petra Maurer 803

#### Khra ring bog gi bshad pa and Other Material on the Matchlock

Tashi Tsering Josayma 861

URL http://edizionicafoscari.unive.it/it/edizioni/riviste/annali-di-ca-foscari-serie-orientale/2021/2supplemento/DOI http://doi.org/10.30687/AnnOr/2385-3042/2021/02

<figure><img src="image_7.png" /></figure>
**The Dorjéling Armoury in the Potala According
to the Fifth Dalai Lama's gsung 'bum**

Federica Venturi

933

**From Matchlocks to Machine Guns. The Modernisation
of the Tibetan Army's Firearms between Local Production
and Import (1895-1950)**

Alice Travers

981
This volume is dedicated to the memory
of Dr. John Clarke (1954-2020)*
<figure><img src="image_8.png" /></figure>
Defence and Offence:
Armour and Weapons
in Tibetan Culture

edited by

Federica Venturi and Alice Travers
<figure><img src="image_9.png" /></figure>
# Armour and Weapons in Tibetan Culture
An Introduction

Alice Travers

Centre de recherche sur les civilisations de l'Asie orientale;

Centre national de la recherche scientifique, Paris, France

Federica Venturi

Centre de recherche sur les civilisations de l'Asie orientale, Paris, France

This special issue of *Annali di Ca' Foscari. Serie orientale* collects the proceedings of the workshop entitled "Defence and Offence: Armour and Weapons in Tibetan Culture", organised in the framework of the ERC-funded project *The Tibetan Army of the Dalai Lamas, 1642-1959* ('TibArmy', grant agreement 677952, 2016-23), that took place in Paris on 29 November 2018. Dedicated to the theme of arms and armour in Tibetan culture, the workshop aimed to gather scholars from various disciplines (history, art history, philology, Mongol studies and arms and armour specialists) in an attempt to spur research and dialogue on the development and history of Tibetan weapons in this pivotal historical era. In fact, if one considers the military origins of the Ganden Phodrang, it is rather astonishing that the study of weapons and warfare has not been the object of more dedicated research. As it is well known, the establishment of this government was rendered possible by the victories of Mongol and Tibetan armies fighting in support of the Gélukpa. However, the majority of the textual sources at our disposal do not focus on the military operations and battles that led to the unification of most of Tibet under a sole government. As a consequence, to this day little is known about the mil-

<figure><img src="image_10.png" /></figure>

Edizioni
Ca' Foscari

Submitted
Published

2021-07-20
2021-12-10

Open access

© 2021 | © Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International Public License

<figure><img src="image_11.png" /></figure>

**Citation** Travers, A.; Venturi, F. (2021). "Defence and Offence. An Introduction". *Annali di Ca' Foscari. Serie orientale*, 57, supplement, 731-744.
itary history of Tibet. This is compounded by the fact that the 'Roof
of the World' remains a place celebrated for its spiritual life, and as
a result of this, research on the Tibetan civilisation has traditional-
ly revolved around its religious aspects.

Only in 2006, when the pioneering exhibition *Warriors of the Himalaya* was inaugurated at the Metropolitan Museum of Art, the subject of weapons, armours and warfare in Tibet was openly and directly broached. The exhibition and the publication of its important catalogue,¹ which included four articles examining questions connected to arms and armour from different viewpoints,² represent a significant turning point and a source of inspiration for the 'TibArmy' Project in general³ and in particular for the present volume's endeavour to add new avenues of research on Tibetan weapons.

In other fields, the pursuit of military history, including research
on strategies and tactics, logistics, and technological advances, has
proven to be an extremely useful tool that allows to look at society,
government, and state through a completely different set of lenses
than the traditional ones of politics, economy and religion. Thus, to
provide only the most obvious example here, a now old but still much
debated theory, that of the 'military revolution', which for more than
half a century has stimulated a reassessment of premodern and ear-
ly modern European history, is still completely untested in the field
of Tibetan studies. First introduced by Michael Roberts in 1955,⁴ and
later developed and calibrated by his pupil Geoffrey Parker in 1988,⁵
this idea posits that military innovation in Europe in the fifteenth
century, namely the development of mobile field artillery, immense-
ly facilitated the storming of citadels and castles, and thus led to the

Research for this article and for the whole volume was funded by the European Research Council (ERC) under the European Union's Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme ('TibArmy', grant agreement 677952). The content of this volume reflects only the authors' views and the ERC is not responsible for any use that may be made of the information it contains.

1 La Rocca, *Warriors of the Himalayas*.

2 A general introduction on Tibetan arms and armour by Donald La Rocca; a short history of ironworking in Tibet, by the late John Clarke (whose untimely passing prevented his collaboration to this volume); a discussion of armour and weapons in the iconography of Tibetan Buddhist deities by Amy Heller; and an article on *gonkhang* themes by Lozang Jamspal.

3 So far, the 'TibArmy' Project has published two other edited volumes on the history of the military in Tibet during this period: Travers, Venturi, *Buddhism and the Military* and FitzHerbert, Travers, *Asian Influences*; another edited collection, on the wars of the Ganden Phodrang, is in preparation.

4 Roberts, "The Military Revolution. 1560-1660".

5 Parker, *The Military Revolution*. Other earlier, but still influential, theories on the effect of gunpowder on societies are briefly illustrated in Needham, *Science and Civilisation in China*, vol. V, part 7, 16-18.
evolution of fortifications, which became stronger in order to resist these assaults. In response to this, armies sent to lay a siege substantially increased in size, thus requiring the development of sophisticated and orderly structure both in the battlefield and within the administrations of the governments at war. These had to become better organised in order to raise revenue for and arrange all the logistical facets concerning equipment, provisions, soldiers' pay, military schools, barracks and on-the-move lodging, training, the manufacture or purchase of illustrated drill manuals, and so on. Such efforts contributed to the centralisation of state power, eventually leading to the demise of the administrations less successful in adapting to the new order, and the invigoration of states that innovated efficaciously. Ultimately, the countries with complex but efficient centralised administrations and in possession of superior military technology and organisation ended up dominating large parts of the rest of the world, and creating ever-larger global empires. The idea of the military revolution, then, has since become one of the possible explanations for the marked ascent of Western power over other civilisations.

This brief summary does not imply the project's full support of this theory; indeed, the idea of the military revolution has been critiqued, revised and nuanced in multiple ways during the last thirty years, and continues to be debated.<fnref n="6" /> However, recapping its original formulation here serves to illustrate the different ramifications that an analysis of the impact of war on society may bring, and more precisely of the possible historical stakes implied in a study of weapons in a given society. Indeed, while this theory seems at first sight wholly unrelated to the Tibetan case, its model, comprising research on the technological improvements in weapons, and the necessarily related studies of logistics, reconstruction of battles, perusal of state records pertaining to military expenses and taxation, etc., has already been applied to other societies, including India, Japan, Korea, the Ottoman empire and the Islamic states of the Maghreb,<fnref n="7" /> as well as to Asia as a whole.<fnref n="8" /> The point, then, is that at the moment the field of Tibetan studies still lacks an assessment of the impact of new weapon technologies on society, and this realisation has been among

<footnote n="6">6 Among the many publications devoted to this topic one may mention: Black, *A Military Revolution?*; Downing, *The Military Revolution and Political Change*; Jacob, *Visoni-Alonzo, The Military Revolution in Early Modern Europe*; Parrott, *The Business of War*; Rogers, *The Military Revolution Debate*.</footnote>

<footnote n="7">7 See Ágoston, "Firearms and Military Adaptation"; Andrade, *The Gunpowder Age*; Andrade, Kang, Cooper, "A Korean Military Revolution?"; Börekçi, "A Contribution to the Military Revolution Debate"; Cook, *The Hundred Years War for Morocco*; Eaton, Wagoner, "Warfare on the Deccan Plateau 1450-1600"; Khan, *Gunpowder and Firearms*; Stavros, "Military Revolution in Early Modern Japan".</footnote>

<footnote n="8">8 Lorge, *The Asian Military Revolution*.</footnote>
the major reasons behind ‘TibArmy’s determination to organise this
workshop and publish its proceedings.

We thus decided to start from the first link of the chain, i.e. the
study of weapons itself, partly because the whole idea of the military
revolution proceeds from technological improvements in weapon-
ry, and partly because we could ground our research on the above-
mentioned prior scholarship by Donald La Rocca. It was also decided
that this focus on Tibetan weapons needed to be chronologically ex-
tended to cover the historical periods prior to the Ganden Phodrang,
to include all types of weapons even outside the scope of the mili-
tary usage (and include hunting or private use), and, to extend to Ti-
betan areas beyond the territories of the Ganden Phodrang govern-
ment. Therefore, the main questions that oriented the participants’
research were: which weapons did the Tibetan use, where did they
come from, when were they used, and in which circumstances?

Studying weapons in Tibetan culture presents several limits and
difficult-to-solve puzzles. The first challenge is to establish a clear
chronology of the existence and diffusion of weapons in Tibet. To de-
termine the time when important, transformational technological
advances occurred in Tibet would allow one to reflect on the mod-
el established by Geoffrey Parker, but this remains a somewhat haz-
ardous venture, mainly because of enduring terminological ambigu-
ities in Tibetan sources.<fnref n="9" /> Just to give an example, if one tries to find
out when firearms of the type that spurred the military revolution
in Europe, the matchlock musket, appeared in Tibet, one faces a sin-
gular problem: the generic word for it is *me mda*, literally ‘fire-ar-
row’, but, this word does not change as time, and technological ad-
vances, progress.

The word *me mda’* is thus first found in texts much earlier than
the introduction of firearms in Tibet such as, for instance, the *gsung
’bum* of Mar pa Chos kyi blo gros (1002/1012-1097/1100), the *gsung
’bum* of the five founding patriarchs of the Sa skya order (eleventh to
thirteenth century) and the *gsung ’bum* of the third Karma pa Rang
’byung rdo rje (1284-1339). In these cases, the term may simply de-
note a true ‘fire-arrow’, that is, something similar to the Chinese-
style fire lance,<fnref n="10" /> an early ancestor of the gun that appeared in China
already in the tenth or eleventh century, and that although it did use

<footnote n="9">9 The central problem of terminology in the study of weapons in particular, and of new technology in general was already highlighted in Needham, which talked of “terminological confusion”: “when the thing fundamentally changed, while the name did not” (Needham, *Science and Civilisation in China*, vol. V, part 7, 11-12). In the case of Tibet, the question was addressed by La Rocca, who authored the first “Tibetan-English Glossary of Arms and Armor Terms” (La Rocca, *Warriors of the Himalayas*, 267-87).</footnote>

<footnote n="10">10 An illustration of a fire lance can be seen in Needham, *Science and Civilisation in China*, vol. V, part 7, 238.</footnote>
gunpowder, had a barrel made of bamboo or paper, and spewed out sparks or flames rather than projectiles.<fnref n="11" /> In literature dating from the seventeenth century onward it is ascertained that the term *me mda’* may indicate muzzle-loading muskets, and more particularly a matchlock (as will be seen in this issue, it seems quite unlikely that flintlocks ever made their way to Tibet).<fnref n="12" /> In the following centuries, and especially in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries, the same term may conceivably denote also more advanced imported breech-loading firearms and rifles. We also know for sure, as it is testified by numerous photographs, that matchlock technology remained commonly in use in Tibet well into the twentieth century, so that even in this period the term *me mda’* may still mean ‘matchlock’.

However, the meanings (fire arrow or firearms) of the occurrences found in the intermediate period, i.e. the fifteenth to seventeenth century, are not always clear since the question of the precise date of introduction of firearms into Tibet remains a thorny one.

At present, as it is shown in Tashi Tsering Josayma's contribution to this volume, the earliest documented references to firearms in Tibet may be ascribed to the first half of the seventeenth century, with 1618-19 being the earliest date confirmed through historical sources. The episode in question, narrated in the biography of the first Panchen Lama, regards the clashes between the ruler of Tsang (Sde pa Gtsang pa) and the Mongols; on one of these occasions “a rain of arrows (nyag phran) and me mda’ fell” (*me mda’ dang nyag phran gyi char ’bab*).<fnref n="13" /> While some may doubt that in this case *me mda’* actually refers to firearms, and would argue that it may be interpreted as fire-arrows, not many years later, in 1634, we have definite certainty of the utilisation of gunpowder in a war context. During the second war between the ruler of Tsang and Bhutan, a stash of gunpowder explosives stored by the Bhutanese in a fortress at Sinmodoka (Srin mo dho kha) exploded unexpectedly, apparently killing all the Tibetans who were besieging it.<fnref n="14" /> It goes without saying that if the Tibetans were not yet aware of the power of firearms, they certainly became so at this point. To continue with our examples, one may refer to another source discussing the events of the seventeenth century, the *La dwags rgyal rabs*, which mentions that the skills with a matchlock of King Senge Namgyal (r. 1616-42) were excellent.<fnref n="15" /> Interestingly, the term found in the *La dwags rgyal rabs* and

<footnote n="11">11 See Andrade, *The Gunpowder Age*, 75.</footnote>

<footnote n="12">12 See Travers’ contribution in this issue.</footnote>

<footnote n="13">13 See Tashi Tsering Josayma in this issue. A similar passage from the same source, but referring to 1621, is also identified in Ardussi, "Bhutan before the British", 262 fn. 79.</footnote>

<footnote n="14">14 See Aris, *Bhutan*, 219; Ardussi, "Bhutan before the British", 220.</footnote>

<footnote n="15">15 Francke, *Antiquities of Indian Tibet*, vol. 2, 39, ll. 20-1</footnote>
translated by Francke as “matchlock” is *glog*,<fnref n="16" /> although already in the
*Mi dbang rtogs brjod* the common term for a firearm is *me'i 'khrul 'khor*.
While there is an obvious temporal gap between the two texts – the
chronicles of Ladakh are ascribed to the seventeenth century,<fnref n="17" /> while
the *Mi dbang rtogs brjod* was completed in 1733 – one might also sur-
mise that the term *glog*, meaning literally ‘lightning’, with its focus on
the sudden flash of light produced by the weapon, better describes an
initial focus on the wondrous qualities of the matchlock, while the desig-
nation *me'i 'phrul 'khor* shows a certain understanding of the mechanism
and automation that rendered possible the functioning of the firearm.

However that may be, by the time the *Mi dbang rtogs brjod* was
composed, certain technological advances had probably made their
way into Tibet. Moreover, some of these may have been introduced
by the Zunghars during the occupation of Lhasa between 1717 and
1720. It is well known, in fact, that in 1716 a Zunghar (Kalmyk) raid
against a Russian convoy of prisoners of war being transported to Si-
beria captured, among others, Johan Gustaf Renat,<fnref n="18" /> an expert Swed-
ish artillery lieutenant. Renat remained a captive of the Zunghars for
seventeen years and soon became respected for his knowledge of mil-
itary matters. We know this from several sources. One is his own pe-
tition to the Swedish government to receive a pension, that he penned
after his return to Sweden in 1734. Here he stated that he made guns
and mortars for the Kalmyks, organised their artillery, and taught
two hundred of them the use of those arms, “all out of love for his
country”.<fnref n="19" /> In addition, the funerary eulogy written for his wife Bri-
gitta Scherzenfeldt, another Swede who had been imprisoned by the
Kalmyks and whom he married while in captivity, mentions that, on
their return to Sweden, Renat had been arrested in Moscow because

the Russians had taken up great hate for him inasmuch as he
had helped their enemy the Kalmyks by some artillery and other
things, such as the usual European military sciences and drills,
tolerably put in place to defend themselves against a forthcoming
enemy assault.<fnref n="20" />

<footnote n="16">16 Note, however, that the term *me mda’* appears in the *La dwags rgyal rabs* in a list of offerings donated to Stag tshang ras pa; see Tashi Tsering Josayma’s contribution in this issue.</footnote>

<footnote n="17">17 Petech, *The Kingdom of Ladakh*, 1.</footnote>

<footnote n="18">18 See Petech, *China and Tibet in the Early 18th Century*, 39.</footnote>

<footnote n="19">19 See Baddeley, *Russia, Mongolia, China*, vol. 1, clxxxv-clxxxvi. He also mentioned that he “made a campaign with the Kalmuks against the Chinese” (vol. 1, clxxxvi), but he dates this to 1733, which seems unlikely, since he departed from the Khan’s court on 22 March of that year (see Jarring, “Brigitta Scherzenfeldt”, 117).</footnote>

<footnote n="20">20 English translation of the original Swedish eulogy, as reproduced in Jarring, “Brigitta Scherzenfeldt”, 117. We are grateful to Dr. Thomas L. Markey for his translation</footnote>
Even more importantly, we learn from the statement of a Major Ugri-
umoff, who had also been prisoner of the Zunghars, that Renat man-
ufactured for them “fourteen 4-pounder cannons; five small cannons
and twenty 10-pounder mortars”.<fnref n="21" /> These certainly contributed to
introduce the latest western technologies in Central Asia, and notice
of these new war machines may have well arrived to Lhasa during
the Zunghar occupation.<fnref n="22" />

As the reader will understand by reading this volume, when seek-
ing to establish such a chronology of firearms, the historian of Tibet
copes with a scarcity of traditional historical sources (in particular
a limited number of archival sources available on military history)
and thus needs to make use of whatever other historical and literary
material is at his/her disposal. The critical analysis and interpreta-
tion of the meaning of what is found and not found in these sources
is often arduous and leaves room for much uncertainty. The *Treatise
on Worldly Traditions* ('Jig rt'en lugs kyi bstan bcos las dpyad don gsal
ba'i sgron me zhes grags pa bzhugs so), dated 1524 by his colophon,
is a good illustration of some sources' limits for earlier times. It is a
volume on craftsmanship composed by Jamyang Tashi Namgyel ('Jam
dbyangs bkra shis rnam rgyal). It includes sections on 1) the craft of
swords (*ral gri*) and the assessment of their qualities, which often de-
pended on the choice of materials and the technique of fabrication,
such as the tempering of the iron, particular forging technique, and
so on; 2) armour (*khrab*); and 3) helmets (*rmog*). Two other parts, on
saddles and stirrups, concern corollary equipment.

It is noticeable that the treatise itself does not include a section on
firearms. While this might be interpreted to signify that they were
completely unknown in Tibet, this seems quite unlikely, since it is
widely believed that the Mongols, under whose rule Tibet had been
from the mid-thirteenth to the mid-fourteenth century, were respon-
sible for the diffusion, from the mid-thirteenth century onwards, of
the earliest types of gunpowder weapons from East Asia all the way

<footnote>of this important text.</footnote>

<footnote n="21">21 See Baddeley, *Russia, Mongolia and China*, vol. 1, clxxx.</footnote>

<footnote n="22">22 However, Petech doubts that these innovations could have been already opera-
tional at the time of the Zunghar conquest (Petech, *China and Tibet in the Early 18th
Century*, 41). About this point, see the contribution by Travers in this issue, as well as
Shim, “The Zunghar Conquest”.</footnote>
to Europe.<fnref n="23" /> While there are still a few critics of this theory,<fnref n="24" /> it is
certain that the Mongols used projectile-propelling firearms, as the
oldest unquestionably datable gun has been recovered among the ru-
ins of Xanadu (Shangdu), Qubilai Khan's military headquarters from
1260 onward. It is known as the 'Xanadu gun', and its date, inscribed
on it, corresponds to the year 1298.

Another weapon that cannot be found in this treatise allows one
to confirm that the author's particular viewpoint alone (and not the
historical state of the development of weapons in Tibet at that time)
can explain its exclusion from this work. Bows and arrows, likely the
most widespread, one might say ubiquitous, weapons used in Tibet,
are also completely absent, and nobody would surmise that their ab-
sence indicates that they were unknown - on the contrary, they have
represented the traditional war and hunting equipment of all Tibet-
ans since at least imperial times.

However, since the *Treatise on Worldly Traditions* is mainly a man-
ual of connoisseurship, its focus on craftsmanship (including chapters
on the making of porcelain, cloth, tea, leather, and musical instru-
ments such as cymbals and bells), explains why it would not include
sections on either bows and arrows or firearms. In fact, the former
were mostly produced at home, with readily available material, and
the skills to make them were passed on in the family from one gen-
eration to the next. As a consequence, there was no need to turn to
a skilled artisan. On the contrary, in order to acquire a sword, it was
necessary to turn to the services of an ironsmith, who possessed the
required technical knowledge to temper the iron and craft it in the
proper way.

Concerning firearms, instead, we could hypothesise that gun-
making was not contemplated in the *Treatise* because at this point
in time – again, the date is 1524 – there were either very few or no
autochthonous Tibetan craftsmen with the knowledge necessary to
produce a functioning gun. Hence, Jamyang Tashi Namgyel had no
need to include advice on the craftsmanship of guns. Rather, it may
be surmised that the absence of a section on firearms in this man-
ual indicates that the guns existing in Tibet at this time were more
than likely all imported from nearby countries, such as China, In-
dia and Persia.

<footnote n="23">23 See for example Andrade, *The Gunpowder Age*, and Haw, “The Mongol Empire”; both propose that the Mongol empire largely employed gunpowder throughout all its vast territories. Needham, *Science and Civilisation in China*, vol. V, part 7, 3 simply proposes that from about the year 1300, China was the origin of “the transmission of the bombard, gun and cannon to the rest of the world”. Related questions concerning the introduction of advanced firearms in Asia from the West and the military revolution in Asia are discussed in Di Cosmo, “Did Guns Matter?”, 121-66.</footnote>

<footnote n="24">24 See May, *The Mongol Conquests*, and Raphael, “Mongol Siege Warfare”.</footnote>
This being said, this volume also shows that the historians of Ti-
bet still have at their disposal a wealth of visual and textual (histori-
ographical, biographical and autobiographical) sources that can be
mined in search of weapons' mentions and descriptions, as well as
a number of archives on the Tibetan manufacturing and import of
weapons for the twentieth century period (see Travers in this issue),
and a very significant amount of material evidence of the Tibetan
weapon culture, stored in museums and private collections.<fnref n="25" /> These
sources allow to build a new understanding of the diversity of Tibet-
an weapons and of their development in history and to focus, when-
ever possible, on the questions of nomenclature, dating, and prove-
nance of new technology.

