1895.] H. Gr. Raverty— Tibbat three hundred and sixty-jive years ago. 107 
the force along with me, the number of mounted men whose horses were 
strong enough to go on, amounted to ninety only ; and with these I pro¬ 
ceeded four days’ journey onwards to Asbaraq, from which to Ursang 1 
great river, Beg-matl [the Brahma-putr ?], which in volume, breadth and depth, 
was three times greater than the Gang, he pushed on for fifteen days, and, on the 
sixteenth, reached the open country of Tibbat.” 
The Cingiz Khan while wintering at and around GIbari in the district to the 
north of Peshawar, before hearing that all Tingqut and Tamgliaj was in a state of 
revolt, was desirous of entering India, and returning into Cin by way of Lakhan- 
awatl and Kamrud ; but, on hearing of these formidable insurrections, he resolved 
to return by the way he came, by Buqlan, Bukhara, and Samar-qand, where he 
passed the winter of 620-621 H. (1223-24 A.D.), and subsequently set out for the 
disturbed territories “ by way of Lob and the country of Tibbat,” that is, along the 
skirt of the Altan Tagh referred to in p. 89 note 3. 
1 It will be noticed that the MIrza never mentions the name of any place 
called Lhasa, and yet, without doubt, he refex*s to the great temple or series of 
temples at the place known to us by that name. But from the context here, and 
what the old Jesuit travellers have stated, Lhasa was the name of the territory, and 
not of the temple, or place of residence of the Grand Lamah. In the map to 
Prejevalsky’s travels, in the “ Proceedings of the Royal Geographical Society ,” for 
May, 1887, “ Utsang” appears as the name of the territory or province in which 
what we call Lhasa is situated. T his may be a vitiated form of Ursang, the name 
of the great temple according to the MIrza. 
According to the Jesuit Grueber, however, Lhasa was the name of the territory 
or province, and not the name of the capital and the residence of the Grand Lamah, 
where the great temple is, which he says is called “ Butala ,” and which u adjoined 
the city of Tonkir.” From this it would seem that the names have been changed in 
comparatively modern times since the MIrza wrote; but “ Butala ” cannot be 
Ursang, as the former temple was only built in 1644 A.D. 
It is not impossible that the name Lhasa may have been applied to the capital 
and great temple in the same manner that SrI-Nagar is called “ the city of Kash¬ 
mir : ” not meaning that the city ever was or is called Kash-mlr, but, that it was 
and is “ the chief city of or belonging to the territory of Kash-mlr.” In the same 
way, probably, Tonkir was styled “ The chief place or city of or belonging to Lhasa,” 
and from constant use that name has been applied exclusively to the city where the 
great temple is, and where the Grand Lamah resides. 
Grueber calls the whole country Tangut [Tingqut of the Mughals and Turks], 
and says it is divided into several parts, of which Lhasa, or Barantolo is the chief. 
In the account of Anandah, son of Mangqlln, son of Qubllae Qa’an, in Tingqut, 
the Tarlkh-i-Alfl states, that Timur Qa’an, another grandson of Qubllae, who suc¬ 
ceeded him, confirmed Anandah, his cousin, in the government of that territory ; 
and it is stated in that work, that “ Tingqut is an extensive territory on the west 
side of Khitae, and Tingqut, in the language of Khitae, is called HawashI, that is, 
the rud khanah , or river, on the west, because most of the cities of Tingqut are 
situated on the banks of that river [the Hoang-Ho?]. The great cities of that 
territory, which used to be the capitals and seat of government of that part from 
time to time, are five [the names of which are given, but only two can be written 
with any certainty, the others having no vowel points ; namely, Qanjanqu, which 
