54 Field Museum of Natural History — Anth., Vol. XIII. 



The problem as to the precious stones utilized by the T'ang dynasty 

 could very well be solved in the Imperial Treasury (Shos5in) of Nara, 

 Japan, if an experienced mineralogist might be admitted there to make 

 a close investigation of Hhe numerous precious stones lavished on 

 Chinese objects of that period. In the Tdyei Shuko published by the 

 Imperial Household where these treasures are splendidly illustrated, 

 but inadequately described, the importance of this subject is overlooked. 

 We read, for example, on p. 5 of Vol. I of discs used in plajdng games, 

 35 of crystal, 35 of amber, 20 of yellow lapis lazuli, 20 of azure lapis 

 lazuli, 15 of sHghtly green lapis lazuli, 15 of green lapis lazuli; in the 

 description of swords, green lapis lazuli is repeatedly mentioned. Need- 

 less to say there is no yellow or green lapis lazuli, and that these defini- 

 tions rest on guesswork, not on investigation. But the same remark 

 holds good for most of our archaeological collections. A competent 

 examination of the intaglios discovered in Turkistan, especially Khotan, 

 and of the engraved gems of the Sassanian period of Persia would 

 likewise yield new results for this interesting branch of research. 



At a future date, precious stones will occupy a prominent place also 

 in Chinese archaeology, and the practical utility of studies -like the 

 present one will then become manifest. Already now the fact is 

 apparent that precious stones are found in Chinese graves, and there 

 is a certain number of them (especially lapis lazuli, carnelian, agate, 

 and others as yet undefined) in the collections of the Field Museum. 

 But for lack of evidence this subject is difficult to treat at present. 

 Turquois, as far as I can judge, and as far as I know from Chinese ex- 

 perts, has not yet been .discovered in any Chinese grave. The day 

 will not be far when also Chinese archseolog}^ will be based on the 

 actual evidence of the finds, and — qui vivra verra. 



Ill regard to Tibet a plausible interpretation may be offered, and the 



•Chinese transcription se-se referring to a jewel greatly prized by the 



ancient Tibetans seems to be traceable to a Tibetan word. There is a 



Tibetan word ze (or ze-ba, ha being only a suffix), a different word from 



the one mentioned before, which in the Tibetan-Sanskrit dictionaries 



is translated by Sanskrit agmagarbha; the latter is, according to the 



Rdjanighantu (ed. Garbe, p. 77), an epithet of the ehierald, and Tibetan 



ze {= Chinese se-se) would accordingly designate the emerald.^ This 



identification is quite in keeping with what Chinese authors report 



1 Compare the Chinese word she-she, "emerald," cited by Palladius (see above 

 p. 25, note i). It is noteworthy that the Chinese accounts of se-se, in a measure, 

 present a curious analogy with the notices of the emerald on the part of the ancients, 

 in that the latter have mingled with the genuine emerald other statements which 

 cannot relate to the latter, for example, fabulous reports on Egyptian emeralds four 

 cubits long and three cubits wide, and on obelisks of emerald (H. Blumner, /. c. 

 Vol. Ill, p. 239, and Lessing, Briefe antiquarischen Inhalts, XXV). 