In an effort to disentangle these issues, in order to even begin to
approach the wider investigation of the 'military revolution', which
would open significant avenues of enquiry that have so far been ne-
glected in the world of Tibetan studies, we have collected in this is-
sue five path-breaking studies, organically structured in two sec-
tions preceded by a preface. The brief preface ("Some Reflections
on the Question of Military Innovation in Tibet"), by a specialist of
Mongolian history, Johan Elverskog of Southern Methodist Univer-
sity (Dallas, Texas) - whom we thank for having accepted to take on
the delicate task of providing an external point of view -, presents
his reflections on the possible reasons behind what he sees as a his-
torically long-developing military weakness of the Tibetans, result-
ing in their ultimate mid-twentieth century defeat at the hand of
People's Republic of China's army. He contextualises the Tibetan sit-
uation within the larger Asian context and what Andrade has called
"Great Military Divergence", when Europe came to dominate Asia in
the course of the nineteenth century. He then proposes as a hypoth-
esis that the Tibetan divergence from military innovation that hap-
pened at some point during the Ganden Phodrang period might find
its first roots in an even earlier period, after the fall of the Mongol
empire (1350-1550), when the Tibetan army would have embarked on
a period of stagnation, leaving little space to innovation and showing
slight or no interest in financial investment on weapons, new tech-
nology, etc. His final considerations on possible reasons for the con-
tinuation of this phenomenon in the next centuries may be provoca-
tive to some, and are in certain regards contradicted by the research
found in this issue, but are certainly worth raising to stimulate the
debate and hopefully foster further historical research on why, how
and when exactly the Tibetans started to accumulate a technologi-
cal setback in weapons development, one that proved to be difficult
to recover in the first half of the twentieth century.

<footnote n="25">25 See La Rocca, *Warriors of the Himalayas*, and his article in this issue.</footnote>
Following this preface, the initial section of this volume focuses on three general questions that we think are instrumental to approach this topic: the state of the art in connoisseurship of Tibetan arms and armour, the understanding of the terminology and its evolution, and the identification of the historical sources. In the first article, entitled "Armour and Weapons in Tibet from Yongle to Young-husband. Learning from Object-Driven Research", Donald La Rocca, relying on his longstanding expertise as Curator of the Arms and Armor Department of the Metropolitan Museum of Art (New York), illustrates the state of the art in research on Tibetan arms and armour from the fifteenth to the twentieth century. In a concise and clearly structured piece, he sums the extent of our knowledge in this field, one that he himself pioneered back in 1999. His article lucidly illustrates the various types of armour (for men and horses), helmets, shields, swords, spears, firearms and archery equipment, detailing their material, fabrication techniques, and cultural influences from other neighbouring (or not so neighbouring) countries. In addition, it highlights some of the most recent discoveries, including an extremely rare defence for the neck and shoulders, the use of which is evident after comparison with an early fifteenth century Chinese scroll.

Complemented by a number of beautiful illustrations, Donald La Rocca's article is also propaedeutic reading for all other articles, but especially for the one entitled "Arms and Armour in Ancient and Medieval Tibetan Literature. A Lexicographical Approach" by Petra Maurer (Ludwig-Maximilians Universität, Munich), who examines in great detail the historical development of terms and expressions for arms and armour through a lexicographical approach by studying sources ranging from the eighth to the nineteenth century. As similarable to the article by Tashi Tsering Josayma for its breadth of scope, the research presented here is supported by Maurer's profound knowledge of the Tibetan language after her longstanding work for the *Wörterbuch der Tibetischen Schriftsprache*. In brief, here she examines for the first time all the terms relating to arms and armour collected in the above-mentioned *Wörterbuch*, and analyses their meanings in different textual contexts and time periods in order to reconstruct as much as possible how the language relating to weapons and warfare changed, what different connotations could be applied to these words including outside the military domain, and whether their values evolved, expanded or contracted. Her work in collecting and collating all this material, as well as analysing it, will prove extremely useful not only for scholars of philology, but also for historians and scholars of religious studies, as it transpires that many of the words used for weapons also often had metaphorical uses, especially in religious contexts.

The contribution entitled "Khra ring bog gi bshad pa and Other Material on the Matchlock" by Tashi Tsering Josayma of the Amnye
Machen Institute (Dharamsala, Himachal Pradesh), is a veritable bibliographic tour de force. By gathering in one place data scattered in almost eighty different primary sources, ranging from the eleventh to the twentieth century, this article is in itself a small encyclopaedia on the topic of matchlock in Tibet. Moreover, it renders accessible to the wider public a mine of information that, when explored in further depth and detail, will certainly lead to new discoveries and greater understanding. Among its many immediate contributions are an attempt at finding out when the matchlock was introduced in Tibet, a discussion of the different regional names for the word 'matchlock', including (where possible) their etymologies, and the reproduction, for the first time, of a hand-drawn sketch of a matchlock indicating the names for all its parts, as well as other sketches related to the Tibetan matchlock. Very importantly, the paper provides translations of eight songs (of the khram glu genre) on the bog (matchlock) by nomads, of seven praises to the matchlock (bog gi bshad pa) from Eastern and Northern Tibet, as well as two ritual texts of "summons of the war god onto the matchlock" (me mdar dgra lha bkod pa). There are no doubts that this article will continue to stimulate further research for many years to come.

In contrast with the more general overview of the first part, which is not tied to a specific chronology or time-frame, the second half of this volume addresses more historically situated concerns, in this case two specific analyses of the Ganden Phodrang government armaments toward the beginning and the end of the Ganden Phodrang period (1642-1959), echoing one of the ideas in the volume's preface in the sense that they clearly illustrate the sheer interest of the Tibetan state in its armament, at least in its founding and final phases. In an article entitled "The Dorjéling Armoury in the Potala According to the Fifth Dalai Lama's gsung 'bum", focused on the second half of the seventeenth century, Federica Venturi (CRCAO, Paris) translates and analyses a poetic preamble written by the Fifth Dalai Lama on the occasion of the inauguration of the armoury located at the Potala, the palace, fortress and administrative centre where he resided. The text reveals that although the Fifth Dalai Lama seems to have had only a superficial knowledge of weapons, he was well aware of the importance of creating a safe storehouse for arms and armour. In addition, the text provides us with a partial list of the military equipment stored there, crucially giving us a picture of the type of arms and armour that were used at the time. Unfortunately, though, the preamble gives no idea as to the quantities of material stored.

Shifting the focus to the end of the period under examination, the last article of this collection entitled "From Matchlock to Machine guns. The Modernisation of the Tibetan Army's Firearms between Local Production and Import (1895-1950)" by Alice Travers (CRCAO, Paris) demonstrates the intensity of the efforts displayed by
the Ganden Phodrang government to catch up on firearms from 1895 onwards, and particularly showing that Tibet engaged in an arms-building enterprise just a few decades behind Qing China. The paper examines the supply of arms for the Ganden Phodrang army in the first half of the twentieth century and how the Tibetan government progressively succeeded in drastically modernising its firepower over a strikingly short period of time. In a detailed study, she relates the halting efforts of the government from the end of the nineteenth century until 1950, in part attempting to gather foreign expertise in order to establish autonomous factories for the production of modern firearms, and in part seeking agreements with other countries in order to purchase and import arms and munitions that were likely to be up-to-date and efficient, while also ensuring the transmission of knowledge around these new weapons across the troops. This article's reconstruction of the back and forth of the Tibetan government and its allies and of the endeavours that were often beset by political and technological challenges, provides a more nuanced view of the Ganden Phodrang's approach toward its military preparation.

Before we conclude, it should be mentioned here that all of the contributors to this volume are not personally expert in the use of weapons, and thus many technical points, especially concerning firearms, but also on armour, shields, etc. could not be understood without expert help, which was very generously provided all along the research and editing process by Donald La Rocca, Curator emeritus of the Arms and Armor Department at the Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York, as well as by a number of other specialists, in particular Jonathan Ferguson, curator of modern small arms at the Royal Armouries Museum, Leeds, in addition to numerous readers who gave input on our papers (we cannot name them all here but their help is acknowledged in each paper), and the anonymous reviewers, whom we all wish to thank heartily. For their contribution in translation work, we would also like to thank Thomas L. Markey, retired, University of Michigan, who translated from Swedish the important account of Brigitta Scherzenfeldt's life, and Sonam Tsering Ngulphu who translated various textual sources related to the Tibetan matchlock. Last but not least, the editors would like to thank those people who employed much care and patience in helping us with the more technical aspects of the publication. In Paris, Estelle Car took care of all the logistics concerning the reproduction of a number of photographs and images in this issue and Tenpa Nyima helped to proofread the Tibetan. In Venice, Mariateresa Sala of Edizioni Ca' Foscari answered a myriad of questions on the details of the publishing process. Finally, we would like to thank Antonio Rigopoulos for his enthusiastic acceptance of this project within the authoritative fold of *Annali di Ca' Foscari. Serie orientale*.

We believe that the study of arms and armour can provide a meas-
ure of the significant impact of warfare on Tibetan society. Despite
the fact that, at the end of this volume's reading, more questions will
undoubtedly have been raised than answered, we hope that with this
publication we can begin to bring to light data and analysis that will
allow us to look at Tibet from a different, broader, viewpoint.

Bibliography

Ágoston, G. “Firearms and Military Adaptation. The Ottomans and the European Military Revolution, 1450-1800”. *Journal of World History*, 25(1), 2014, 85-124. https://doi.org/10.1353/jwh.2014.0005.

Andrade, T.; Kang, H.H.; Cooper, K. "A Korean Military Revolution? Parallel Military Innovations in East Asia and Europe". *Journal of World History*, 25(1), 2014, 51-84. https://doi.org/10.1353/jwh.2014.0000.

Andrade, T. *The Gunpowder Age. China, Military Innovation and the Rise of the West in World History*. Princeton (NJ); Oxford: Princeton University Press, 2016. https://doi.org/10.1515/9781400874446.

Aris, A. Bhutan. *The Early History of a Himalayan Kingdom*. Warminster (UK): Aris & Phillips, 1979.

Ardussi, J.A. Bhutan before the British. A Historical Study [PhD dissertation]. Canberra: Australian National University, 1977.

Baddeley, J.F. Russia, Mongolia, China, Being Some Record of the Relations between Them from the Beginning of the XVII Century to the Death of the Tsar Alexei Mikhlovich, A.D. 1602-1676. Rendered Mainly in the Form of Narratives Dictated or Written by the Envoys Sent by the Russian Tsars, or their Voevodas in Siberia to the Kalmuk and Mongol Khans and Princes; and to the Emperors of China; with Introductions, Historical and Geographical, also a Series of Maps, Showing the Progress of Geographical Knowledge in Regard to Northern Asia during the XVI, XVII & Early XVIII Centuries, the Texts Taken More Especially from Manuscripts in the Moscow Foreign Office Archives. 2 vols. London: MacMillan & Co., 1919.

Black, J. Beyond the Military Revolution. War in the Seventeenth Century World. London: Palgrave MacMillan, 2011.

Börekçi, G. “A Contribution to the Military Revolution Debate. The Janissaries’ Use of Volley Fire during the Long Ottoman-Habsburg War of 1593-1606 and the Problem of Origins”. *Acta Orientalia Academiae Scientiarum Hungaricae*, 59(4), 2006, 407-38. https://doi.org/10.1556/aorient.59.2006.4.2.

Cook, W.F. Jr. *The Hundred Years War for Morocco. Gunpowder and the Military Revolution in the Early Modern Muslim World*. Boulder (CO): Westview, 1994.

Di Cosmo, N. “Did Guns Matter? Firearms and the Qing Formation”. Struve, L.A. (ed.), *The Qing Formation in World Historical Time*. Cambridge (MA); London: Harvard University Asia Center, 2004, 121-66. https://doi.org/10.1163/9781684173983_005.

Downing, B. *The Military Revolution and Political Change*. Princeton (NJ): Princeton University Press, 1992.

Eaton, R.; Wagoner, P.B. "Warfare on the Deccan Plateau 1450-1600. A Military Revolution in Early Modern India?". *Journal of World History*, 25(1), 2014, 5-50. https://doi.org/10.1353/jwh.2014.0004.

FitzHerbert, S.G.; Travers, A. "Asian Influences on Tibetan Military History between the 17th and 20th Centuries". Special issue of *Revue d'Études Ti-
bétaines, 53, 2020. http://himalaya.socanth.cam.ac.uk/collections/journals/ret/pdf/ret_53.pdf.

Francke, A.H. *The Chronicles of Ladakh and Minor Chronicles. Texts and Translations, with Notes and Maps*. Vol. 2, Antiquities of Indian Tibet. Edited with foreword by F.W. Thomas. Calcutta: Superintendent Government Printing, 1926.

Haw, S.G. "The Mongol Empire. The First 'Gunpowder Empire'?". *Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society*, 23(3), 2013, 441-69. https://doi.org/10.1017/s1356186313000369.

Jacob, F.; Visoni-Alonzo, G. *The Military Revolution in Early Modern Europe. A Revision*. London: Palgrave Macmillan, 2016. https://doi.org/10.1057/978-1-137-53918-2.

Jarring, G. "Brigitta Scherzenfeldt och hennes fågenskap hos kalmuckerna". *Karolinska Förbundets Årsbok*, 1983, 88-118.

Khan, I.A. *Gunpowder and Firearms. Warfare in Medieval India*. New Delhi: Oxford University Press, 2004.

La Rocca, D.J. *Warriors of the Himalayas. Rediscovering the Arms and Armor of Tibet*. New York: The Metropolitan Museum of Art. New Haven (CT); London: Yale University Press, 2006.

Lorge, P. *The Asian Military Revolution*. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2008. https://doi.org/10.1017/cbo9780511816598.

May, T. *The Mongol Conquests in World History*. London: Reaktion Books, 2012.

Needham, J. *Science and Civilisation in China*, vol. V, part 7. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1987.

Parker, G. *The Military Revolution. Military Innovation and the Rise of the West 1500-1800*. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1996.

Parrott, D. *The Business of War. Military Enterprise and Military Revolution in Early Modern Europe*. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2012. https://doi.org/10.1017/cbo9781139023337.

Petech, L. *China and Tibet in the Early 18th Century*. Leiden: Brill, [1950] 1972.

Petech, L. *The Kingdom of Ladakh c. 950-1842 AD*. Roma: IsMEO, 1977. Serie Orientale Roma 51.

Raphael, K. "Mongol Siege Warfare on the Banks of the Euphrates and the Question of Gunpowder (1260-1312)". *Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society of Great Britain and Ireland*, 19(3), 2009, 355-70. https://doi.org/10.1017/s1356186309009717.

Roberts, M. "The Military Revolution. 1560-1660". Rogers, C.J. (ed.), *The Military Revolution Debate. Readings on the Military Transformations of Early Modern Europe*. Boulder (CO): Westview Press, 1995, 13-35.

Rogers, C.J. (ed.). *The Military Revolution Debate. Readings on the Military Transformation of Early Modern Europe*. Boulder (CO): Westview Press, 1995.

Shim, H. "The Zunghar Conquest of Central Tibet and its Influence on Tibetan Military Institutions in the 18th Century". FitzHerbert, S.G.; Travers, A. (eds), *Asian Influences on Tibetan Military History between the 17th and 20th Centuries*. Special Issue of the *Revue d'Études Tibétaines*, 53, 2020, 56-113.

Stavros, M. "Military Revolution in Early Modern Japan". *Japanese Studies* 33(3), 2013, 246-61. https://doi.org/10.1080/10371397.2013.831733.

Travers, A.; Venturi, F. (eds). *Buddhism and the Military in Tibet During the Ganden Phodrang Period (1642-1959)*. Special Issue of *Cahiers d'Extrême-Asie*, 27, 2018. https://www.persee.fr/issue/asie_0766-1177_2018_num_27_1.
# Some Reflections on the Question of Military Innovation in Tibet
## A Preface

Johan Elverskog

Southern Methodist University, Dallas, USA

When the British invaded Tibet in 1904 they were met by a Tibetan army that they described as being obsolete. The perceived backwardness of the Tibetans' weapons and military tactics no doubt played a role in fostering the Western image of Tibet as a Shangri-La outside of time.¹ At the same time it also needs to be recognised that this was not the first time that Western military superiority had defeated an Asian army. Rather, throughout the nineteenth century – on account of what historian Tonio Andrade has called the “Great Military Divergence” – it was at this time that Europeans came to dominate the globe.

Thus, on one level what happened in Tibet was not unique. The same thing had happened in China during the Opium Wars, in the East India Company's conquest of Mughal India, in Africa as the con-

This preface is based on a talk given at the workshop entitled *Defence and Offence. Armour and Weapons in Tibetan Culture* (Paris, 29 November 2018) and is now published in this issue edited in the context of the 'TibArmy' Project, which has received funding from the European Research Council (ERC) under the European Union's Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme (grant agreement 677952).

¹ For a critical reevaluation of the Western representation of the Tibetan military see Harris, *The Museum on the Roof of the World*, 129-35.

<figure><img src="image_12.png" /></figure>

Edizioni Ca' Foscari

Submitted
Published

2021-07-20
2021-12-10

Open access

© 2021 | © Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International Public License

<figure><img src="image_13.png" /></figure>

**Citation** Elverskog, J. (2021). "Some Reflections on the Question of Military Innovation in Tibet. A Preface". *Annali di Ca' Foscari. Serie orientale*, 57, supplement, 745-754.
tinent was carved up by European powers, and across North Amer-
ica as white settler colonialism moved West. Yet, at the same time,
the case of Tibet was distinctive – especially in the context of the
early twentieth century – on account of the military disparity be-
tween the forces of Sir Francis Younghusband and those of the Gan-
den Phodrang government being so stark in 1904. The Tibetans went
into the field against the Maxim gun with matchlock rifles, swords,
and magical amulets, a fact that confirmed for the invaders that Tibet
was clearly disconnected from conventional historical developments.

This, at least in terms of military developments, was certainly true;
however, an important question related to this fact is: why was this
the case? What were the historical contingencies that had made Tibet
not keep pace with military technological developments? And more
to the point, when did this divergence actually begin and why? Since,
as is well known, once the Tibetans did realise how far behind – or
disconnected – they were from modern developments and its conse-
quences (i.e. conquest), as early as in 1888 (the first confrontation
against the British military and technological superiority at Lungtu)
and then again in 1904, the Ganden Phodrang government tried to
rectify the situation. The Thirteenth Dalai Lama in particular was an
avid supporter of modernising Tibet's military. But, as everyone also
knows, it was in the end too late. Thus, the question arises: why and
when did the Tibetan army devolve into obsolescence?

It is important to begin by noting that the Tibetans had once been
a formidable military force. During the Empire period (seventh to
ninth centuries) they conquered not only the capital of the power-
ful Tang dynasty in China (although briefly, in 763), but also came to
dominate Inner Asia and the lucrative Silk Road trade (between 670
and 692, and at various points during the eighth century). Moreover,
in the subsequent centuries after the so-called 'dark ages' - from the
Tibetan renaissance to the Mongol Yuan period and up through six-
teenth century - it appears as if Tibetans were not only almost con-
stantly at war, but also keeping up with the military innovations then
taking place across eastern Eurasia. This suggestion is not only re-
flected in the historical record, but also in what may seem an unlike-
ly source; namely, the so-called connoisseurship manuals that Don-
ald La Rocca has skilfully used reevaluating the history of Tibetan
weapons and armour.<fnref n="2" />

In particular, he has ably translated the section on swords of the
most famous of these manuals: Paljor Zangpo's (Dpal 'byor bzang po)
fifteenth century *The Chinese-Tibetan Compendium. A Mirror Illumi-
nating the World and Bringing Great Joy to the Learned* (Rgya bod yig

<footnote n="2">2 La Rocca, *Warriors of the Himalayas*, 146-18, 253-63.</footnote>
tshang mkhas pa dga' byed chen mo 'dzam gling gsal ba'i me long),<fnref n="3" />
which describes the five types of prized swords as follows:<fnref n="4" />

May there be merit in these words. It will now be shown the way
in which there gradually appeared amazing and miraculous new
developments, such as porcelain, tea, and swords, which did not
exist in Tibet prior to the establishment of the rule of the Tibetan
kings. In this way, swords first appeared and spread in Tibet from
the time of Drigum Tsenpo (Gri gum btsan po). Praise and homage
to Acala, the unshakable wrathful guardian king, who unlocks the
door to emanations of pure reality by subduing with his sword of
wisdom the enemy represented by wrongful views, and by bind-
ing with his lasso of mindfulness the thief that is agitation. Up to
now in Tibet, nothing has been written about the classification and
use of swords. Having made a careful analysis of the pleasant dis-
courses of the experts, I have composed this extensive written ex-
planation concerning swords.

Therefore, the types of swords are classified as follows: zhang ma, sog po and hu phed are three; with dgu zi and 'ja' ral making five [...].

The *zhang ma* type is the sword that flourished at the time of the Emperor Taizong (r. 626-649). It was forged in a district of the emperor's uncle by a woman in the form of a wrathful female godess who was the uncle's consort. With that sword, anything that existed could be cut [...].

The sog po type was the sword of the border peoples, which flourished in the time of the Uighur king named Thub rgyal (possibly T'ung Yabghu Qaghan, r. 619-630). In that limitless land of the Uighurs, the sword was forged by an elderly smith. That sword was made from [...] a piece of meteoric iron the size of a frog. Therefore, Uighur iron was regarded for its sharpness [...].

The *hu phed* type is the sword of the Mongols, which became widespread from the time of Chinggis Khan (ca. 1162-1227) onward. It was first forged in a place called Hu in Mongolia by one called Phed. This sword can cut through six wild yak horns bundled together and is, therefore, known as sharper than horn. The place and the maker's name were closely connected, so this particular type was called *hu phed* [...].

<footnote n="3">3 Although the *Rgya bod yig tshang* of 1434 is a general history of Tibet and China, it does also contain chapters on the connoisseurship of various commodities (see Martin 1997, 68, no. 115; Tshering, "A Short Introductory Note on Porcelain Cups of Tibet").</footnote>

<footnote n="4">4 The following translation is based on La Rocca, "An Early Tibetan Text", 98-9, with minor corrections, such as rendering sog po as 'Uighur' here instead of 'Mongol' in La Rocca, and hor as 'Mongols' here instead of 'Horpa Mongols' in La Rocca.</footnote>
The type of sword one finds in Tibet is known as *dgu zi*, which flourished from the time of King Drigum Tsenpo. It was forged by the nine Squint Eye brothers [...] in a wild region of a place called Zi 'du. The eldest brother provided the sword that was used to cut the sky rope. The swords of the eight younger brothers also gave evidence of great sharpness [...].

As for the 'ja' type, this is the sword of the southern regions of Mon, which flourished in the time of Namkha Didze. It was forged by a smith called Mitok Thalgo in the dense forests of Lhodrak in the region of 'Ja'. This sword could cut through nine fresh tree branches. Therefore, the 'ja' *ral* is famous for its sharpness against wooden staves [...].

These are the oral teachings comparing the defining characteristic of each type. For the *zhang ma* type it is the *zhang them* (series of circles or 'steps' in the blade pattern?). The sign of the *sog po* type is the *go chog* (peak-like mark in the blade pattern). The sign of the *hu phed* is the *hu rdzi* pattern [fn. 42: this seems to indicate a dagged pattern on the blade, possibly resembling eyelashes]. The sign of the *dgu zi* is a blade pattern like the Milky Way constellation. The sign of the 'ja' *ral* is that the iron glistens [...].

For the most part (the surface of the blades of) *zhang ma* swords glisten indirectly, as if they had been rubbed with sheep-colored fat. Most *sog po* swords have sides that are even from the base of the blade to the tip, like the delicate needles on a pine tree. In the *hu phed* sword, one usually sees the *rdzi* pattern, which resembles a black snake pursued by a Garuda [...]. The *dgu zi* is usually gray and heavy, like a gray [...] willow branch covered with moisture. The 'ja' *ral* usually is strong and resplendent, like a tigress running over a plain [...].

An invariable feature of the *zhang ma* type is that at the place measuring three finger widths from the point, whether or not the blade has been tempered, there is a design like the round impressions made by fingernails. [...] An invariable feature of the *sog po* type is that if one measures down from the point three finger widths there is a pinnacle formed by the male and female iron. An invariable feature of the *hu phed* type [...] is a consistent border of a design like tiger's teeth, starting at a measure of five and half finger widths from the tip. An invariable feature of the *dgu zi* type is that the color of the tempered iron in the center of the blade looks like the Milky Way. Invariable features of the 'ja' *ral* type are that the blade is thin and very wide, and the point is broad.

Of course, as La Rocca has made clear, it is quite difficult to make sense of what precisely all these swords and their qualities actually refer to since these connoisseurship manuals were written, compiled and redacted over the centuries.
Yet, it does seem as if in the fifteenth century Tibetan elites rec-
ognised five basic types of swords, each with a specific origin:

1. *zhang ma* – China

2. *sog po* – Inner Asia

3. *hu phed* – Mongolia

4. *dgu zi* – Tibet

5. ‘*ja*’ *ral* – South Asia

As such it seems possible to suggest that when these manuals were
being prepared in the post-Mongol period, the authors drew upon
the combined historical knowledge of the empire period, when Tibet
was engaged with the surrounding peoples found in these manuals –
China, Inner Asia, South Asia– and then added to it the latest global
empire of which the Tibetans were a part: the Mongols. These con-
noisseurship manuals therefore reflect an awareness of the military
innovations – or realities – of the preceding centuries. Or to put it an-
other way, as reflected in these connoisseurship manuals, Tibetans
were up through the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries both aware
and appreciative of new weapons. But then the tradition of such con-
noisseurship manuals seems to fade, and one might wonder whether
the Tibetan interest in military innovation did not too.

In trying to explain this break Robert A.F. Thurman has argued
that the reason for this turn away from militarism and its weapons
was Buddhism. To wit, on account of the dharma's advocacy of no-
killing the Tibetans simply turned away from their earlier warlike
nature and abandoned their interest in military innovation. In par-
ticular, Thurman claimed that the Fifth Dalai Lama had made Tibet
a "unilaterally disarmed society" on account of Buddhist principles.<fnref n="5" />
Of course, it was precisely such utopian images of Tibet as a Shangri-
La that were then beginning to be critiqued by numerous scholars.<fnref n="6" />
Donald S. Lopez Jr., for example, noted in his *Prisoners of Shangri-La.
Tibetan Buddhism and the West:* "Nor was Tibet, in George Bataille's
phrase an 'unarmed society', Tibet did not renounce armed conflict
when it converted to Buddhism in the eighth century, or in the elev-
enth century, or under the fifth Dalai Lama".<fnref n="7" /> All of this is no doubt
true; however, at some point the Tibetan interest in keeping up mil-
itarily with its neighbours did indeed wane.

<footnote n="5">5 Thurman, *Essential Tibetan Buddhism*, 38-40. For a critique of this historiographical supposition see Sperling, “‘Orientalism’ and Aspects of Violence in the Tibetan Tradition”, 328 fn. 7.</footnote>

<footnote n="6">6 The number of works that engaged with this project are now too numerous to list here; however, some of the standard works in this scholarly reevaluation are Bishop, *The Myth of Shangri-La*; Lopez, *Curators of the Buddha*; Schell, *Virtual Tibet*; and Din, Räther, *Imagining Tibet*.</footnote>

<footnote n="7">7 Lopez, *Prisoners of Shangri-La*, 8-9.</footnote>
In thinking about the Tibetan separation from global military in-
novation – which thus seems to have happened at some point during
the reign of the Ganden Phodrang government (1642-1959) and in any
case before the end of the nineteenth century – one may very well
wonder whether Thurman was actually correct in asserting that there
was something intrinsic to Buddhism that led Tibetans to not engage
in the technological rat-race of military innovation. Indeed, the same
argument had in fact been made in China for centuries; namely, Ming
court officials had long argued that promoting the dharma among the
Mongols would weaken their military impulses, thereby allowing the
Ming to spend less time and money on defending its northern bor-
der.<fnref n="8" /> But, as the continuing warfare between the Chinese and Mon-
gols – including after they had become Buddhist – makes clear that
the adoption of Buddhism did not halt violence or military innova-
tion among the Mongols (or the Chinese for that matter). Rather, as
with any state – be it Catholic, Buddhist, communist, democratic or
what have you – the maintenance and upkeep of military technology
is crucial to its own survival. And, in this regard, it is also important
to keep in mind that during the reign of the Ganden Phodrang gov-
ernment Tibet was virtually at war all the time:

Tibetan armies fought against Ladakh in 1681, against Dzungar
Mongols in 1720, in numerous incursions into Bhutan during the
eighteenth century, against invading Nepali forces from 1788 to
1792 and again in 1854, against Dogra forces invading Ladakh
from Kashmir in 1842, and against the British in 1904.<fnref n="9" />

Thus it was not as if the Tibetans did not need to keep up with mili-
tary innovations. Quite the opposite, in order to maintain their way
of life they would have benefited from a technological military edge.

In fact, it is precisely for this reason that military technology is
such a crucial component of world history. It quite simply explains
the rise and fall of civilisations. And as such it has recently become
part of the age-old question about the rise of the West; namely, what
was it that gave Europeans the edge in the early modern period that
allowed them to conquer the world? Of course, the answers given
to this question are many and varied, from Protestantism,<fnref n="10" /> to New
World silver,<fnref n="11" /> to easier access to natural resources.<fnref n="12" /> Yet, as Tonio
Andrade has argued in his recent book, *The Gunpowder Age. China,*

<footnote n="8">8 Elverskog, *The Jewel Translucent Sutra*.</footnote>

<footnote n="9">9 Lopez, *Prisoners of Shangri-La*, 9.</footnote>

<footnote n="10">10 Weber, *The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism*.</footnote>

<footnote n="11">11 Lane, *Potosí. The Silver City that Changed the World*.</footnote>

<footnote n="12">12 Pomeranz, *The Great Divergence*.</footnote>
*Military Innovation, and the Rise of the West in World History*, it was also related to military technology, especially the development of more sophisticated weapons in the nineteenth century, since it is obviously much easier to win a war if you are using a machine gun as opposed to a bow and arrow. As a consequence we are left with the question raised above: why did the Tibetans, who had earlier seemingly kept abreast of military innovations eventually disengage from broader developments in Asia and the world?

In trying to answer this question it is important to highlight the long running issue of the nature of Tibetan society and its relations with the larger Eurasian world, which, as with much in the field of Tibetan Studies, has gone through something of a sea change over the last generation of scholarship. Thus, rather than being imagined as a remote and isolated kingdom on the roof of the world, the more recent scholarly consensus – echoing transnational, inter-Asian and world historiographical trends – has it that Tibet has long been intertwined with the economic and political trends that have shaped Asian history.<fnref n="13" /> Thus, if that is indeed the case, then when and why did Tibet become wholly divorced from military developments in both Asia and the world?

As stated above this divergence took place during the reign of the Ganden Phodrang government. And as such we need to think not only about the nature of the Dalai Lama's government that led it in this direction, but also the broader military historical context in which these developments occurred. To that end it is therefore interesting to note that the two-century period after the fall of the Mongol empire (1350-1550) was one of general technological stagnation as the Mongol age of 'globalisation' came to an end.<fnref n="14" /> This fact is reflected in the Tibetan connoisseurship manuals from this period of time: there simply was nothing 'new' to add to the preestablished five types of swords of the earlier imperial periods. But then, as Andrade shows in his global history of military technology, innovations started up again in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries. And as he argues, there was a general parity between the East and the West at this time; however, in the late eighteenth century European military innovation went into overdrive and Asia stagnated, resulting in such legendarily lopsided military battles like those of the Opium Wars in the mid-nineteenth century, the Tibetan-British war of 1888, and then British invasion of Tibet in 1904.

In trying to explain why this military divergence occurred, Andrade points to what he calls the “Great Qing Peace”. To wit, after the

<footnote n="13">13 See, for example, Pollock, *Forms of Knowledge in Early Modern South Asia*; Akasoy, Burnett, Yoeli-Tlalim, *Islam and Tibet*; Tuttle, *Mapping the Modern in Tibet*; Gyatso, *Being Human in a Buddhist World*; Diemberger, Ehrhard, Kornicki, *Tibetan Printing*.</footnote>

<footnote n="14">14 Andrade, *The Gunpowder Age*.</footnote>
massive expansion of the Manchu state into Mongolia, Central Asia, and Tibet in the eighteenth century, the Qing court basically came to rest on its laurels and largely gave up on the endless struggle of gaining and keeping a military technological advantage. While Europeans, on the other hand, as a result of their endless 'national wars', kept innovating with great success. This in turn enabled the European empires to subsequently conquer the world.

Even though this all seems readily evident, a further question is where does Tibet fit into this global history of military technology? As we have seen, by the beginning of the twentieth century the Tibetans were militarily woefully out of date. Yet, as such they were clearly not unique, the Tibetan experience was largely the same as that of the rest of Asia. But unlike other Asian polities which tried to rectify the situation by modernising their militaries in the nineteenth century – including the Qing dynasty of which Tibet was ostensibly a part – the Ganden Phodrang government did not do so until the end of the nineteenth century. I would like to suggest that there are two reasons for why this was the case.

The first was quite simply the nature of the Ganden Phodrang government itself, which was in my opinion not a typically conceived state, at least in its inception. Rather, it progressed from a religious institution – like the Vatican – whose mission was to propagate itself through monasteries, incarnations, and systemised knowledge networks within the power structures of other states (be that the Tümed, Oirad, Khalkha, Dzungar, or Manchu).<fnref n="15" /> And in expanding this Gélukpa empire the Ganden Phodrang government was remarkably successful.<fnref n="16" /> More to the point, it did not require a military to do so. Rather, just as the Western Christian Church lacked ‘army and cannon’ and depended on temporal powers to insure its power,<fnref n="17" /> so too did the Ganden Phodrang. Thus, whenever they did need military support to shore up their political standing in central Tibet, they could most of the time rely on these other states to do so for them (e.g. Kho shud, Khalkha, Dzungar, Manchu). In short, unlike states that needed a military – and military innovation – to stay in power, the Ganden Phodrang did not for a significant period of time. It could readily allow its own military to devolve into obsolescence, which is clearly what happened in the course of the nineteenth century.

Yet again, this did not happen in a vacuum. Rather, a second factor that needs to be considered is the relationship between the Ganden Phodrang government and the Qing dynasty, the nature of which is still being debated. Regardless of the actual nature of this relation-

<footnote n="15">15 King, *Ocean of Milk, Ocean of Blood*.</footnote>

<footnote n="16">16 Sullivan, *Building a Religious Empire*.</footnote>

<footnote n="17">17 Heather, *The Restoration of Rome*, 408.</footnote>
ship - for example, Tibet was never made into a province like Xinji-
ang - what cannot be disputed is that central Tibet never became a
vital node in a global empire as was the case in the Mongol period.
Rather, central Tibet became a marginal frontier zone of far less im-
portance than even Kham (Khams) or Amdo (A mdo).<fnref n="18" /> And this re-
ality was further accelerated in the nineteenth century as the Qing
became consumed by a range of destabilising events (from Euro-
American imperialism to internal rebellions of all sorts), whereby
central Tibet was no longer relevant to the Qing court and it was thus
allowed to virtually go off on its own.<fnref n="19" /> As a result, in many ways cen-
tral Tibet - under the religious rule of the Ganden Phodrang - had es-
sentially become the hermit kingdom of lost wisdom divorced from
modernity at the turn of the twentieth century.

The collapse of Tibet's military capabilities can therefore be seen
as yet another example of the great military divergence that defined
the nineteenth century. But on account of the nature of the Ganden
Phodrang government itself, and its relations with the Qing dynas-
ty, the devolution of the Tibetan army did have a distinctive trajec-
tory. One that sadly would have disastrous consequences in the new
age of nation-states.

Bibliography

Akasoy, A.; Burnett, C.; Yoeli-Tlalim, R. *Islam and Tibet. Interactions along the Musk Routes*. Burlington (VT): Ashgate, 2011. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315251776.

Andrade, T. *The Gunpowder Age. China, Military Innovation, and the Rise of the West in World History*. Princeton (NJ): Princeton University Press, 2017. https://doi.org/10.1515/9781400874446.

Bishop, P. *The Myth of Shangri-La. Tibet, Travel Writing and the Creation of Sacred Landscape*. London: The Athlone Press, 1989.

Diemberger, H.; Ehrhard, F.-K.; Kornicki, P. *Tibetan Printing. Comparison, Continuities and Change*. Leiden: Brill, 2016. https://doi.org/10.1163/9789004316256.

Dodin, T.; Räther, H. *Imagining Tibet. Perceptions, Projections, and Fantasies*. Boston: Wisdom Publications, 2001.

Elverskog, J. *The Jewel Translucent Sutra. Altan Khan and the Mongols in the Sixteenth Century*. Leiden: Brill, 2003.

Gyatso, J. *Being Human in a Buddhist World. An Intellectual History of Medicine in Early Modern Tibet*. New York: Columbia University Press, 2015. https://doi.org/10.7312/columbia/9780231164962.001.0001.

<footnote n="18">18 Mosca, *From Frontier Policy to Foreign Policy*.</footnote>

<footnote n="19">19 Oidtmann, *Forging the Golden Urn*.</footnote>
Harris, C.E. *The Museum on the Roof of the World. Art, Politics, and the Representation of Tibet*. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2012. https://doi.org/10.7208/chicago/9780226317502.001.0001.

Heather, P. *The Restoration of Rome. Barbarian Popes and Imperial Pretenders*. New York: Oxford University Press, 2013.

King, M.W. *Ocean of Milk, Ocean of Blood. A Mongolian Monk in the Ruins of the Qing Empire*. New York: Columbia University Press, 2019. https://doi.org/10.7312/king19106.

La Rocca, D.J. *Warriors of the Himalayas. Rediscovering the Arms and Armor of Tibet*. New York: Metropolitan Museum of Art, 2006. New Haven (CT); London: Yale University Press, 2006.

La Rocca, D.J. "An Early Tibetan Text on the Connoisseurship of Swords". La Rocca, D.J. (ed.), *The Armorer's Art. Essays in Honor of Stuart Pyhrr. Woonsocket (RI): Mowbray Publishing, 2014*, 89-105.

Lane, K. *Potosí. The Silver City that Changed the World*. Berkeley (CA): University of California Press, 2019. https://doi.org/10.2307/j.ctvj7wm45.

Lopez, D.S. Jr. *Curators of the Buddha. The Study of Buddhism under Colonialism*. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1995.

Lopez, D.S. Jr. *Prisoners of Shangri-La. Tibetan Buddhism and the West*. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1998. https://doi.org/10.7208/chicago/9780226190488.001.0001.

Martin, D. *Tibetan Histories. A Bibliography of Tibetan-Language Historical Works*. London: Serindia Publications, 1997.

Mosca, M.W. *From Frontier Policy to Foreign Policy. The Question of India and the Transformation of Geopolitics in Qing China*. Stanford (CA): Stanford University Press, 2013. https://www.sup.org/books/title/?id=21214.

Oidtmann, M. *Forging the Golden Iirn. The Qing Empire and the Politics of Reincarnation in Tibet*. New York: Columbia University Press, 2018. https://doi.org/10.7312/oidt18406.

Pollock, S. *Forms of Knowledge in Early Modern South Asia. Explorations in the Intellectual History of India and Tibet, 1500-1800*. Durham (NC): Duke University Press, 2011. https://doi.org/10.1215/9780822393580.

Pomeranz, K. *The Great Divergence. China, Europe, and the Making of the Modern World Economy*. Princeton (NJ): Princeton University Press, 2001.

Schell, O. *Virtual Tibet. Searching for Shangri-La from the Himalayas to Hollywood*. New York: Henry Holt and Company, 2000.

Sperling, E. "'Orientalism' and Aspects of Violence in the Tibetan Tradition". Dodin, T.; Räther, H. (eds), *Imagining Tibet. Perceptions, Projections, and Fantasies*. Boston: Wisdom Publications, 2001, 317-29.

Sullivan, B. *Building a Religious Empire. Tibetan Buddhism, Bureaucracy, and the Rise of the Gelukpa*. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 2021. https://doi.org/10.2307/j.ctv19vbgw1.

Tshering, G. "A Short Introductory Note on Porcelain Cups of Tibet". Panglung, J.L.; Uebach, H. (eds), *Tibetan Studies. Proceedings of the 4th Seminar of the International Association for Tibetan Studies, Schloss Hohenkammer, Munich 1985*. Munich: Bayerisches Akademie der Wissenschaften, 1988, 171-6.

Thurman, R.A.F. *Essential Tibetan Buddhism*. San Francisco: Harper, 1995.

Tuttle, G. *Mapping the Modern in Tibet*. Sankt Augustin (DE): International Institute for Tibetan and Buddhist Studies, 2011.

Weber, M. *The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism*. New York: Scribner, 1930.
# Armour and Weapons in Tibet
from Yongle to Younghusband
Learning from Object-Driven
Research

Donald La Rocca

Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York

**Abstract** This paper presents an overview of the origins and development of research into various types of arms and armour used in Tibet from approximately the fifteenth century to the early twentieth century. Incorporated into this are a brief survey of well recognised examples and a review of the wide multiplicity of rare and less familiar forms, including helmets, armour for men and horses, swords, and firearms, many of which have only come to light over the past twenty-five years.

**Keywords** Armour. Weapon. Helmet. Lamellar armour. Horse armour. Archery equipment. Leather armour. Matchlock musket. Bow. Bow case. Quiver. Sword. Spear. Spearhead. Shaffron. Horseback archery. Wax seals.

**Summary** 1 Introduction. – 2 Western Knowledge of Arms and Armour from Tibet. Late Nineteenth to Mid-twentieth Century. – 3 Armour from Tibet. – 3.1 Lamellar Armour (*byang bu'i khrab*) and Mail (*a lung gi khrab*). – 3.2 Helmets (*rmog*). – 3.3 Cavalry Armour and Equipment from the Seventeenth Century Onward. – 3.4 Leather Armour (*bse khrab*). – 3.5 Horse Armour (*rta go*). – 4 Swords (*ral gri*). – 5 Spears and Spearheads (*mdung dang mdung rtse*). – 6 Archery Equipment (*'phong spyad*'). – 7 Shields (*phub*). – 8 Firearms (*me mda*'). – 9 Equestrian Equipment (*rta chas*). – 10 Marks and Inscriptions. – 11 Terminology and Textual Sources. – 12 Examples of Important Recent Findings. – 13 A Word on Fakes. – 14 Conclusion.

<figure><img src="image_14.png" /></figure>

**Edizioni Ca' Foscari**

**Peer review**

Submitted 2021-02-10
Accepted 2021-04-29
Published 2021-12-10

**Open access**

© 2021 | ©® Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International Public License

<figure><img src="image_15.png" /></figure>

**Citation** La Rocca, D. (2021). "Armour and Weapons in Tibet from Yongle to Younghusband: Learning from Object-Driven Research". *Annali di Ca' Foscari. Serie orientale*, 57, supplement, 755-802.
This paper is dedicated to my father, Anthony A. La Rocca (1927-2021).

# 1 Introduction

The intent of this paper is not to present a detailed discussion of the many and often surprising types of armour and weapons from Tibet or the various source materials that have been instrumental in an effort to understand and explain them. Rather, it is intended as an overview of what has been learned from approximately twenty-five years of study devoted to this fascinating and often misunderstood area of Tibetan culture. The first attempts to define the parameters of this subject as a field of study were summarised in a paper given in London in 1999.<fnref n="1" /> The main body of research that developed from that initial outline can be found in the 2006 exhibition catalogue, *Warriors of the Himalayas. Rediscovering the Arms and Armor of Tibet*, and in three subsequent articles, one published in 2008 and two in 2014.<fnref n="2" />

The collection of Tibetan and Himalayan arms and armour at the Metropolitan Museum of Art in New York comprises about 250 objects. At its core is a group of approximately seventy-five pieces that entered the museum in 1935 as part of the bequest of George C. Stone.<fnref n="3" /> Beginning early in the nineties and lasting until about 2010 an unprecedented number of rare and important examples of arms and armour from Tibet appeared on the art market, some at auction but the majority offered by dealers based in the UK, Nepal, and the US. It was during this relatively short but fruitful time that the Met's collection expanded to nearly its present size and scope.

In 1995, the Department of Arms and Armor acquired its first significant Tibetan piece since the Stone bequest sixty years earlier, beginning an unforeseen period of growth in this area of the collection. The item in question was an extremely rare and early example of a straight sword (ral gri), dating from the fourteenth to sixteenth century, the ironwork of its hilt incorporating iconography and decoration closely related to Tibetan ritual objects of the late Yuan to early Ming eras [fig. 1]. The significance of this sword, and its impor-

This article is published in a volume edited in the context of the 'TibArmy' project, which has received funding from the European Research Council (ERC) under the European Union's Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme (grant agreement 677952).

<footnote n="1">1 La Rocca, "An Approach to the Study", 113-32.</footnote>

<footnote n="2">2 La Rocca, *Warriors of the Himalayas*; "Recent Acquisitions"; "Recent acquisitions. Part 2"; "An Early Tibetan Text". A complete PDF of La Rocca, *Warriors of the Himalayas* can be downloaded from www.metmuseum.org/art/metpublications.</footnote>

<footnote n="3">3 For a brief biography of Stone and his career as a collector of non-European arms and armour, see La Rocca, "Introduction".</footnote>
tance as an acquisition for the museum, were clearly due to two fac-
tors. First was the result of the museum having missed the opportu-
nity to acquire the fabulous 'Ming Sword', subsequently purchased
by the Royal Armouries, Leeds, in 1990 or 1991.<fnref n="4" /> Second was the fact
that in 1995 the Tibetan armour, weapons, and related material in
the department's collection were being reviewed comprehensively
for the first time in preparation for a small exhibition and accompa-
nying publication, both called *The Gods of War. Sacred Imagery and
the Decoration of Arms and Armor*.<fnref n="5" />

Presenting a carefully selected mix of sixty-five objects, *The Gods of War* surveyed the principal ways in which iconography found on armour and weapons reflected the belief systems of several major religions. The areas and religious traditions represented in the exhibition included: Hindu India; Hindu Indonesia; Buddhism and Taoism in China and Korea; Buddhism in Tibet; Buddhism and Shintō in Japan; Christianity; Islam; and Sikhism. Researching such rich and varied topics was as challenging as it was rewarding. Given the small size and limited scope of the project, it was possible to source the necessary literature, or gain enough scholarly input, to adequately explain and contextualise the varied forms of religious iconography encountered on the objects. For nearly all of the history and typologies of arms and armour, there were likewise in-depth studies on each of the different areas and it was only a matter of locating the published sources or a researcher adequately familiar with the material. This proved to be true for everything except the arms and armour from Tibet. Surprisingly, there were only a few published articles or studies, and no scholar at the time who was focusing on it as a research topic.

The limited amount of existing literature, the lack of even a re-
liable glossary or typology, combined with the steady trickle of in-
triguing and sometimes completely unfamiliar Himalayan armour,
weapons, and equestrian equipment appearing in the marketplace,
provided the inspiration to study these objects more carefully and
consistently from about 1995 onward. Over time, the pursuit of this
interesting and relatively unexplored avenue of research resulted in
the eventual acquisition of approximately 175 pieces for the Depart-

<footnote n="4">4 In 1990 or 1991 the 'Ming Sword' was in the Met on offer to the Department of Asian Art, which declined to make the purchase. It was shown briefly to the Department of Arms and Armor, a short time after which, at the recommendation of Stuart Pyhrr, the sword was offered to the Royal Armouries and acquired by that institution, where it remains the crown jewel of their Tibetan collection. For this sword see La Rocca, *Warriors of the Himalayas*, 148-50.</footnote>

<footnote n="5">5 The exhibition was drawn entirely from examples in the department's collection and was installed at the Metropolitan Museum of Art from 10 December 1996 until 5 April 1998.</footnote>
ment of Arms and Armor, which, when combined with the Tibetan objects from the Stone bequest, yielded what is arguably the most comprehensive collection of Tibetan and Himalayan arms and armour in the world.

## 2 Western Knowledge of Arms and Armour from Tibet. Late Nineteenth to Mid-twentieth Century

Prior to the reappearance of a relatively large amount of Tibetan arms and armour on the international art market in the eighties and nineties, alluded to above, and the fresh research it sparked, the little that was known of the subject was derived from a handful of sources. These included: in terms of objects, examples that had been removed from Tibet as a result of the Younghusband Expedition (1903-04), most of which are housed in museums in the UK; comments and particularly photographs published in books about the expedition, especially books by participants, such as L.A. Waddell (1854-1938); later publication of photographs taken in the thirties and fourties by key visitors to Lhasa, particularly images of historical arms and armour used during various parts of the annual Great Prayer Festival (smon lam chen mo), principally by Sir Hugh Richardson (1905-2000) during his diplomatic postings to Lhasa from 1936 to 1940, 1944 and 1946 to 1950, and by Brooke Dolan (1908-1945) and Ilya Tolstoy (1903-1970) in 1942;<fnref n="6" /> an often overlooked but primary study by W.W. Rockhill (1854-1914) published in 1895; a detailed examination of the history of lamellar armour, including some Tibetan examples, by Swedish archaeologist, Bengt Thordeman (1893-1990) printed in 1939-40; and a useful but more general survey of Tibetan armour by the British arms scholar and curator, H. Russell Robinson (1920-1978) published in 1967.<fnref n="7" />

## 3 Armour from Tibet

In terms of modern weaponry, the British army in 1903 was among the best equipped in the world. Given the extent of the British Empire at that time, many of its experienced officers and troops would have served in regions where they had seen, perhaps fought against, lo-

<footnote n="6">6 See, for instance, Harris, Shakya, *Seeing Lhasa*; Richardson, *Ceremonies of the Lhasa Year* and Tung, *A Portrait of Lost Tibet*. At the time of research for the 2006 exhibition and catalogue, such rich resources as the photographic archives of the Pitt Rivers Museum and the British Library were not yet readily available online, as they are now.</footnote>

<footnote n="7">7 Rockhill, "Notes on the Ethnology"; Thordeman, *Wisby*, and Robinson, *Oriental Armour*. For further discussions of these sources see the index and bibliography in La Rocca, *Warriors of the Himalayas*.</footnote>
cal forces outfitted with less sophisticated, outdated arms and equipment. Even with this experience, there was general surprise among the officers of the Younghusband Expedition at the antiquated state of the armour and weapons they encountered in Tibet, which were described by more than one member of the expedition as “medieval”. This may explain, at least in part, why so many examples of armour and weapons were acquired by members of the expedition and brought to Great Britain.

Body armour became generally obsolete in Europe during the course of the seventeenth century, which made encountering lamellar [fig. 2] and mail armour in Tibet a matter of particular fascination for the British members of the Younghusband Expedition. Although there is almost no evidence to suggest that armour was used by Tibetans in the actual fighting that occurred during the 1903-04 incursion, many examples were found among the stores of various fortress armouries and as votive objects in temples, shrines, and monasteries.<fnref n="8" />

## 3.1 Lamellar Armour (byang bu'i khrab) and Mail (a lung gi khrab)

Lamellar armour is made up of a series of small iron or steel plates, or lamellae (byang bu), about the size of one's finger, rounded at the top and flat at the bottom edge. Each plate is pierced by a series of holes (or mig, 'eyes' in Tibetan), between eight and thirteen (but most typically nine), which allow the plates to be joined together by an intricate system of leather laces, forming a cohesive and strong garment [fig. 3]. An ancient form of defence, lamellar armour was used in various forms in China, throughout the Eurasian Steppes, in ancient Egypt, the ancient Near East, the Roman Empire, and Western Europe over a period of nearly 2,000 years. It differs from more commonly known scale armour in that the structure of lamellar armour is formed entirely by the plates and leather lacings, whereas in scale armour the scales are invariably stitched or otherwise attached to an underlying foundation material, such as leather or textile. The

<footnote n="8">8 Waddell's comments (quoted in La Rocca, *Warriors of the Himalayas*, 3-4) at the time of the expedition state that at least some armour was still being worn, very occasionally, by the Tibetans in combat settings, including iron helmets, lamellar armour, mail, and horse armour. However, Waddell's veracity has been seriously questioned by more recent scholarship, on which see Travers in this issue. Extensive accounts of the armed engagements that took place during the Younghusband expedition can be found in Ottley, *With Mounted Infantry*. Brevet-Major Ottley, an active participant in much of the fighting, includes dozens of detailed references to Tibetan firearms, both traditional matchlocks and modern small arms, artillery, and swords, and how these weapons were used, but does not include a single mention of armour in connection with Tibetan combatants.</footnote>
Mongols certainly wore lamellar armour much like that from Tibet,
and the suggestion has been made that the latter is, in fact, all Mon-
gol in origin. However, since all surviving examples of this type have
been found in Tibet, and none in Mongolia, it seems reasonable to
conclude that these armours are Tibetan.<fnref n="9" /> The period of actual use,
in warfare, of lamellar armour in Tibet probably spans the era from
the Tibetan Empire in the seventh century through the sixteenth or
seventeenth century, after which mail may have supplanted it as a
more common form of body armour.

Mail (a lung gi khrab), often called ‘chain mail’, was known in Ti-
bet possibly from as early as the Yarlung dynasty. However, unlike
lamellar armour, all of the extant examples of mail from Tibet appear
to date from the seventeen to nineteenth centuries and were proba-
bly imported from Nepal, India, or Turkestan (see [fig. 8]).<fnref n="10" />

3.2 Helmets (rmog)

The helmets from Tibet exhibit greater variety and include more previ-
ously unknown or unrecorded types than any other category of objects
in this study. Most familiar is a form of helmet with a bowl comprising
eight plates topped by a central plume finial and, when complete, fit-
ted with a pendant lamellar neck defence and sometimes cheek pieces
as well [fig. 4]. Such helmets were worn in conjunction with the type of
lamellar armour discussed above. Like the armour, they are made of
pieces that are joined by leather laces.<fnref n="11" /> The eight plates are curved
like an arch and slightly convex, with pairs of lacing holes on the edg-
es. As is typical with this type of helmet, four outer plates, with cusped
borders, overlap four inner plates, with smooth borders. At the top of
the helmet bowl, the tips of all eight plates are joined by laces at the
base of the plume finial. Less frequently encountered, and probably
more complex and therefore more expensive to make, is a variant in
which the bowl comprises sixteen rather than eight plates [fig. 5]. This
particular example is one of the few that retains a circlet of died yak
hair, as sometimes seen on helmets worn during the Great Prayer Fes-

<footnote n="9">⁹ For a detailed discussion of this question see La Rocca, *Warriors of the Himalayas*, especially 51-4.</footnote>

<footnote n="10">¹⁰ Regarding mail armour used in Tibet see La Rocca, *Warriors of the Himalayas*, 126-7. For an overview of the use of historical Tibetan arms and armour of various types, into the twentieth century, as part of ceremonies held annually during the month-long Great Prayer Festival, see La Rocca, *Warriors of the Himalayas*, 2-8, and Karsten, "A Note on ya sor".</footnote>

<footnote n="11">11 On some examples that were repurposed or retrofitted for later uses, the plates are riveted together, but the lacing holes remain, indicating the original assembly method. See, for example, a helmet in The Met, accession no. 36.25.86.</footnote>
tival, or Monlam Chenmo (smon lam chen mo).<fnref n="12" /> Close inspection of some eight-plate and sixteen-plate helmets reveals inscribed characters, usually on the foot or base of the plume finial, indicating a military wing or division (ru) together with a number, most likely an inventory number for the particular helmet [fig. 6].

Beyond these traditional helmets, the amazing variety of other helmet types found in Tibet presents palpable evidence of extensive cultural interactions, indicating the military presence of or distinct influence by the Mongols, China in the late Yuan to the Qing dynasty, and different peoples from Central and West Asia.<fnref n="13" /> One particularly extraordinary example, both in terms of rarity and unexpected cultural disparity, is a Central Asian helmet, reportedly found in Lhasa's Barkhor market, which bears an Arabic inscription invoking the name of Sultan Mahmud Jani Beg Khan, apparently referencing Jalal al-Din Jani Beg ibn Ozbeg, Mongol ruler of the Blue and Golden Hordes from 1342 to 1357 [fig. 7].<fnref n="14" />

### 3.3 Cavalry Armour and Equipment from the Seventeenth Century Onward

Also familiar from twentieth century photographs of the Great Prayer Festival is a remarkably consistent configuration of cavalry equipment that seems to have been codified in the seventeenth century, during the time of the Fifth Dalai Lama (1617-1682). The armour usually comprises a helmet, mail shirt, four round plates worn over the torso (known as a set of four mirrors), and an armoured belt. The arms and accessories include a matchlock musket with a bandolier holding powder and shot (i.e. gunpowder and bullets), bow and arrows held in a bow case and quiver suspended from a waist belt, and a spear [fig. 8].<fnref n="15" /> The horses for this type of cavalry were not armoured.

Other than a few notable exceptions seen in period photographs, the helmets are Bhutanese, but fitted with textile nape and ear flaps, the latter invariably fixed in an upright position, that are quite unlike the textile fittings for this same type of helmet when it is used in Bhutan. This suggests that the Bhutanese helmets, with textile fittings specific to this use in Tibet, were an early example of what could be considered regulation equipment.

<footnote n="12">12 For example, La Rocca, *Warriors of the Himalayas*, fig. 2, and Tung, *A Portrait of Lost Tibet*, pls 99-101.</footnote>

<footnote n="13">13 For discussions of the various types and their possible cultural influences see La Rocca, *Warriors of the Himalayas*, catalogue nos. 9-23.</footnote>

<footnote n="14">14 La Rocca, "Recent Acquisitions", 27-9; Alexander, *Islamic Arms and Armor*, 64-5.</footnote>

<footnote n="15">15 La Rocca, *Warriors of the Himalayas*, 6, 7, 126-37.</footnote>
The sets of four mirrors (**me long bzhi**) worn by most of the caval-
rymen are simply made, plain and unadorned steel disks, lined with
leather or cloth and joined by narrow leather straps. However, com-
plete sets in good condition and retaining their original straps are ra-
re today. They are interesting for the wax seals frequently found on
the interior lining of the plates, probably identifying the noble house,
monastery, or fortress to which the equipment once belonged [fig. 9].
Unfortunately, as of yet no one seems able to identify these seals or
those found on several other types of Tibetan arms and armour.<fnref n="16" /> The
typical *me long bzhi* worn by Tibetan cavalry should not be confused
with the similar but purely ritualistic or ceremonial 'heart mirrors'
(*thugs gsal me long*) worn by oracles, which often have a seed syllable
in the centre. The two forms, however, are regularly merged in the ar-
mour often seen in depictions of wrathful or guardian deities. This not
to say that all military *me long bzhi* are undecorated; there are sever-
al extant examples with damascened gold, engraved, and other dec-
oration, probably made for officers or soldiers from noble families.<fnref n="17" />

Completing the body armour of these cavalrymen is a form of waist
defence or armoured belt that seems to be uniquely Tibetan and may
have been created specifically for use with this type of cavalry en-
semble.<fnref n="18" /> The belt is made up of a series of narrow rectangular over-
lapping steel lames or slats riveted to underlying horizontal bands of
leather, and sometimes fully lined with leather. While many are very
simple, others are well-made, and gracefully shaped and proportioned.

The matchlock muskets, archery equipment, and spears that com-
plete the cavalry ensemble will be discussed below in the appropri-
ate sections devoted to weapons.

3.4 Leather Armour (bse khrab)

Several previously unknown forms of hardened leather armour and
related objects have emerged from Tibet in recent decades. They
are often beautifully decorated in styles that indicate either Tibet-
an or Mongolian origins and include distinctive armour for men and
horses, bow cases, quivers, and occasionally saddles, dating from
the fourteenth century to possibly as late as the seventeenth centu-
ry [fig. 10]. The striking decorative technique simulates the appear-
ance of lacquer, but is not true lacquer, which is derived from a tree
sap, not native to Tibet and often referred to by its Japanese name,

<footnote n="16">16 For examples of these unidentified seals see La Rocca, *Warriors of the Himalayas*, catalogue nos. 1, 3, 9, 32, 44-6, and 96.</footnote>

<footnote n="17">17 La Rocca, *Warriors of the Himalayas*, catalogue nos. 41-4.</footnote>

<footnote n="18">18 La Rocca, *Warriors of the Himalayas*, catalogue no. 45.</footnote>
urushi, and is found in lacquerware in China, Japan, and other parts of Southeast Asia. Instead, the substance used in Tibet to simulate lacquer consists of layers of shellac, natural pigments, gold leaf and a glaze of tung oil applied over a leather substrate.<fnref n="19" />

## 3.5 Horse Armour (rta go)

The presence of horse armour in Tibet, obsolete for approximately 300 years in Europe, was also a matter of great fascination for members of the Younghusband Expedition.<fnref n="20" /> As with lamellar armour for men, the military applications of horse armour in Tibet were nearly or completely nonexistent by 1903, but a few complete and several partial examples were preserved, some in the households of noble families, as heirlooms, for use on ceremonial occasions, and as votive objects in shrines.<fnref n="21" /> One of the most complete sets was presented to the British diplomat Sir Charles Bell (1870-1945) by the Thirteenth Dalai Lama in Darjeeling in 1910.<fnref n="22" /> Horse armour made of iron lamellae was known in China by about the Han dynasty (206 BC-220 AD) and is documented in Central Asia, the Middle East, and among the Mongols in the succeeding 1,000 years. Tibetan horse armour generally comprises panels of leather (often decorated in the same way as the leather armour described above) combined with rows of iron lamellae, or other iron plates, to create a unique type that appears to have existed nowhere else. The basic components include a head defence (possibly rta gdong gi lcags), or shaffron [fig. 11], a pair of long wing-shaped panels that rest on either side of the horse's neck, a piece over the front of the chest, panels at either side below the saddle, a single narrow panel along the top of the rump, a pair of large panels on either side of the hindquarters, and sometimes a separate panel beneath the tail. Most, but not all examples, have some degree of decoration, and on armours of higher quality all of the pieces have matching and very elaborate decoration, particularly on the leather components, more rarely on the iron elements, in addition to trim made of textile and dyed yak hair. Using samples taken from the integral leather laces by which the parts of most panels are as-

<footnote n="19">19 For a detailed discussion of leather armour in Tibet and the simulated lacquer technique see La Rocca, *Warriors of the Himalayas*, especially 96-7 and 116-25.</footnote>

<footnote n="20">20 On Tibetan horse armour see La Rocca, *Warriors of the Himalayas*, 96-115.</footnote>

<footnote n="21">21 See Waddell's comment, referenced above in § 3.1 and quoted in La Rocca, *Warriors of the Himalayas*, 3-4, that "the high officers sometimes clothe their horse in armour, a new set of which was captured". Regarding the strong doubts cast on the reliability of Waddell's comments, however, see Travers in this issue. Ottley makes no mention of Tibetan horse armour (Ottley, *With Mounted Infantry*).</footnote>

<footnote n="22">22 La Rocca, *Warriors of the Himalayas*, 96-7 and catalogue no. 26.</footnote>
sembled, it has been possible to reliably date a handful of examples using the carbon-14 method, yielding date ranges from the fifteenth to the seventeenth century.<fnref n="23" />

In a rare variant, apparently localised in Western Tibet, the horse armour consists of a contiguous fabric base reinforced with iron plates and comprising two neck pieces and two panels to cover a horse's front shoulders [fig. 12]. In addition to the present example, only two others appear to be known: one found in the ruins of the armoury in Tsapa-rang, capital of the former kingdom of Guge; and another preserved as a votive object in the *mgon khang* of Phyang Monastery, Ladakh.<fnref n="24" />

## 4 Swords (ral gri)

Many swords seen or acquired by foreign visitors to Tibet in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries were relatively plain, hard-used workaday items, frequently showing evidence of repairs or alterations from generations of service. Others, however, are complex and beautiful objects, often incorporating expensive materials and exhibiting fine craftsmanship [fig. 13].<fnref n="25" /> Swords, their names, production, and use, are deeply intertwined with early Tibetan history. Five canonical sword types (more specifically, blade types), each with multiple subtypes, are categorised and described in a handful of Tibetan texts, dating from the fourteenth century onward, devoted to arts and crafts (bzo rig) and the appraisal and connoisseurship of objects (brtag thabs), which have been discussed in some depth elsewhere.<fnref n="26" /> The five types that repeat in all of the texts, with some variations in spelling, are: zhang ma, sog po, hu phed, dgu zi, and 'ja' ral. Each has an origin story tied to a legendary event or a mythological or historical figure, the earliest starting with the reign of the semi-legendary King Drigum Tsenpo (Gri gum btsan po). However, with a few possible exceptions, it is difficult to demonstrate any direct correlation between the types repeatedly named in these texts and existing Tibetan swords.<fnref n="27" />

The blades of most traditional Tibetan swords, those made before the early twentieth century, have a 'hairpin' pattern clearly visible

<footnote n="23">23 For a table of carbon-14 test results compiled by Edward A. Hunter, see La Rocca, *Warriors of the Himalayas*, 288.</footnote>

<footnote n="24">24 See La Rocca, "Recent Acquisitions" for a full description and references.</footnote>

<footnote n="25">25 The following discussion is confined to swords made as actual weapons. For swords or sword hilts that are intended solely or primarily as ritual weapons see, for instance, Metropolitan Museum of Art accession nos. 2016.702, 2017.161, and 1985.397.</footnote>

<footnote n="26">26 La Rocca, *Warriors of the Himalayas*, 146-8, 252-64; and La Rocca, "An Early Tibetan Text".</footnote>

<footnote n="27">27 For examples of extant swords that possibly correspond to some of the canonical types see La Rocca, "An Early Tibetan Text", particularly 95-7.</footnote>
on both sides. In general, this looks like a series of closely set, slightly wavy, alternating dark and light lines that meet in a point near the tip of the blade. It is the result of a forging process known as pattern welding, in which rods of higher carbon and lower carbon iron or steel are folded over and hammered together. In traditional Tibetan texts generally the harder, whiter steel is called "male iron" (*pho lcags*) and the more ductile, darker steel is "female iron" (*mo lcags*).<fnref n="28" /> Other less frequently encountered patterns include a series of wavy lines resembling tiger stripes, a series of concentrically rolled lines (sometimes called a "jelly roll" pattern), and, rarest of all, a more complex variegated pattern that looks something like swirling water or burl wood (such as in [fig. 14]).

The quality, approximate date, and sometimes the area of origin of a Tibetan sword can be assessed by considering the following salient features: 1) the form and style of the hilt; 2) the nature of the forging patterns that are visible in the blade; 3) the overall shape of the blade – whether it is single- or double-edged, straight or curved, and whether it ends in a classic Tibetan chisel tip or a symmetrical point; 4) whether the sword is designed to be worn with the cutting edge up or down; and 5), dictated by the latter, the style of the scabbard and whether it is designed so the sword is carried at the waist across the front of the body with the hilt to the wearer's right (for a sword with the cutting edge up) or suspended from a belt at the wearer's left hip (for one with the cutting edge down).<fnref n="29" /> Certain types can be identified as more prevalent than others in the different regions of Tibet based on examples collected and recorded in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries by scholars such as Rockhill and as evidenced by their continued use in Tibet well into the twentieth century.<fnref n="30" />

Taking one particularly interesting sword as an example, we can see how some of these features apply [fig. 14]. The hilt is an ornate example of the best-known Tibetan type, with trefoil pommel, grip wrapped in silver wire, a short collar below the grip, and oval guard with downturned and cusped edges – the sides of the pommel, collar, and guard chiselled and gilt with matching designs. Unfortunately,

<footnote n="28">28 On the Tibetan texts devoted to sword blades, and on their construction and metallurgy, see particularly La Rocca, *Warriors of the Himalayas*, 146, 253-7, 264; and La Rocca "An Early Tibetan Text", 89-94.</footnote>

<footnote n="29">29 For examples of each see La Rocca, *Warriors of the Himalayas*, catalogue nos. 55-74. Swords continued to be made in Tibet throughout the twentieth century for wearing during festivals and other occasions. Examples dating from the mid-to late twentieth century often appear in auction sales catalogued as nineteenth century. For two examples probably made c. 1950 to 1975 see Metropolitan Museum of Art, accession nos. 1999.278.1-2.</footnote>

<footnote n="30">30 Rockhill, "Notes on the Ethnology", for example 712 and pl. 22.</footnote>
the characteristic bead of turquoise or coral mounted in a silver bezel is missing from the front of the pommel. The blade is arguably the finest known example of Tibetan pattern welding of the type that evokes ripples and eddies in swirling water or burl wood grain design. This may be what is described by Tashi Namgyal as made from blending together "mixed iron" (*sna'dus*, *sna bsdus 'dres*, or *lcags 'dres*), creating "many flowing and swirling designs". 31 The scabbard, made to be worn suspended at the left hip in the Chinese fashion, comprises a wooden core sheathed in leather and framed with elaborately chiselled and gilt iron mounts, and retains its original sword belt fitted with iron mounts decorated *en suite*. While there are several known examples of Tibetan swords mounted for wear this way, which were acquired from or documented in Tibet, it is interesting to note that this exceptionally fine example, according to its reported provenance, was captured from a Chinese officer by Lieutenant Edward Henry Lenon (1838-1893) during the Battle of North Taku Fort on 21 August 1860, during the Second Opium War. Lenon was awarded the Victoria Cross for his actions on that day.

## 5 Spears and Spearheads (*mdung dang mdung rtse*)

Tibetan spears made for fighting are fairly simple, sometimes bordering on crude, in terms of workmanship and materials, comprising an undecorated iron or steel spearhead (*mdung rtse*) mounted on a wooden shaft (*mdung yu* or *mdung shing*), the shaft often reinforced by a spiralling iron coil (see [fig. 8]). A few surviving examples preserve a tuft of yak hair and streamers of coloured silk attached to or at the base of the socket of the spearhead.32 More complex, and rich in their variety, are several spearheads that have come to light over the past twenty-five years that were intended for votive, ritual, or ceremonial use, which often include extensive ornament, interesting iconography, and expensive materials. One example of this type has incised decoration featuring dry skulls (*thod skam*) and curling entrails (*nang khrol*) damascened in gold and silver [fig. 15], suggesting it was used by an oracle or as votive weapon kept in the chapel (*mgon khang*) of a wrathful guardian deity.33

<footnote n="31">31 Cited in La Rocca, *Warriors of the Himalayas*, 168, under catalogue no. 71 in discussion of the comparable blade on a sword in the Pitt Rivers Museum, Oxford (1989.1.1.1.,2), and 255 for a compendium of the original Tibetan texts, one version of which is found in British Library, Or 11,374, fol. 76b. Tibetan blades of 'mixed iron' are also discussed in LaRocca, "An Early Tibetan Text", 93-4.</footnote>

<footnote n="32">32 For an example of this see La Rocca, *Warriors of the Himalayas*, 175, and for the topic overall 174-84.</footnote>

<footnote n="33">33 Very similar imagery is also seen on the votive firearms cited at the end of § 8, below.</footnote>
## 6 Archery Equipment ('phong spyad)

The form and nature of much of the archery equipment found in Ti-
bet, particularly bow cases (*gzhu shubs*) and quivers (*mda' shubs, mda'
snod, dong pa*, among other terms), is dictated by the predominant
place of horseback archery throughout Tibet, China and Central Asia
from about the seventh century onward.<fnref n="34" /> To comfortably travel on
horseback with, and quickly utilise, a bow and arrows, the bow case
and quiver were worn suspended from a waist belt (for a right-handed
person the bow is on the left, quiver with arrows on the right), a prac-
tice characteristic of nomadic archers in the region for approximately
1,500 years. The Met is fortunate to have two of the rarest and earli-
est extant forms of a type of long tubular quiver with an open cowl at
the top, made of wicker, bronze or iron, and leather, one of which has a
radiocarbon date range of 1290 to 1410.<fnref n="35" /> Stylistically and chronolog-
ically, this type is followed by a quiver entirely of leather (*bse dong*),
normally decorated in the characteristic shellac technique seen on
leather armour as described above. A previously unpublished exam-
ple dating from the fourteenth to sixteenth century is adorned with
large images of the Eight Auspicious Symbols (*bkra shis rtags brgyad*)
on a plain ground [fig. 16]. This type of Tibetan or Mongolian leather-
work is particularly prone to damage and distortion, making complete
examples such as this one very rare today. More familiar, but still ra-
re in terms of complete examples in good condition, are matched sets
comprising bow case, quiver, and belt [fig. 17], which are often adorned
with the same motifs and iconography seen on leather arm guards and
horse armour, and fitted with pierced and damascened iron mounts.

Tibetan bows (*gzhu*) range from simple self-bows made of wood
to composite bows of wood, horn, and sinew. Arrow shafts are made
of cane or bamboo, fletched with bird feathers, and fitted with iron
heads made in a wide variety of shapes, for which exotic names such
as "flesh splitter" (*sha' brad*) and "pig's tongue" (*phag lce*) appear in
the traditional literature.<fnref n="36" />

## 7 Shields (*phub*)

Often overlooked in discussions of Tibetan arms and armour, shields
were widely used over a long period of time and consist of two basic
types, both round: flat or domed shields made of concentrically coiled

<footnote n="34">34 La Rocca, *Warriors of the Himalayas*, 187-97 and figs 6-8.</footnote>

<footnote n="35">35 Accession nos. 2001.65a, b and 2005.301.3; see La Rocca, *Warriors of the Himalayas*, 188-9.</footnote>

<footnote n="36">36 For further details see La Rocca, "Recent Acquisitions. Part 2", 191-5.</footnote>
wicker or cane (*sba phub*), and leather shields (*ko phub*), the latter usually imported from Nepal, Bhutan, or India.<fnref n="37" /> Domed cane shield have parallels in China. More unusual, and unrecognised until fairly recently, is the flat cane type [fig. 18] fitted with radiating iron struts, possibly originating in Western Tibet. The workmanship of the struts is very similar to the iron fittings on Tibetan leather boxes.<fnref n="38" /> As with other types of historical arms and armour, the use of both forms of shields during various Monlam Chenmo ceremonies and events is well documented in photographs from the thirties and forties.<fnref n="39" />

## 8 Firearms (*me mda*')

Firearms, referring here to handheld weapons and not cannon or other forms of artillery, were introduced into Tibet possibly as early as the sixteenth century, but more likely at some time during the seventeenth century.<fnref n="40" /> Matchlock muskets (*me mda'* ) remained the typical gunpowder weapon in Tibet, widely used among nomads for hunting and by infantry and cavalry in military contexts, from that period until the early twentieth century [fig. 19]. However, a number of modern small arms, made in Tibet or imported from elsewhere, were in evidence at the time of the Younghusband Expedition.<fnref n="41" /> The matchlock is a simple but fairly effective and surprisingly reliable firing mechanism, the development of which in Western Europe during the late fifteenth century made handheld firearms, for the first time, practical weapons of military significance. Their use on the battlefields of Europe and much of the Islamic world steadily increased, along with regular improvements in firearms technology, making them the dominant weapon in the western world by the mid-to late seven-

<footnote n="37">37 La Rocca, *Warriors of the Himalayas*, 92-5, and fig. 4.</footnote>

<footnote n="38">38 On Tibetan leather boxes see Anninos, "Tibetan Leather Boxes".</footnote>

<footnote n="39">39 For a brief overview of historical arms and armour used in the Monlam Chenmo see La Rocca, *Warriors of the Himalayas*, 6 and figs 2, 5-8. For the shields in particular see Tung, *A Portrait of Lost Tibet*, pl. 100 and 101; Richardson, *Ceremonies of the Lhasa Year*, 44. For shields of both types displayed in votive settings in Tibet and Ladakh see La Rocca, *Warriors of the Himalayas*, figs 9, 11, 14, 16.</footnote>

<footnote n="40">40 For an overview of the use and types of firearms in Tibet prior to the twentieth century see La Rocca, *Warriors of the Himalayas*, 198-213.</footnote>

<footnote n="41">41 On the subject of modern arms in Tibet during this period see Travers in this issue. For a few examples see Allen, *Duel in the Snows*, 54 for mention of an arms factory in Lhasa producing modern breech loading rifles; 115 regarding reports that the Tibetan commander at Chumik Shenko (*chu mig shel sgo*) carried either a pistol or a Winchester rifle; 124 citing a few breech loading rifles, some of Russian manufacture, captured after the conflict at Chumik Shenko. For a detailed first-person account of the types of firearms encountered in Tibet during the Younghusband Expedition, and the effective use of them by the Tibetans, see Ottley, *With Mounted Infantry*.</footnote>
teenth century. While European small arms technology progressed over the course of three hundred years from the matchlock to wheel lock, flintlock, then percussion firing mechanisms, and from smoothbore, single-shot, muzzle loading guns to rifles, breech-loaders, multi-shot weapons, modern cartridge ammunition, and even machine guns, in many non-industrialised parts of the world, including Tibet, localised forms of matchlock muskets remained the norm.<fnref n="42" /> As a rough analogy, in terms of effectiveness and capabilities, the differences between Tibetan matchlock muskets and western firearms of c. 1900 could be compared to the differences between a horse-drawn cart and an automobile today.

The average Tibetan musket was a practical implement with little if any decoration. Many examples that are more elaborate exist, however, some inlaid with carved plaques of bone or horn and, more commonly, with applied plaques of silver embossed with auspicious emblems. Examples of the latter, like that seen in [fig. 19], continued to be made for festival use well into the twentieth century. The long prongs or horns (*me mda'i ru*), characteristic of Tibetan muskets, are folded flat against the forestock, projecting forward beyond the muzzle, when the musket is worn slung over the back (as in [fig. 8]), and pivoted downward at an angle and used as a prop to steady the shooter's aim when firing on foot from a standing, seated, or crouching position. Proficiency with muskets in horseback target shooting as a requirement for certain levels of government officials has been well documented.<fnref n="43" /> The practice is best known through photographs of such events taken during 'The Gallop Behind the Fort' (*rd-zong rgyab zhabs 'bel*), a festival held on the twenty-sixth day of the annual Great Prayer Festival in Lhasa.<fnref n="44" /> Muskets were also depicted as wrathful attributes, or for other symbolic purposes, in *thang kha* paintings and as actual ritual objects, decorated with appropriate iconography, particularly in votive contexts.<fnref n="45" />

<footnote n="42">42 For an excellent overview of the development of firearms and the different types of firing mechanisms see Blackmore, *Guns and Rifles*.</footnote>

<footnote n="43">43 On this topic see Travers, "The Horse-Riding"; Shuguba, *In the Presence of My Enemies*, 31-2; Tsarong, *In the Service of His Country*, 11, 51.</footnote>

<footnote n="44">44 Richardson, *Ceremonies of the Lhasa Year*, especially 56-7.</footnote>

<footnote n="45">45 For rare examples of the latter see La Rocca, *Warriors of the Himalayas*, a minature votive musket in catalogue no. 103, a votive musket barrel in number 105, and a complete musket decorated with wrathful imagery in the chapel of Pelden Makzor Gyemo (Dpal Idan dmag zor rgyal mo) in Drepung Monastery (the latter examined and photographed by the author in 2013).</footnote>
## 9 Equestrian Equipment (rta chas)

The best examples of luxurious saddles (*gser sga*) made for aristocratic laymen or high-ranking religious figures can be considered among the most beautiful and artistically accomplished art objects found in Tibet [fig. 20]. On occasion, finely made bridles (*gser srab*), other elements of tack, such as crupper pendants, and stirrups (*yob*) also rise to this level of excellence.<fnref n="46" /> Tibetan saddles belong to an unbroken continuum in the traditional use of highly ornate, metal-clad saddles, which began in Central Asia as early as the fourth century and ended in Tibet around the mid-twentieth century. There has been an unfortunate tendency in the last several years – among dealers, auction houses, collectors, and some scholars – to attribute what are, in the author’s opinion, unsupported early dates to many examples of pierced Tibetan ironwork, particularly saddles. Although early dates are alluring and tend to increase market value, a finely made saddle does not have to be Yuan or early Ming in order for it to be a significant example of Tibetan or Sino-Tibetan craftsmanship.<fnref n="47" />

## 10 Marks and Inscriptions

When studying Tibetan arms and armour, it is important to look for marks, inscriptions, and wax seals, instances of which can be seen on items of various kinds, including armour, swords, firearms, archery equipment, and saddles. Marks include letters and numbers that served as inventory records, such as incised or inlaid numbers on armour or a Tibetan letter branded on the underside of a saddle tree; inscriptions may be place names, for instance 'Or (near Snye thang) on an armoured belt or Rdor brag (Rdo rje brag, in Lho kha) on a saddle; and wax seals (see [fig. 9]), of which there are many well preserved examples on armours for man and horse, and archery equip-

<footnote n="46">46 For an overview and specific examples see La Rocca, *Warriors of the Himalayas*, 214-51. Please note that in the case of catalogue no. 126, the superb c. thirties saddle and stirrups of Surkhang Wangchen Tseten, the museum accession numbers published in La Rocca, *Warriors of the Himalayas* are incorrect. The correct numbers are 2005.427.1 (saddle), and 2005.427.2a, b (stirrups). The remaining elements of horse tack acquired with the saddle and stirrups are accession nos. 2005.427.3-10. An equally fine set of saddle and tack, belonging to Yuthok Tashi Dundrub and made in the fourties, was acquired in 2008, after the 2006 exhibition, and accessioned as 2008.81a-h. For the latter see La Rocca "Recent Acquisitions. Part 2", 201-6. For an outstanding pair of finely worked fourteenth to fifteenth century crupper pendants in the Metropolitan Museum of Art see accession no. 2016.316.1-2.</footnote>

<footnote n="47">47 For instance, in Jong, *Dragon and Horse*, 58, 126-7, three saddles in the Met's collection (accession numbers 1998.316, 1999.118, and 2002.225) are reattributed, incorrectly in the author's opinion, to earlier periods. For these saddles see La Rocca, *Warriors of the Himalayas*, catalogue nos. 122, 111, 112 respectively.</footnote>
ment, among other pieces, potentially identify the household, mon-
astery, or arsenal in which a piece was originally housed.<fnref n="48" /> Some of
these have already provided useful insights and information, while
many others, for instance the ink notations often seen on the heavy
leather skirts of lamellar armours, or wax seals, are potential well-
springs of information still waiting to be explored more fully.

11 Terminology and Textual Sources

The Tibetan-English glossary of arms and armour terms published in 2006, the first such lexicon of its kind, was created as a practical necessity.<fnref n="49" /> Around 1995, in beginning to study the subject in depth, it was surprising to discover that no useful source of terminology existed, instead there being only a smattering of phonetic terms published in broader studies.<fnref n="50" /> The glossary, as it appeared in 2006, was compiled, for the most part, between 1998 and 2005, with the source material progressing from a survey of all available Tibetan-English and English-Tibetan dictionaries, in print and digital formats, to terms culled from a selection of original Tibetan texts, particularly in the *brtag thabs* and *bzo rig* literary genres. Many of these texts were pointed out, and in some cases physical copies provided, by E. Gene Smith, who was unfailingly generous in his encouragement and support of work in this area of research from the start. In addition, Dr. Amy Heller also identified important texts and patiently answered dozens if not hundreds of questions regarding not only points of translation, but on all aspects of Tibetan art and culture. With the help of these and many other individuals it was possible to glean a significant amount of useful and largely overlooked information from original sources, most of which is incorporated in the various publications cited in this article.<fnref n="51" />

12 Examples of Important Recent Findings

Although there was no way of knowing at the time, the relative flood
of remarkable objects that steadily streamed onto the market from
the early nineties until about 2010 was, for whatever reasons, a fi-

<footnote n="48">48 For these examples, and others, see La Rocca, *Warriors of the Himalayas*, catalogue nos. 1, 3-7, 32, 44-6, 68, 80, 85, 90, 96, 104, 112, 122.</footnote>

<footnote n="49">49 La Rocca, *Warriors of the Himalayas*, 267-87.</footnote>

<footnote n="50">50 For instance in Rockhill, "Notes on the Ethnology" and Stone, *A Glossary of the Construction*.</footnote>

<footnote n="51">51 See in particular La Rocca, *Warriors of the Himalayas*, 252-66; "Recent Acquisi-
tions. Part 2", 192-3; "An Early Tibetan Text". In 2018 the contents of the 2006 glossary
were added to the 'TibArmy' online Lexicon of Tibetan Military Terminology.</footnote>
nite supply and is now reduced to a mere trickle. Nevertheless, fas-
cinating and important examples of Tibetan arms and armour still
surface from time to time.

A prime example is the recent appearance of this defence for the
neck and shoulders, which is the most complete example known of
one the rarest forms of iron lamellar armour from Tibet [fig. 21]. It is
designed to cover the base of the neck, shoulders, and upper arms to
about the elbows, mainly comprising a neck piece of a single row and
two sleeves made up of eleven rows of iron lamellae joined by integral
leather lacing. Tibetan lamellar body armours in complete and well-
preserved condition are rare and usually consist of a sleeveless coat
with a distinct waist and comprise twelve to fourteen rows of lamel-
lae (as in [fig. 2]). A few surviving examples have attached shoulder
pieces and, in at least one instance, complete sleeves.<fnref n="52" /> A removable
or independent neck and shoulder defence of the kind seen here is ex-
tremely rare, with only two or three fragmentary examples known at
this time.<fnref n="53" /> However, the type, and what it looked like when worn, is
rendered in great detail in *Eighteen Songs of a Nomad Flute. The Sto-
ry of Lady Wenji*, an early fifteenth century Chinese painted scroll in
The Met [fig. 22]. The scroll depicts many warriors in full lamellar ar-
mour equipped with shoulder pieces of this kind. In one particularly
relevant scene, a seated commander is shown wearing complete ar-
mour, but with the shoulder defences removed and being held for him,
folded in half and slung over the shoulder of an attendant standing
behind him to the viewer's left. To the viewer's right a standing fig-
ure in full lamellar armour, with a leopard skin bow case and quiver
on his belt, wears the same type of shoulder pieces. This invaluable
pictorial evidence confirms the exact nature and use of this extreme-
ly rare form of lamellar armour.

Another relatively recent discovery, a helmet [fig. 23] first exhib-
ited in Hong Kong in 2017, presented some intriguing and seeming-
ly contradictory features.<fnref n="54" /> Visual examination showed that the six
iron plates making up the bowl are older and of different workman-
ship than the arrangement of copper plates and struts joining them
together, which is in itself a highly unusual method of assembly. Ad-
ditionally, a helmet bowl of this type should have four or eight under-

<footnote n="52">52 La Rocca, *Warriors of the Himalayas*, catalogue nos. 1-3, 26.</footnote>

<footnote n="53">53 *Gu ge'i gna' grong rjes shul*, vol. 1, 190-1 and pl. CXXI.</footnote>

<footnote n="54">54 Runjeet Singh, *Arms and Armour from the East*, 60-3. This catalogue was issued in conjunction with an art fair held at the Convention Centre in Hong Kong from 30 September to 3 October 2017. In it the helmet is incorrectly dated as fourteenth to seventeenth century and the Tibetan numerals that are inlaid in gold on the base of the plume final were misinterpreted as being "Old Permic script". It comes from a private collection in the UK that was formed in the eighties and included some of the first examples of Tibetan arms and armour to come onto the western market at that time.</footnote>
lying plates, but never six, further supporting the conclusion that the helmet is a composite or reconstruction of some kind.<fnref n="55" /> Also puzzling was the presence of two sets of Tibetan numbers: 235 engraved in the exterior surface of one of the plates of the bowl; and the number 871 inlaid in gold above that, on the base of the plume finial. Engraved numbers sometimes found on Tibetan helmets are not unusual per se and presumably represent inventory or arsenal numbers (see [fig. 6]).<fnref n="56" /> Numbers inlaid in gold, however, are very rare and would seem to indicate that the object so marked was once part of an important repository or collection. This feature appears to be found on only two other pieces recorded so far, both lamellar armours: one that entered the collection of the British Museum prior to 1910; and another acquired by the Royal Armouries on the art market in 1985.<fnref n="57" /> Both armours are extremely well made and rank among the finest Tibetan lamellar armours known.

How to reconcile and explain the gold inventory number, odd construction, and heterogeneous aspects of this helmet? These characteristics begin to make sense when this helmet is compared with another, possibly the earliest known Tibetan helmet in existence, which it resembles closely in overall form, method of construction, and choice of materials, if not in exacting detail [fig. 24].<fnref n="58" /> It is plausible that the later helmet is a purposeful replica, probably made between the seventeenth and nineteenth centuries, to preserve or commemorate the early helmet, an extraordinarily rare and fragile example dating from the eighth to tenth century, if not before. Perhaps the latter was preserved as a relic of an important historical figure, such as one of the Dharma Kings, and a replica was made of it as a substitute for the fragile original when needed for processional or ceremonial use.

## 13 A Word on Fakes

Despite the obviously modern nature and even comical appearance of the 'armour' in this illustration [fig. 25], fake examples of Tibetan arms and armour just like this have been offered for sale regularly at various auction houses in the West and online for the past fifteen years or more. In fact, modern-made helmets of exactly the type

<footnote n="55">55 On the construction of Tibetan six, eight, sixteen, and multiplate helmets see La Rocca, *Warriors of the Himalayas*, 52-77.</footnote>

<footnote n="56">56 For examples see La Rocca, *Warriors of the Himalayas*, catalogue nos. 4 and 7.</footnote>

<footnote n="57">57 La Rocca, *Warriors of the Himalayas*, catalogue nos. 3 and 26, where it is mistakenly stated that the numbers are inlaid in brass.</footnote>

<footnote n="58">58 La Rocca, *Warriors of the Himalayas*, catalogue no. 8; 8 and 68-9.</footnote>
shown here have been catalogued repeatedly by sellers as fifteenth to eighteenth century, and only lately have begun to appear at auctions correctly identified as modern. Also seen with some frequency are the silver mounted ceremonial swords made in the mid-twentieth century, which often show up in sale catalogues described as seventeenth to nineteenth century [fig. 26]. As is the case with Chinese weapons, outright fakes of Tibetan arms are becoming ever more sophisticated. Therefore, with some exceptions, most of what is said about Tibetan arms and armour in auction catalogues or as described by the majority of online sellers should be read warily and verified independently.

## 14 Conclusion

The aim of this paper has been to provide an overview of developments in the study of Tibetan arms and armour over the past twenty-five years, particularly those driven by the emergence of previously unknown types of objects. In addition, it is hoped that the preceding comments, illustrations, and references offer not only a general framework but also an accessible gateway to further exploration of the subject. Because these fascinating objects are intimately intertwined with traditional Tibetan culture, a proper appreciation of them can lead to a deeper and more nuanced understanding of many aspects of Tibetan history, religion, literature, and art.
<figure><img src="image_16.png" /><figcaption>**Figure 2** Lamellar armour. Tibetan. Possibly sixteenth to seventeenth century. Iron or steel and leather. © The Metropolitan Museum of Art, Purchase, Arthur Ochs Sulzberger Gift, 2001 (2001.318)</figcaption></figure>
Donald La Rocca

Armour and Weapons in Tibet from Yongle to Younghusband

<figure><img src="image_17.png" /><figcaption>**Figure 3** Detail of the exterior and interior of the armour in figure 2, showing the lacing pattern</figcaption></figure>
<figure><img src="image_18.png" /><figcaption>**Figure 4** Eight-plate helmet. Tibetan. Possibly sixteenth to seventeenth century. Iron or steel and leather. Private Collection. Photograph by Sean Belair</figcaption></figure>
<figure><img src="image_19.png" /><figcaption>**Figure 5** Sixteen-plate helmet. Tibet. Possibly sixteenth to seventeenth century. Iron or steel, leather, and yak hair. © The Metropolitan Museum of Art, Purchase, funds from various donors, by exchange, 2017 (2017.160)</figcaption></figure>
Donald La Rocca

Armour and Weapons in Tibet from Yongle to Younghusband

<figure><img src="image_20.png" /><figcaption>**Figure 6** Helmet finial inscribed g.yas [g.yas ru] 252, indicating right wing or division.
Private Collection. Photograph by the Author</figcaption></figure>
<figure><img src="image_21.png" /><figcaption>**Figure 7** Helmet decorated with the name of Sultan Mahmud Jani Beg Khan. Central Asian or Russian, Blue Horde. Probably ca. 1342-57. Iron or steel and silver. © The Metropolitan Museum of Art, Purchase, Arthur Ochs Sulzberger Gift, by exchange, 2007 (2007.86)</figcaption></figure>
Donald La Rocca

Armour and Weapons in Tibet from Yongle to Younghusband

<figure><img src="image_22.png" /><figcaption>**Figure 8** Reconstructed figure of an armoured cavalryman. Tibetan, Bhutanese, and possibly Nepalese. Ca. eighteenth to nineteenth century. © The Metropolitan Museum of Art</figcaption></figure>
Donald La Rocca

Armour and Weapons in Tibet from Yongle to Younghusband

<figure><img src="image_23.png" /><figcaption>**Figure 9** Unidentified wax seal, detail, interior of a Set of Four Mirrors (*me long bzhi*). Tibetan or Nepalese. Ca. eighteenth to nineteenth century. © The Metropolitan Museum of Art, Bequest of George C. Stone, 1935 (36.25.351)</figcaption></figure>
Donald La Rocca

Armour and Weapons in Tibet from Yongle to Younghusband

<figure><img src="image_24.png" /><figcaption>**Figure 10** Forearm guard for the left arm. Tibetan or Mongolian. Possibly fifteenth-sixteenth century. Leather, shellac, gold and pigments. The Metropolitan Museum of Art, Purchase, Arthur Ochs Sulzberger Gift, 2005 (2005.301.2)</figcaption></figure>
<figure><img src="image_25.png" /><figcaption>**Figure 11** Head defence (shaffron) for a horse armour. Tibetan or Mongolian. Fifteenth to seventeenth century. Iron, leather, gold, silver, brass or copper alloy, textile. © The Metropolitan Museum of Art, Purchase, Arthur Ochs Sulzberger Gift, 2004 (2004.402)</figcaption></figure>
Donald La Rocca

Armour and Weapons in Tibet from Yongle to Younghusband

<figure><img src="image_26.png" /><figcaption>**Figure 12** Horse armour. Western Tibetan. Probably seventeenth century. Wool, cotton, iron, yak hair, leather, horn or wood. © The Metropolitan Museum of Art, Purchase, Arthur Ochs Sulzberger Gift, 2007.183</figcaption></figure>
<figure><img src="image_27.png" /><figcaption>**Figure 13** Sword guard. Tibetan or Chinese. Fourteenth to fifteenth century. Iron, gold, silver, copper. © The Metropolitan Museum of Art, Gift of Steven Kossak, The Kronos Collections, 2014 (2014.533)</figcaption></figure>
<figure><img src="image_28.png" /><figcaption>**Figure 14** Sword, scabbard, and sword belt. Tibetan. Seventeenth to nineteenth century. Steel, silver, copper, gold, wood, coral, leather. © The Metropolitan Museum of Art, Purchase, Arthur Ochs Sulzberger Gift, 2014 (2014.262.1a-c, .2a, b)</figcaption></figure>
<figure><img src="image_29.png" /><figcaption>**Figure 15** Spear. Tibetan. Seventeenth to nineteenth century. Iron, gold, silver, wood, and pigments. © The Metropolitan Museum of Art, Purchase, Kenneth and Vivian Lam Gift, and funds from various donors, 2004 (2004.340a, b)</figcaption></figure>
<figure><img src="image_30.png" /><figcaption>**Figure 16** Quiver. Tibetan or Mongolian. Fourteenth to sixteenth century. Leather, shellac, pigment. © The Metropolitan Museum of Art, Purchase, Arthur Ochs Sulzberger Bequest, and Rogers Fund, by exchange, 2014 (2014.71)</figcaption></figure>
<figure><img src="image_31.png" /><figcaption>**Figure 17** Bow case, quiver, and belt. Tibetan or Mongolian. Fifteenth to seventeenth century. Leather, shellac, pigments, wood, iron, and gold. © The Metropolitan Museum of Art, Purchase, Arthur Ochs Sulzberger Gift, 2003 (2003.344a-c)</figcaption></figure>
Donald La Rocca

Armour and Weapons in Tibet from Yongle to Younghusband

<figure><img src="image_32.png" /><figcaption>**Figure 18** Flat cane shield with iron struts. Tibetan. Possibly fourteenth to sixteenth century. Cane, iron, and brass. © The Metropolitan Museum of Art, Purchase, Arthur Ochs Sulzberger Gift, 2001 (2001.55)</figcaption></figure>
Donald La Rocca

Armour and Weapons in Tibet from Yongle to Younghusband

<figure><img src="image_33.png" /><figcaption>**Figure 19** Matchlock musket. Tibetan. Eighteenth to nineteenth century. Iron, silver, wood, horn, leather, textile. © The Metropolitan Museum of Art, Purchase, Edward V. LaPuma Gift, 2017 (2017.282)</figcaption></figure>
Donald La Rocca

Armour and Weapons in Tibet from Yongle to Younghusband

<figure><img src="image_34.png" /><figcaption>**Figure 20** Set of saddle plates (detail of pommel plate). Tibetan or Chinese. Ca. 1400. Iron, gold, lapis lazuli, and turquoise. © The Metropolitan Museum of Art, Purchase, Gift of William H. Riggs, by exchange, and Kenneth and Vivian Lam Gift, 1999 (1999.118a-g)</figcaption></figure>
Donald La Rocca

Armour and Weapons in Tibet from Yongle to Younghusband

<figure><img src="image_35.png" /><figcaption>**Figure 21** Lamellar shoulder defence. Tibetan. Fourteenth to sixteenth century. Iron, leather, and textile. © The Metropolitan Museum of Art, Promised Gift of Laird Landmann and Kathleen Kinney, in celebration of the Museum's one hundred and fiftieth Anniversary, 2020</figcaption></figure>
<figure><img src="image_36.png" /><figcaption>**Figure 22** Eighteen Songs of a Nomad Flute: The Story of Lady Wenji [detail]. Unidentified artist, Chinese. Early fifteenth century. Handscroll; ink, colour, and gold on silk. © The Metropolitan Museum of Art, Ex coll.: C.C. Wang Family, Gift of The Dillon Fund, 1973 (1973.120.3)</figcaption></figure>
Donald La Rocca

Armour and Weapons in Tibet from Yongle to Younghusband

<figure><img src="image_37.png" /><figcaption>**Figure 23** Helmet. Tibetan. Sixteenth to seventeenth century parts probably assembled and completed in the seventeenth to nineteenth century. Iron, copper, and gold. Private Collection. Photograph courtesy Runjeet Singh</figcaption></figure>
<figure><img src="image_38.png" /><figcaption>**Figure 24** Helmet. Tibetan. Eighth to tenth century. Iron and copper alloy. © The Metropolitan Museum of Art, Purchase, Arthur Ochs Sulzberger Gift, 2002 (2002.226)</figcaption></figure>
<figure><img src="image_39.png" /><figcaption>**Figure 25** Modern reproduction of Tibetan armour for sale in the Barkhor district of Lhasa. 2013. Photograph by the Author</figcaption></figure>
<figure><img src="image_40.png" /><figcaption>**Figure 26** Short sword made for festival or ceremonial dress. Tibetan. Mid-twentieth century. Steel, silver, coral, turquoise, and wood. Private collection. Photograph by the Author</figcaption></figure>
Bibliography

Allen, C. *Duel in the Snows. The True Story of the Younghusband Mission to Lhasa*. London: John Murray, 2004.

Alexander, D.; Pyhrr, S.W.; Kwiatkowski, W. *Islamic Arms and Armor in the Metropolitan Museum of Art*. New Haven (CT): Yale University Press for The Metropolitan Museum of Art, 2015. https://doi.org/10.1086/699491.

Anninos, T. "Tibetan Leather Boxes". *Arts of Asia*, 30(1), 2000, 107-17.

Blackmore, H.L. *Guns and Rifles of the World*. New York: The Viking Press, 1965.

*Gu ge'i gna' grong rjes shul. Guge gu cheng. Site of the Ancient Guge Kingdom*. 2 vols. Beijing: Cultural Relics Publishing House, 1991.

Harris, C.; Tsering, S. *Seeing Lhasa. British Depictions of the Tibetan Capital, 1936-1947*. Chicago: Serindia Publications, 2003.

Jong, K. de. *Dragon and Horse. Saddle Rugs and Other Horse Tack from China and Beyond*. 2 vols. Hong Kong, 2013.

Karsten, J. "A Note on ya sor and the Secular Festivals Following the smon lam chen mo". *Steinkellner, E.; Tauscher, H. (eds)*, *Proceedings of the Csoma de Körös Symposium, Held at Velm-Vienna, Austria, 13-19 September 1981*. Vol. 1, *Contributions on Tibetan Language, History and Culture*. Wien: Arbeitskreis für Tibetische und Buddhistische Studien, Universität Wien, 1983, 117-49.

La Rocca, D.J. *The Gods of War. Sacred Imagery and the Decoration of Arms and Armor*. New York: The Metropolitan Museum of Art, 1996.

La Rocca, D.J. "An Approach to the Study of Arms and Armour from Tibet". *Royal Armouries Yearbook*, 4, 1999, 113-32.

La Rocca, D.J. "Introduction". Stone, G.C. (ed.), *A Glossary of the Construction, Decoration and Use of Arms and Armor in All Countries and in All Times*. New York: Dover Books, 1999, v-vi.

La Rocca, D.J. *Warriors of the Himalayas. Rediscovering the Arms and Armor of Tibet. With Articles by J. Clarke, A. Heller, L. Jamspal*. New York: The Metropolitan Museum of Art, 2006.

La Rocca, D.J. "Recent Acquisitions of Tibetan and Mongolian Arms and Armor in the Metropolitan Museum of Art. Part 1". *Waffen- und Kostümkunde*, 2, 2008, 19-32.

La Rocca, D.J. "Recent Acquisitions of Tibetan and Mongolian Arms and Armor in the Metropolitan Museum of Art. Part 2". *Waffen- und Kostümkunde*, 2, 2014, 187-210.

La Rocca, D.J. "An Early Tibetan Text on the Connoisseurship of Swords." La Rocca, D.J. (ed.), *The Armorer's Art. Essays in Honor of Stuart Pyhrr. Woonsocket (RI): Mowbray Publishing, 2014*, 89-105.

Ottley, W.J. *With Mounted Infantry in Tibet*. London: Smith, Elder & Co., 1906.

Richardson, H. *Ceremonies of the Lhasa Year*. London: Serindia Publications, 1993.

Rockhill, W.W. "Notes on the Ethnology of Tibet. Based on the Collections of the United States National Museum". *Annual Report of the Board of Regents of the Smithsonian Institution for Year Ending 1893. Report of the U.S. National Museum*. Washington (DC): Government Printing Office, 1895, 665-747.

Robinson, H.R. *Oriental Armour*. London: Herbert Jenkins, 1967.

Shuguba, T. (*rtsis dpon Shud khud 'Jam dbyangs mkhas grub*); Carnahan, S. *In the Presence of My Enemies. Memoirs of Tibetan Nobleman Tsipon Shuguba*. Santa Fe (NM): Clear Light, 1995.
Singh, R. *Arms and Armour from the East. Catalogue for Fine Art Asia*. Hong Kong, 2017. https://www.runjeetsingh.com/_userfiles/pages/files/catalogues/rs_ecat_autumn_248x313mm_081017.pdf.

Stone, G.C. *A Glossary of the Construction, Decoration and Use of Arms and Armor in All Countries and in All Times*. Portland (ME): The Southworth Press, 1934.

Thordeman, B. *Armour from the Battle of Wisby, 1361*. 2 vols. Stockholm: Kungl. Vitterhets Historie och Antikvitets Akademien, 1939-40.

Travers, A. "The Horse-Riding and Target-Shooting Contest for Lay Officials (drung 'khor rtsal rgyugs). Reflections on the Military Identity of the Tibetan Aristocracy at the Beginning of the 20th Century". *Études mongoles et sibériennes, centrasiatiques et tibétains*, 42, 2011, 2-14. https://doi.org/10.4000/emscat.1850.

Tsarong, D.D. *In the Service of His Country. The Biography of Dasang Damdul Tsarong, Commander General of Tibet*. Ithaca (NY): Snow Lion Publications, 2000.

Tung, R. *A Portrait of Lost Tibet. Photographs by Ilya Tolstoy and Brooke Dolan*. Berkeley (CA): University of California Press, 1980.
# Arms and Armour in Ancient and Medieval Tibetan Literature
## A Lexicographical Approach

Petra Maurer

Ludwig-Maximilians-Universität, München

**Abstract** This article presents Tibetan terms and expressions for arms and armour originating in Tibetan sources as per research conducted for the *Wörterbuch der Tibetischen Schriftsprache*, a dictionary database that includes sources ranging from the eight to the nineteenth centuries. This survey shows that Tibetan literature bears testimony to the existence of a broad variety of arms and armour in Tibet, which are mentioned in various contexts: Bon or Buddhist sources, historiographical or mythical accounts. By tracing these terms' etymological origins and focusing on the actual use of weapons, we may gain a clearer understanding of the origin, use, and value of arms and armour in Tibetan culture.

**Keywords** Armour. Bow and arrow. Tibetan dictionary. Helmet. Iron hook. Lasso. Pike. Slingshot. Spear. Sword. Tibetan history. Weapon.

**Summary** 1. Introduction. – 2. General Terms for Weapon. – 2.1 *mtshon*, *mtshon cha* and *mtshon ka*. – 2.2 *go cha*, *go mtshon* and *dgra cha(s)*. – 2.3 The Collective Term 'khor gsum. – 3. Specific Terminology for Weapons. – 3.1 The Lasso (*zhags pa*). – 3.2 The Bow (*gzhu*) and the Arrow (*mda*'). – 3.3 Slings (*'ur rdo*). – 3.4 Firearms (*me mda*') and Cannons (*dpag chen me stobs*). – 3.5 The Lance, Spear, or Pike (*mdung*, *mdung mo*). – 3.6 Terms for Swords. – 3.6.1 The Sword (*ral gyi* and *ral gri*). – 3.6.2 Specific Terms in Bon Sources. – 3.7 Battleaxes (*dgra sta*), Hammers (*the'u*) and Iron Hooks (*lcags kyu*). – 3.8 The Dagger and the Stake. – 4. Protective Gear. – 4.1 Armour and Shield. – 4.2 The Helmet. – 5. Final Remarks.

<figure><img src="image_41.png" /></figure>

**Peer review**

<table><tr><td>Submitted</td><td>2020-11-09</td></tr><tr><td>Accepted</td><td>2021-03-25</td></tr><tr><td>Published</td><td>2021-12-10</td></tr></table>

**Open access**

© 2021 | © Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International Public License

<figure><img src="image_42.png" /></figure>

**Citation** Maurer, P. (2021). "Arms and Armour in Ancient and Medieval Tibetan Literature: A Lexicographical Approach". *Annali di Ca' Foscari. Serie orientale*, 57, supplement, 803-860.
To those who fought the enemy by clapping their hands.

gri ring min thung min bang bkang /
dgra khang 'og slebs dus skyogs g.yugs //

Although the storeroom is full of all sorts of swords, when the enemy appears in one's cellar, it is the kitchen ladle one throws.<fnref n="1" />

# 1 Introduction

While the Western imagination ascribes to the Tibetans a peaceful life, lived in harmony and close communion with nature, looking back at Tibet's history, it becomes apparent that, for centuries, like every other civilisation, Tibetans fought in many armed conflicts both within and beyond Tibet's boundaries. Naturally, the weapons they used changed over time. In part, it is possible to trace their development through the *Old Tibetan Annals*<fnref n="2" /> and other historiographical accounts that mention weapons in their narratives. Early inscriptions and other old Tibetan documents, such as the *Pelliot Tibétain* (PT) collection, as well as later sources, reveal details about the use of weapons in Tibet, during either internal conflicts or wars with neighbouring peoples, such as the Chinese, Mongolians, and Western Turkic (Dru gu) tribes.

Stories about fighting and killing or about armed or military conflicts reveal a rich terminology related to weapons and armour, and also uncover the coexistence of both autochthonous weapons and equipment adopted from abroad. While these stories might correct our image of everyday life in Tibet, they also illustrate the use of weapons within both Bon and Buddhist ritual practices. In doing so, they open up questions about violence within Tibetan societies and communities, where weapons were used as tools for wars of conquest, conversion to Buddhism, and single combat. What might be stressed with regard to the Buddhist context is that monks also used weapons as tools

<footnote>This article is published in a volume edited in the context of the 'TibArmy' project, which has received funding from the European Research Council (ERC) under the European Union's Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme (grant agreement 677952).</footnote>

<footnote n="1">1 Lhamo Pemba, *Tibetan Proverbs*, 36; literally: 'it is filled with swords neither long nor short'. Here, I wish to thank Alice Travers and Federica Venturi for their thorough reading of and commenting on several versions of this article. Further thanks to John Bray, Singapore, and the two peer-reviewers for their comments and suggestions.</footnote>

<footnote n="2">2 The *Pelliot Tibétain* (PT) documents, such as the *Old Tibetan Annals*, present written knowledge about the Old Tibetan Kingdom. The scholars A. Stein and P. Pelliot discovered them in the nineteenth century in the grottoes of Dunhuang that had been sealed in the eleventh century. Here, I refer to the edition of Spanien and Imaeda, *Documents Tibétains*.</footnote>
for protection within monasteries or even during combat with hostile
monasteries. Commoners and monks used weapons during competi-
tions and religious ceremonies, such as the New Year Festival.<fnref n="3" /> Monks
and lay ritual practitioners also used them during their ritual prac-
tises, for example, to propitiate warrior gods or subdue demons, and
weapons were the attribute of oracle priests and numerous deities.<fnref n="4" />

All these manifold uses in Tibetan Buddhist societies show that Tibetans fully integrated arms and armour entirely into their religious worldviews. Since to win a war was as important in Buddhist societies as elsewhere, soldiers, together with their weapons, were blessed and the government typically asked the State Oracle to predict a war's result. Generally, historical texts tend to discuss weapons in a concrete, realistic way. Other literary genres, mainly Buddhist texts and Bon sources such as Shenrap Miwo's biography *Ziji* (*Gzi brjid*, translated as 'The Glorious' or 'Confidence')<fnref n="5" /> repeatedly refer to weapons as instruments that are endowed with a negative notation. Thus, they often symbolise impurity or, else serve as magical tools. Tibetan Buddhist texts, often translated from Sanskrit, also present the use of both imaginary and real weapons to metaphorically symbolise negative emotions, such as hatred and pride, and, at the same time, view them as tools for annihilating undesirable emotions.

Before investigating the written sources, I wish to briefly reflect
on the definition of a weapon. Generally speaking, any common tool
can serve as a weapon, whether it be a small kitchen knife, a ham-
mer, or even a vase, which can be used to harm or even kill a per-
son. This is exemplified also in Tibetan literature, which abounds
with references to unconventional weapons. For instance, in the Ge-
sar Epic,<fnref n="6" /> various groups defeat the enemy using specific items or ac-
tivities that, under different circumstances, would not be considered
weapons: spiritual teachers fight or dispel the enemy with a conch

<footnote n="3">3 For the use of weapons by monks, see, for example, Khedrup, *Tibetan Fighting Monk*; Maurer, “Obstacles in the Path”. For the use of weapons during festivities and rituals, see Richardson, *Ceremonies of the Lhasa Year*, for example, 56-9, 73; and for their exhibition in monasteries, see La Rocca, *Warriors of the Himalayas*, 11-14.</footnote>

<footnote n="4">4 See, for example, Heller, "Armor and Weapons", 35-41. Numerous drawings of all kinds of weapons are provided by Beer, *Tibetan Symbols and Motifs*, 267-310.</footnote>

<footnote n="5">5 Tibetan Bonpo Monastic Centre, *Gzi brjid*. The title *Ziji* refers to the biography of Shenrap Miwo (Gshen rab mi bo), the mythical founder of Bon religion. The oeuvre consists of 12 volumes, of which Snellgrove translated excerpts in his *Nine Ways of Bon*.</footnote>

<footnote n="6">6 The epic of King Gesar of Ling, the mythical ancestor-hero of the Khampas, is well-known in Central and East Asia, particularly Mongolia and Tibet. It may have originated in the eleventh or twelfth centuries' nomadic communities of Inner Asia or northeastern Tibet. Over time, the oral transmission became embedded in the Buddhist context, turning King Gesar into a Buddhist hero. For further information, see, for example, Samuel, "Gesar Epic" and FitzHerbert, "Tibetan Buddhism and the Gesar Epic".</footnote>
shell, heroes or warriors use arrows, and women clap their hands.<fnref n="7" />

This article, however, will ignore common tools used as weapons, but instead focuses particularly on actual weapons employed in combat and warfare. As we shall see, the Tibetan texts refer to three kinds of weapon: the so-called protective weapon or armour, the offensive weapon, and the long-range weapon.<fnref n="8" /> Armour, as a tool of defence, protects the body of the warrior, in the cavalry, for example, including the horses. By contrast, so-called offensive weapons, such as swords and daggers, are tools for launching or warding off attacks. Long-range weapons such as slings, bows and arrows and firearms are basically assault weapons. The latter two types of instrument are designed for attacking other sentient beings, thereby diminishing or removing his or her capability regarding defence and attack. They are tools for harming a person's physical integrity or killing them.<fnref n="9" />

By virtue of their focus on armed and military conflicts, most of the stories that constitute the sources for this article concern men rather than women. The above example, in which women dispersed their enemies by clapping their hands, could be seen as a demonstration of the general lack of women's involvement with weapons and in warfare situations in traditional Tibet.<fnref n="10" /> In ancient societies, weapons and armour became symbols of chiefs and warlords (*dmag dpon*). A person's ability to lead and preside over a group and wage war qualified him (and, in extremely rare cases, her) to be the principal leader and king, as well as a warlord. Commonly, specific attributes, such as special clothing, headgear, or other identifiers, marked out these leaders. Among these markers were weapons and armour that were not only part of the equipment of men but also part of the attributes of Bon and Buddhist priests. In addition, they came to be related to kingship, and were regarded as symbols of chiefs, rulers, kings, and gods. In India and Tibet, as in most cultures, being a war-

<footnote n="7">7 Stein, *L'épopée tibétaine de Gesar*, 258, ll. 35-6: *pha bla ma brgya yis dung ded dang / stag shar brgya yis mda' ded dang / sman bu mo brgya yis thal ded yod //*.</footnote>

<footnote n="8">8 This threefold distinction of weapons is drawn from Boehm, *Waffenkunde*. This standard reference on the study of weaponry in its historical development from the beginning of the Middle Ages to the end of the eighteenth century in Europe traces the origins of weapons and etymology of the terms by which they are known, and also describes their shape in great detail, often pointing to their non-European origins.</footnote>

<footnote n="9">9 When I reflected on the question of weapons, I came across the definition presented in the German Weapon Control Law. Although it is new, it appears generally applicable; see https://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/waffg_2002/BJNR397010002.html.</footnote>

<footnote n="10">10 In Tibetan society, warfare and combat were possibly, as in most traditional societies, the province of males. But more recent studies on women's active involvement in armed combat draw another picture since "there is, however, a large body of evidence pointing to females bearing arms". Hereby, "the idea of women as warriors has been denied, overlooked, dismissed as a figment of the imagination, or reinterpreted as an instrument to keep society (read women) in line"; see Jones-Bley, "Warrior Women", 35-7.</footnote>
lord became for a time a necessary attribute of kingship; it was one of the seven precious attributes of royal rule.<fnref n="11" />

By sampling a set of Tibet's literary sources referring to weapons, this survey makes it possible to sort through the various names for weapons and divide them into categories. These categories depend on the type of weapon, and it is hoped that future researchers might be able to classify them in more detail according to historical period or geographical area. An analysis of the textual context, such as the verbal structure or the descriptive adjectives further detailing the weapon's name, makes it possible to identify whether it might have been used in both military and non-military situations as well as identifying the material of which it was made. Based on the provided information, this preliminary investigation allows us to determine broadly which weapons withstood the test of time, i.e. remained consistently in use; as well as which ones fell out of favour at a certain point; as well as which new ones arrived during the time period analysed (eight-nineteenth centuries), on which more will be said below. In the same way, this analysis also provides initial insights into which weapons were favoured in one area rather than another, or by a certain group rather than another. That is to say, the survey gives us a clearer understanding of the use and social value of weapons within traditional Tibetan societies by providing a list (although non-comprehensive) of the major weapons used in Tibet from the imperial period onward.

This research is primarily based on the wealth of material collected in the *Wörterbuch der Tibetischen Schriftsprache* database, an ongoing project at the Bavarian Academy of Sciences and Humanities.<fnref n="12" /> The printed dictionary includes a text corpus starting from the early Tibetan inscriptions and documents originating in the eight century up to the nineteenth century, the early Modern Age. Since the majority of the database sources are religious texts, which were often translated from Sanskrit, they depict the weapons' metaphoric use. Buddhist translated literature is only included if the quotes appear relevant to the understanding of a term or to complete the picture drawn in the autochthonous texts. Although the selection of sources applied in the dictionary indicates that this is by no means a general survey of the weapons used in Tibet, the autochthonous texts presented here still allow an insight into the weapons and armour's usage and associated terminology. The sources, such as the stone inscriptions (*rdo ring*) and other documents in Old Tibetan, preserve real-life stories about both internal fights and wars against the Chinese, the Western Tur-

<footnote n="11">¹¹ For a description of the Precious General as one of the seven treasures of kingship, see Beer, *Tibetan Symbols and Motifs*, 163.</footnote>

<footnote n="12">¹² For the history of the project, see Uebach, *Wörterbuch*, 1. *Lieferung*, IX-XIII, and Maurer, "Lexicography of the Tibetan Language", 129-30.</footnote>
kic tribes (Dru gu), and others. They draw a picture of the weapons used in the Tibetan empire (seventh-ninth centuries). Later historiographical texts, such as Nelpa Paṇḍita's chronicle *The Flower Garland* (thirteenth century),<fnref n="13" /> *The Mirror of Royal Genealogies* (*Rgyal rabs gsal ba'i me long*, fourteenth century), Tāranātha's *History of Buddhism* (sixteenth century), and some documents from the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries testify whether or not a weapon was still in use several centuries later and what it was called. Other sources such as the *Gesar Epic* and Bon literature illustrate that weapons and armour were the tools of humans and gods, particularly warrior gods and demons threatening humans. The manifold terminology of weapons might originate from still unknown sources, such as the term *ya tsa*, that denotes a 'sword' in the Bon source *Ziji*, or *ka na ya*, another little understood term for 'sword' in Tsongkapa's (Tsong kha pa Blo bzang grags pa, 1357-1419) *Collected Works* (*Gsung 'bum*).

It should also be noted that since this article focuses on autochthonous sources and the actual use of weapons and armour, the material presented is not representative of the dictionary's sources in general. Most of the texts presented here stem from ancient and medieval sources of the eighth to the fourteenth centuries, such as Dunhuang manuscripts, the Bon source *Piercing Eye* (*Gzer mig*) and the historiographical sources *Flower Garland*, the fourteenth century historiographical text titled *Mirror Illuminating the Royal Genealogies*, and Tāranātha's *History of Buddhism*. Sources dating into the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries, such as a poem by the Sixth Dalai Lama, a letter from the ruler Pholhané (Pho lha nas, 1689-1747), *Sources on the History of Bhutan*, and a document by the Karmapa, are relatively rare. Due to the development of the project in the seventies and the focus of Tibetan Studies during its initial stages, the database contains few later historical sources, such as the autobiographies of ministers and so on, hereby probably causing a skewed focus on traditional weapons. It includes, however, the dictionaries of Geshe Chödrak (Dge bshes Chos kyi grags pa) and DAgyab (Brag g.yab Blo ldan shes rab), both written in the twentieth century, the *Clove Pavillion* (*Li shi'i gur khang*), and the Tibetan-Sanskrit dictionary *Mahāvyutpatti* (eighth century).<fnref n="14" /> As a result, the Munich Dictionary presents the Tibetan vocabulary from a linguistic-historical and semantic aspect, as the transliterated quotations of the original texts, together with their translation into German, follow a chronological order.

<footnote n="13">13 The *Chronicle of Nelpa Paṇḍita* called *Flower Garland* is a historiographical account of the early history of Tibet, starting from mythical times up to the second propagation (*phyi dar*) of Buddhism.</footnote>

<footnote n="14">14 For additional clarification, I searched specific weapon terminology in the *Mahāvyutpatti* and the *Mongolian-English Dictionary* of Lessing which is not included in the database.</footnote>
This diversity of Tibetan texts reveals the existence of a vast spec-
trum of weapons that were used in multiple ways. Regarding Tibetan
weapons, the reader should keep in mind that frontiers have always
been porous, thus often making it impossible to draw strict cultural
delineations. In other words, most Tibetan weapons are not particu-
larly 'Tibetan' and are in fact found in other cultures as well. Their
shape and material were adjusted to the respective conditions, and
as a result narrate stories of transitions.

This article focuses largely on real weapons, as they are of major in-
terest regarding the study of military history. In order to offer a more
thorough overview, it includes some references to magical and met-
aphorically-used weapons, particularly when the terms, phrases and
verbal structures serve to provide a broader understanding of the rel-
evant terminology and expressions related to weapons and armour.
This article presents the project's autochthonous source material,
which I searched for the various terms denoting weapons and armour.
In order to attempt a chronological understanding of the diffusion of
weapons in certain periods, it identifies the original sources that em-
ploy each term and, on the basis of the sources' dates, attempts to pin-
point in which time period Tibetans used a certain weapon or, a min-
ima when the source is a literary one, used certain weapons' names.

Before presenting and examining the contexts of our database's
terms for weapons in detail, I wish to point out that the terminolo-
gy of weapons is a difficult matter in any language. Weapons 'trav-
elled' and still 'travel' like people and words all over the globe, so
their nomenclature is not entirely consistent from place to place. For
example, the shape of swords shows great variety in every Europe-
an country,<fnref n="15" /> and translations from Tibetan to English or German
can further increase the problem. To give one example, the Tibetan
term *mdung* is rendered as either *lance, spear or pike*, the pike being
a stabbing weapon similar to the lance, or else, a long arrow (*mda'
chen*).<fnref n="16" /> Strictly speaking, the use of a *lance and spear*, however, dif-
fers: the lance is applied by stabbing and the spear by throwing to-
wards the target. The auxiliary verb that expresses the action with
*mdung* is *rgyab*, a verb meaning simply 'to do' or, more specifically,
'to throw' and 'to hit'. Therefore, its use next to the noun *mdung* fails
to clarify the type of action concerned.

In the texts preserved in the database, we encounter, for exam-
ple, the long-range weapons lasso (*zhags pa*) and arrow (*mda*'). They

<footnote n="15">15 For some of the multiple shapes of swords, spears and lances, see Bennett et al., *Fighting Techniques*, 44, 129.</footnote>

<footnote n="16">16 In our database sources, *mda’ chen* occurs in literature translated from Sanskrit; see, for example, Zimmermann, *Subhāśitaratna*, 226-7; Schneider, *Lobpreis der Vorzüg- lichkeit*, 86, ll. 31-2: *byams pa’i mda’ chen pos khro ba’i me nye bar zhi ba yin te //* (The great arrow of love extinguished the fire of anger).</footnote>
both belong to the group of objects that are considered to be among
the earliest weapons. They served primarily as tools for hunting,
while nomads and herders also used the lasso to catch animals. Ear-
ly sources, such as those in the *Pelliot Tibétain* collection, often men-
tion the arrow without the bow (*gzhu*) whereas, in later sources, *mda’*
and *gzhu* usually create a union. Generally, however, in the Tibetan
cultural areas, the arrow appears to belong to a bow, as darts or ar-
rows were apparently not blown (unlike in the English *blowgun*, a
tube with a blow dart).<sup>17</sup> This is also valid for the English *arrow*, that
originates from the Old English term *ar(e)we*, related to the Goth-
ic language. *Arhwazna*, *arrow*, and the Latin *arcus* are terms for the
bow. If we translate Tibetan *mda’* into German, it turns however into
*Pfeil*, a term originating from the Latin *pilum*. The term *pilum*, howev-
er, denotes *Speer* and *Spieß*, tools unconnected with a bow. Its equiv-
alents in English include *pike*, *spear* or *lance*.<sup>18</sup>

These brief etymological reflections demonstrate the difficulty of
designating weapons in general, and particularly when dealing with
Tibetan texts. Like any other object of material culture, weapons circ-
culate across territories and once they have reached new places, the
possibility to reproduce them also depends on the natural resources
available in a particular area. Hence, the lack or abundance of material
and/or skill of a craftsman might have changed their shape but not their
name. On the other hand, weapons’ functional change and use – rather
than their modification – might have resulted in another name. There-
fore, the analysis of written sources often creates an underlying un-
certainty about the full meaning of a word. For example, it remains
uncertain that Tibetan *mda’*, everywhere and at all times, denoted an
arrow shot from a bow and never a spear or lance, a long and strong ar-
row, so to speak, that a warrior threw using his own physical strength.

In the following sections, I will present the various contexts in
which weapons' terminology is employed in the Tibetan texts collect-
ed in the database of the Munich Dictionary. Here I will discuss the
terms with their translations, based on various existing dictionaries,
as well as on existing translations of the relevant excerpts and my
own translations or, in order to avoid an accumulation of quotes, by
paraphrasing the respective context. In each paragraph, I will start
with the oldest sources available, such as one of the documents in

<footnote n="17">17 I wish to thank the scholar Jampa Panglung, former staff member of the Munich Dictionary, for discussing these and the following references with me, in Munich in November 2019. As we shall see, there may be exceptions and the so-called *mda’ ste’u ka*, the arrow with a hatchet, might not belong to a bow.</footnote>

<footnote n="18">18 For definitions of ‘pike’, ‘spear’ and ‘lance’, see the *Oxford English Dictionary* (OED) (https://www.oed.com).</footnote>
the *Peliot Tibétain* collection or *Tibetan Texts concerning Khotan*.<fnref n="19" />
In particular, when the terms are ambiguous and have several mean-
ings, I will refer to dictionaries as well.

It is hoped that the terminological and chronological order of the
sections may shed some light on the use and shape of certain weap-
ons, as well as on their development and the possible terminological
changes that occurred over time. The reader should keep in mind
that this article presents preliminary results that might serve as a
basis for further investigation. The illustrative sections start with
the general terminology for weapons, then proceed to focusing on
single weapons. It is difficult to define clear criteria for subdividing
the weapon types since individual categories are often interconnect-
ed. Nevertheless, I attempted to apply criteria, such as the weapon's
range, hunting weapons, and the application of iron in their manu-
facture, fully aware that these categories are not mutually exclusive.

The first section on individual weapons starts with the lasso and sling, then bow and arrow, long-range weapons that were also used for hunting all over the world.<fnref n="20" /> Although, in particular, the manufacture of bows and arrows required certain skills, and the arrows used in war commonly had iron heads, and their manufacture was less laborious than the crafting of pole arms, such as lances, pikes, and swords. In the second group, I examine weapons that are functionally related to arrows, such as the lance, pike, and spear. Since these thrusting weapons could also be thrown at targets, they have a greater range than swords. In the third section, I review the terminology for sword-shaped instruments, the offensive weapons in close combat which were widespread in a great variety of forms. Like bows and arrows, they were used in warfare in Tibet until the twentieth century. The fourth section deals with other miscellaneous weapons, such as the iron hook, hammer, and axe. As far can be assessed from the sources, these were rarely used. The final section outlines the terms used to refer to other protective equipment, such as helmets and armour.<fnref n="21" />

<footnote n="19">19 R.E. Emmerick edited and translated texts concerning the history of this ancient Buddhist kingdom on the Silk Road. His work comprises two texts: *The Prophecy of Khotan* (*Li yul lung bstan pa*) and the *Religious History of Khotan* (*Li yul chos kyi lung bstan pa*).</footnote>

<footnote n="20">20 For long range weapons, see Boeheim, *Waffenkunde*, 385-430.</footnote>

<footnote n="21">21 For the horses' equipment and armour, see La Rocca, "Recent Acquisitions... Part 1", 5-9.</footnote>
## 2 General Terms for Weapon

### 2.1 mtshon, mtshon cha and mtshon ka

The generic Tibetan term for weapon or arms in general is *mtshon*, with its compounds *mtshon cha*, *mtshon ka* and *mtshon kha*. The terms *mtshon* and *mtshon cha* appear in all kinds of literature throughout the centuries, including the eighth century Sanskrit-Tibetan dictionary *Mahāvyutpatti*, whereas *mtshon ka* and *mtshon kha* are rare.<fnref n="22" /> The semantic content and use of *mtshon* in literature provide the basis for this analysis, which seeks to present examples of the term *mtshon* in all its variations given above. The examples that include verbs are intended to clarify the different meanings of *mtshon*, and possibly elucidate its different shapes and functions.

To begin with, I present a simple yet distinct definition of the term *mtshon* in one of the basic dictionaries, the *Tibetan-English Dictionary* by Jäschke. He explains *mtshon* and *mtshon cha* as “any pointed or cutting instrument”, and the expression “the four kinds of weapon” (*mtshon cha rnam pa bzhi*) as including four specific weapons, “sword, spear, dart, arrow”.<fnref n="23" /> As we shall see, his definition as “a pointed or cutting instrument” matches predominantly the term’s use in Tibetan literature. Hence, the term *mtshon* refers to all varieties of weapons and, from the seventeenth century onward, it is also denotes firearms (*me mda*’, literally ‘fire arrow’). Several sources classify *mtshon* into three types of the cutting instrument knife (*gri*);<fnref n="24" /> others regard it as a bamboo stick.<fnref n="25" />

<footnote n="22">22 See Ishihama and Fukuda, *Mahāvyutpatti*, 290, no. 6081 *mtshon rtse gcig* “one-pointed weapon”, and no. 6082 gives the synonyms for weapons: *mtshon cha’am lag cha’am mtshon*.</footnote>

<footnote n="23">23 See Jäschke, *Tibetan-English Dictionary*, 457, s.v. “mtshon”. This raises the question of which tool Jäschke denotes as a “ dart”. Did he mean a *plumbata*, some kind of javelin or throwing spear? The term * dart* originates from the Arabic *djerid*, a term also denoting a pike; see Boehem, *Waffenkunde*, 307.</footnote>

<footnote n="24">24 For further details, see § 3.6.1.</footnote>

<footnote n="25">25 The *Suvarṇabhāsottamsūtra* or *Golden Light Sūtra* is a Mahāyānasūtra addressing a vast range of topics ranging from the Buddhas’ previous lives to the teaching on dependent arising (*rten ’brel*) and instructions regarding proper governance. It refers, for example, to the ethical duties of those who seek enlightenment, such as compassion. In the story of the hungry tigress, the Buddha shows his complete compassion by offering his body to feed the tigress. He cuts his throat with an old bamboo stick; see Nobel, *Das Goldglanz-Sūtra*, 160, ll. 1-6: *mtshon cha btsal na / gang nas kyang mtshon cha ma rnyed nas / des ’od ma’i yal ga lo brgya lon pa sra ba zhig blangs te mgul pa bcad nas stag mo’i mdun du ’gyel to //* (When he searched for a weapon but could not find one anywhere, he took a more than a 100 year-old bamboo stick, cut his throat and fell to the ground in front of the tigress).</footnote>
The oldest source for *mtshon* in the material collected in the *Wörterbuch der Tibetischen Schriftsprache* database is in the *Pelliot Ti-bétain* collection, in the document with the shelf-mark PT 1287. Here, someone uses the weapon to punish delinquents who participated in a conspiracy. The context leads to the interpretation of its meaning as a 'sword'.

You will never punish others who did not participate in the conspiracy.

Like pigs, you will cleave [the delinquents] with a sword.<fnref n="26" />

The other early text, dating to the year 865 CE, is the *Religious History of Khotan* where we encounter monks involved in an armed quarrel. Here, members of the clergy fight with weapons in an attempt to kill each other. The passage relates how the monkhood divided into two warring camps. The phrasing here, "fight with weapons" (*mtshon kar bkye*), fails to reveal the actual type of weapons used: they might be either swords or spears.<fnref n="27" />

A famous story in Tibetan literature tells of the murder of King Langdarma (Glang dar ma) that is commonly dated to 842 CE. Its version in the thirteenth century source, Nelpa Panḍita's chronicle named *Flower Garland*, reports - whether accurately or not - how the monk, Pelgyi Dorje (Dpal gyi rdo rje), prepared his equipment, that is horse, garment and weapon for the act. The text identifies the weapon as a spear (*mdung*), with which Pelgyi Dorje stabs (*rgyab*) the king through the heart.<fnref n="28" />

As a cutting instrument, *mtshon* can also be a tool for slaughtering oxen, presumably a large knife or a sword:

> When she served them *chang*, and they had nothing to eat, she pointed to the oxen. "Slaughter [the oxen]!" They replied: "We have no weapon".<fnref n="29" />

<footnote n="26">26 Spanien and Imaeda, *Documents Tibétains*, vol. 2, pl. 567, ll. 282-3: *gzhan blo la ma gthogs pa rnams la / bkyon re / phag dang mtshungs mtshon gyis myi dgar re //*.</footnote>

<footnote n="27">27 Emmerick, *Khotan*, 86, ll. 70-1: *dge 'dun yang 'phral la sde gnyis su chad de / nang 'khrugs na mtshon kar bkye ste / dgung ma sangs par / dge 'dun gcig kyang ma lus ste / nang par dkon mchog gsum gyi mying shes shing / 'don pa myed par gyur nas //*.</footnote>

<footnote n="28">28 Uebach, Nelpa Panḍita, 120-1, and fol. 14b ll. 6-7: *rta dang ber dang mtshon cha la sogs pa rgyal po gsod pa'i thabs bshams te [...] snying khar mdung rgyab nas bkrongso //*. Nelpa Panḍita remarks that, according to other authors, the king was killed by an arrow shot in the forehead.</footnote>

<footnote n="29">29 The passage occurs in the *Vinayavastu ('Dul ba gzhi*) of the Kanjur; see *Sde dge*, vol. 1, 'Dul ba, ga, 83b ll. 3-4: *de rnams la chang blud na 'dzar ba med nas des glang zhig bstan de 'di sod cig / de rnams kyis smras pa / mtshon cha med do //*.</footnote>
The vast majority of the references to *mtshon* in the dictionary’s da-
tabase come from non-military contexts. Hence, the entries show that
weapons also serve many other purposes. On the one hand, they can
occur as the requisites of gods, deities, and ritual specialists be they
Bon or Buddhist. During a meditation on the wrathful Bon goddess
Tsochok Khagying (Gtso mchog mkha’ ’gying, literally the ‘Highest
Leader Posing in the Sky’), for example, the adept should visualise her
with charnel ground ornaments, holding a sharp weapon in her hand
(*mtshon phyag na bsnams*).<fnref n="30" /> Weapons characterise the Bon priests
known as ‘the armed Durshen’ (*dur gshen mtshon cha can*) since they
carry weapons as ritual items. They use them to eliminate hindranc-
es, such as the so-called *bgegs* demons which cause problems for the
living, the *chungisi* (*chung gi sri*) demons who attack children, the evil
spirits (*’dre*) on earth, and they use them to dig graves for the dead.<fnref n="31" />
Moreover, weapons such as knives and knife blades (*mtshon dang gri
kha*) are singled out as instruments for *gto* rituals.<fnref n="32" />

On the other hand, the term mtshon appears also in a figurative
sense. In his chronicle Flower Garland, Nelpa Pandita, for example,
uses mtshon as an abstract concept. He refers with this term to one
of the aspects characterising particular unfavourable periods of time
that cause suffering for all living beings on the planet. During these
times, when the Three Jewels were unknown, famine, diseases and
mtshon, that is to say conflict or war, spread across the country.<fnref n="33" /> This
or similar three-item lists are a reoccurring trope throughout Tibet-
an literature. It appears, for example, in Bon ritual texts, such as The
Propitiation of the Queen of the World on the Black Female Mule (Srid
rgyal drel nag ma'i bskang ba), for short Sigyel (Srid rgyal), where dis-
ease, famine and war are the instruments for annihilating both the
enemy and the entire country. Moreover, the term mtshon occurs as
a metaphor for epidemics capable of destroying one's enemy.<fnref n="34" />

<footnote n="30">30 Srid rgyal, 2a ll. 3-4. This Bon source is a ritual text for propitiating demons.</footnote>

<footnote n="31">31 This historiographical account of Tibet's history distinguishes by their specific attributes four types of Bon of Cause (*rgyu'i bon po*) and explains their activities. See Sørensen, *Royal Genealogies*, 145; Kuznetsov, *Gsal ba'i me long*, 49, ll. 7-10: *dur gshen mtshon cha can gyis / gson gyi bgegs sel / gshin gyi dur 'debs / chung gi sri gnon* [...] *sa'i 'dre br-dung ba yin no //*. On the Bon of Cause, see also Namkhai Norbu, *Drung, Deu and Bön*, 45-6.</footnote>

<footnote n="32">32 See, for example, Lin, *Systematisierung von gTo-Ritualen*, 169-70, 175-6. The edition and translation of Lin contains Mi pham's (1846-1912) collection of Gto rituals for all kinds of purposes related to daily life, such as avoiding disaster and disease, propitiating demons, and so on.</footnote>

<footnote n="33">33 Uebach, Nelpa Pandita, 160-1, fol. 25b2: *dkon mchog gsum gyi sgra mi grag par 'gyur te / de'i stobs kyis mu ge dang / nad dang / mtshon gyi bskal pa bar ma byung nas / sems can thams cad shin tu nyon myons par byed do //*.</footnote>

<footnote n="34">34 Srid rgyal, 11b 1. 2: nad mug mtshon gyi dgra yul cham la phob; also 12a 1. 4: dal yam mtshon gyi dgra bo'i mtha' rgyud thul //.</footnote>
In conclusion, one can state that from the earliest sources *mtshon* denotes a concrete object, either an object used in military confrontation or a ritual object. It is a tool to kill the enemy, whereby Bon and Buddhist religion legitimates its use as a tool to annihilate evil threats commonly associated with demons. In its abstract meaning, it refers to far-reaching events capable of harming or killing many people such as wars and epidemics.

## 2.2 *go cha, go mtshon and dgra cha(s)*

Further general terms for weapons are the compounds *go cha, go mtshon* and *dgra cha* or *dgra chas*. Occasionally, the monosyllabic term *go* is used alone. The etymology of the syllable *go* in the context of weapons is unclear. The dictionary of Geshe Chödrak defines *go cha* as follows: "iron garment that protects the body" (lus skyob lcags gos), and armour (*go khrab*). Dagyab explains it as "military equipment such as armour, helmet and so on" (*khrab rmog sogs. g.yul gyi cha lugs*).<fnref n="35" /> Early dictionaries of the Tibetan language such as Schmidt, list *go* or *go cha* as "harness, shell, weapon and armour".<fnref n="36" /> Jäschke defines *go cha* as "armour" and the compound *go khang* as "arsenal".<fnref n="37" /> Both terms date back to the beginning of Tibet's literacy, as the eighth century Sanskrit-Tibetan dictionary *Mahāvyutpatti* already uses them. In its section on weapons titled *go mtshon gi ming la*, the term *go cha* is defined as *varma*, "envelope, defensive armour, a coat of mail" or *saṃnāhaḥ*, a term which can also denote "accoutrements, armour, mail, a coat of mail (made of iron or quilted cotton)".<fnref n="38" />

In the database sources, the term *go* with its compounds occurs rarely. As a primary oral tradition, the "Conquest of the Fort of Sumpa", a section of the *Gesar Epic*, is difficult to date but we can assume that the text preserves portions of ancient linguistic material. It uses the term *go* in the phrase *mi rta go*; that is "men, horses, and weapons". These three were the relevant components that should be considered before a country plunged into a war.<fnref n="39" />

<footnote n="35">35 Geshe Chödrak, *Brda dag*, 118; Dagyab, *Tshig mdzod*, 102.</footnote>

<footnote n="36">36 Schmidt, *Wörterbuch*, 71: "Harnisch, Panzer, Bewaffnung, Rüstung".</footnote>

<footnote n="37">37 Jäschke, *Tibetan-English Dictionary*, 70-1 does not refer to the monosyllabic term *go* as military equipment (this is striking and worthy of further study, considering how many words related to weapons are compounds of *go*).</footnote>

<footnote n="38">38 See Ishihama, Fukuda, *Mahāvyutpatti*, 288, nos. 6050 and 6051; see also Sonam Angdu, *Lishi*, 4, ll. 10-11, who gives *ya lad* as a synonym for *go cha*; Tenzin, Namdak Nyima, Rabsal, *A Lexicon of Zhangzhung and Bonpo Terms*, 231, translates *ya lad* as "a shield, armour". For the Sanskrit, see Monier-Williams, *Sanskrit-English*, 926 and 1146.</footnote>

<footnote n="39">39 Kaschewsky and Tsering, *Burg von Sumpa*, vol. 2, 56b ll. 1-3: *mi rta go rtsis kher 'don pher nges byas nas / lung[s] rgod kyi chu bo 'bab 'dra //*.</footnote>
The Bon text *Ziji* that is primary assigned to the oral transmissions as well,<fnref n="40" /> uses the compounds *go mtshon* and *go cha*. It distinguishes nine types of weapons for the warrior gods (*sgra bla'i go mtshon sna dgu*) and nine types of armour for the *asura* (*lha min gyi go cha gling dgu*).<fnref n="41" /> For completeness of content, I wish to refer to the translated text, the “Rosary of [the Buddha’s] Life Stories” (*Skyes pa rabs kyi phreng ba*, Sanskrit *Jātatakamālā*), where *go cha* apparently also denotes a tool for protection, such as armour or a coat of mail. Here, the mind is the protection, which the arrow of sorrow cannot pierce.<fnref n="42" />

The compound *dgra cha* means a ‘weapon’ and may be literally translated as a ‘tool against the enemy’. In the *Mahāvyutpatti*, it prevents the one holding it from receiving Buddhist teachings:

> To someone who holds a weapon in his hand, we will not teach the dharma.<fnref n="43" />

The dictionaries of Geshe Chödrak (Dge bshes Chos kyi grags pa) and Dagyab (Brag g.yab Blo ldan shes rab) explain *dgra cha* as “arrow and bow” (*mda’ gzhu*). However, they explain the term *dgra chas* differently. Geshe Chödrak describes the term as “tool against the enemy” (*dgra bo’i yo byad*) and Dagyab simply as “a type of weapon” (*mtshon cha’i rigs*).<fnref n="44" /> In his chronicle *Flower Garland*, Nelpa Paṇḍita applies *dgra chas* to a weapon, which he considers a tool that is commonly carried on a journey (*byes na dgra chas tor* [recte *thogs*]).<fnref n="45" /> The term *dgra chas* remained in use for many centuries, as the final reference to it in the database dates to the eighteenth century. In 1727, the ruler of Tibet, Miwang Pholhané or Pholhawa (Mi dbang Pho lha ba), mentions *dgra cha* in an epistle to the Chinese Emperor, where he uses it as a generic term for tools needed in military conflicts, such

<footnote n="40">40 This twelve-volume text, which contains the Bonpo Canon including a biography of Shenrap Miwo, the mythical founder of the Bon religion, is said to have been written in the fourteenth century; see Karmay, "History and Doctrines of Bon", 110. For further information, see also the article of Kvaerne, "Canon of the Tibetan Bonpo".</footnote>

<footnote n="41">41 Tibetan Bonpo Monastic Centre, *Gzi brjid*, vol. 2, 60 and vol. 1, 485.</footnote>

<footnote n="42">42 Hahn and Klaus, *Mrgajātaka*, 58, ll. 9-12: *shin tu yangs pa'i snying rje'i go chas bcings par 'byung ba ni / bdag gi sems 'di sdug bsngal mda' yis phigs par mi 'gyur ro //* (My mind is armed with the shield of great compassion. The arrow of sorrow will not pierce it). For further details, see the chapter on armour. The Tibetan *go cha* translates here the Sanskrit *kavaca*, which is, according to Monier-Williams, *Sanskrit-English*, 262: "armour, cuirass, coat of mail".</footnote>

<footnote n="43">43 Ishihama and Fukuda, *Mahāvyutpatti*, 402, no. 8562: *lag na dgra cha* [varia lectio sta] *thogs pa la chos mi bshad*, for Sanskrit *nāyudhapāṇaye dharmaṁ deśayiṣyāmaḥ*.</footnote>

<footnote n="44">44 Dagyab, *Tshig mdzod*, 129; Geshe Chödrak, *Brda dag*, 151.</footnote>

<footnote n="45">45 Uebach, *Nelpa Paṇḍita*, 68-9, fol. 4b 1. 2: *yul na khral ka rtsi* [recte *lci*] / *byes na dgra chas tor* [recte *thogs*] / *bso ka phyi sgo la gtad* / *phyugs khyim phugs na bso* / *gzhon pa ni mda' stan byed //*.</footnote>
as muskets (*me mda*)' and armour (*a khrab*).<fnref n="46" /> To complete this section, I wish to point out that the *Gesar Epic* also applies *go mtshon* metaphorically by referring, for example, to the weapons of patience and insight.<fnref n="47" /> Moreover, gods, particularly the warrior gods can reside in a weapon (*go mtshon*).<fnref n="48" />

As we have seen, all of these terms originate in early linguistic material, since they occur either in the *Mahāvyutpatti*, or in sources such as the *Conquest of the Fort of Sumpa*, and the Bon source *Ziji*. According to the database sources, compounds with *go* prevail in Bon literature,<fnref n="49" /> while the dominant term for weapon remains *mtshon*. Already the entries in the *Mahāvyutpatti* appear ambiguous since the section titled *go mtshon* includes tools called *go cha*. Despite Geshe Chödrak's explanation, since the syllable *cha* refers to any tool or implement in general, the term *go cha*, like *go mtshon*, can apparently refer to both armour and weapon.

## 2.3 The Collective Term 'khor gsum

In this last section on general terms for weapons, I will introduce a compound that appears unusual. Several autochthonous texts refer to a specific group of weapons called “the three circles” or “three groups” (*'khor gsum*), an expression that might indicate an effort to classify weapons. The term occurs in a wide range of meanings, unrelated to weapons.<fnref n="50" /> A connection with *'khor lo*, a term that can denote a discus being used as a weapon, is unlikely since “the three wheels” refer to other types of weapons.<fnref n="51" /> Jäschke cites Schmidt’s dictionary for the interpretation of the “three circles” as “every thing that belongs to archery;” but specifies the term as “more correctly:

<footnote n="46">46 Schuh, *Siegelkunde*, 83-5, ll. 34-6, 99-102: *spas se khang chen pa'i me mda' sag thag ol sbog a khrab sogs dgra chas rnams sbyin //*.</footnote>

<footnote n="47">47 Stein, *L'épopée tibétaine de Gesar*, 196, ll. 18-19: *bzod dang shes rab go mtshon las / lcags gzhu rno mtshon ma dgos kyang //* (Apart from the weapons of patience and insight, one does not need an iron bow or any other sharp weapon).</footnote>

<footnote n="48">48 Stein, *L'épopée tibétaine de Gesar*, 255, ll. 24: *go mtshon dgra lha'i rten mkhar yin //*. The *sgra bla* are identical with *dgra bla*. Tenzin, Namdak Nyima, Rabsal, *A Lexicon of Zhangzhung and Bonpo Terms*, 43 and 45, refers from *dgra lha* to *'go ba'i lha lnga* as “the protector deities that are born spontaneously with each individual person”.</footnote>

<footnote n="49">49 It might be worth pointing out here that Tenzin, Namdak Nyima, Rabsal, *A Lexicon of Zhangzhung and Bonpo Terms*, 37 quotes the terms *go ban* as “the crowing glory of armour, the pennant of a helmet” and *go zu* as “a garment that protects against weapons”.</footnote>

<footnote n="50">50 The term *'khor* also denotes ‘entourage’, ‘retinue’, ‘assembly’, ‘district’ and ‘circuit’; see Maurer and Schneider, *Wörterbuch*, 9, 147-8.</footnote>

<footnote n="51">51 The epithet “the one with the discus in the hand” (*'khor lo'i phyag* or *'khor lo'i lag pa*), denotes, for example, the Indian god Viṣṇu; see Maurer and Schneider, *Wörterbuch*, 9, 153.</footnote>
arrow, knife, and spear”.<fnref n="52" />

Since 'khor gsum occurs already in the *Gesar Epic* portion entitled *The Conquest of the Fort of Sumpa*, it might be considered as old lin-
guistic material, dating back as far as the eleventh or twelfth centu-
ries. There, they are understood as an arrow, bow, and sword, since
they are attached to or worn on the body.<fnref n="53" /> This matches Mipham's
interpretation in his *Gto Rituals*, where he comments on the three
wheels by explaining them as the "arrow, bow, and sword" which the
ritual specialist attaches to an effigy.<fnref n="54" /> From a decree in the *History
of Bhutan*, we learn that the term was still in use in the eighteenth
century. In his translation of a legal decree issued in 1729 referring
to the duties of rulers and ministers in the *Sources for the History of
Bhutan*, Aris interprets the three wheels more generally as "armour,
helmet and weapons" (*go mtshon, go cha* and *dgra cha*).<fnref n="55" /> His inter-
pretation disagrees with that of Wylie in his translation of the *Geog-
raphy of Tibet* written in 1830 by Jampel Chöki Tenzin Trinle ('Jam
dpal chos kyi bstan 'dzin 'phrin las, 1789-1838), where he denotes
them as an "arrow, lance and sword".<fnref n="56" />

Since the origin of the Tibetan expression ‘three circles’ (‘*khor gsum*') is unclear and its interpretation in the sources varies, a look in the polyglot dictionaries could bring clarity. There, it corresponds apparently with the Mongol equivalent *sayaday qorumsaxa* which refers to two items only: these are ‘quiver and bow case’. Herewith, we might conclude, that the Tibetan expression seems to denote equipment for the transport of weapons, i.e. the quiver, bow case, and the weapon-belt. The Mongolian equivalent lacks the weapon-belt as third

<footnote n="52">52 Jäschke, *Tibetan-English Dictionary*, 58; Schmidt, *Wörterbuch*, 62: “das ganze Bö-
gengeräthe”.</footnote>

<footnote n="53">53 Stein, *L'épopée tibétaine de Gesar*, 205, ll. 15-7: *stag shar pas 'khor gsum bcing le des //* (A young man who attaches the three types of weapons [to his body]). Kaschewsky, *Tsering, Burg von Sumpa*, vol. 2, 143a ll. 4-5: *gnam lha khri bstan dang / a nag dom bu thogsdkar gnyis rdzong nang du yod par khong gnyis kyi khrabrmog 'khor gsum bskor* [recte bskon] *nas //* (When the two, Namlha Triten and Anak Dombu Tokar were in the fortress, they both donned their armour, helmet and the three weapons [i.e. an arrow, bow and sword]).</footnote>

<footnote n="54">54 Lin, *Systematisierung von gTo-Ritualen*, 144: ‘*khor gsum (mda*’ gzhu ral gri bcas) / tshang bar btags // (One should completely attach the three weapons (an arrow, bow and sword)).</footnote>

<footnote n="55">55 Aris, *History of Bhutan*, 144, ll. 21-2: 'khor gsum mdo drug tshang ba'i dmag mi dmag gral du 'khod par // (The soldiers, fully equipped with the three weapons, and the horses were arrayed in the battle line).</footnote>

<footnote n="56">56 Wylie, *The Geography of Tibet*, 23, ll. 8-9: 'khor gsum gyi rjes yin zer ba sogs rdo'i ngos su gsal bar babs yod pa la // For Wylie's interpretation, see his footnote 340. A similar interpretation is presented by Ekvall in his *Fields of the Hoof*, 90, where he names sword, arrow, and spear as the threefold armament of the rider who guards the herds: in modern times a gun replaces the arrow.</footnote>
item.<fnref n="57" /> In this context, it might be worth pointing out that the Turkish term *qor* is similar in meaning to Tibetan '*khor* since *qor* means ‘rib- and; edge; border; row; armour’ and *qorci* ‘the keeper of the armoury or wardrobe’ who carries a belt equipped with a sword and a quiver.<fnref n="58" /> That is to say, that it is not unlikely that Tibetan '*khor*' is linked with *qor*.

The term 'khor gsum is therefore a good example to exemplify not only the spread of terms but also potential variations in meaning. It is sure that the term designates a unity of three, whereby any of the interpretations given above is possible and can be correct in specif- ic contexts.<fnref n="59" /> Its identification as the weapons arrow, bow and sword emphasises the significance of these three types of weapon in the Ti- betan cultural context.

## 3 Specific Terminology for Weapons

The following sections are dedicated to terms designating specific weapons. As the information on the weapons and armour's material, shape and use provided in these sources is inconsistent, it is difficult to draw general conclusions about their material characteristics and practical functions.

To begin with, I will discuss early weapons, such as the lasso, sling, and bow and arrow. These weapons were easily produced from natural materials, and none required necessarily the use of fire or iron-work skills. In fact, all of these tools, particularly the bow and arrow, were common hunting tools that were in widespread use all over the world. Another significant characteristic is their large operating range. On the basis of this quality, this section concludes – as far as the material collected in the *Wörterbuch der Tibetischen Schriftsprache* database is concerned and given the fact that this material comprises a majority of ancient and medieval literature – with rare references to firearms and canons.

The second set of weapons includes offensive weapons for close combat, which are either wholly or partly made of metal, such as pikes and swords. Their manufacture requires metal processing

<footnote n="57">57 For Mongol and other language synonyms, see the detailed analysis of the material, shape and terms of weaponry by Kőhalmi, "Abschnitt der Waffenbehälter", 196, she translates 'khor gsum with "Kreis der Drei" (circle of three) that is "Köcher, Bogenfut- teral und Waffengürtel".</footnote>

<footnote n="58">58 Spiess, “Türkisches Sprachgut”, 336-7. Since the author refers to Turkish loan-words in Hindi whereby he also indicates their links with Ottoman and Persian, for example, he shows the spread of terms beyond their linguistic families. According to Lessing, *Mongolian-English*, 965, the Mongolian term *qor* denotes “the part of the quiver where the tips of the arrows are placed”.</footnote>

<footnote n="59">59 See also Kőhalmi, "Abschnitt der Waffenbehälter", 196 fn. 2.</footnote>