|
John Vincent Bellezza
East Asia Center, University of Virginia
In 1992, I began a project to inventory pre-Buddhist archaeological sites
in Upper Tibet. Since that time, I have spent nearly three years in the region,
covering some 40,000 km by vehicle and more than 5,000 km on foot. In order
to locate the sites and collect information on them, it was necessary to
interview around 5,000 people. These efforts have led to the documentation
of over 400 pre-Buddhist archaeological sites.
Upper Tibet (figs.2-4) is the vast region of northern and western Tibet known
traditionally as Töd (Upper Region) and Changthang (Northern Plains),
which covers approximately 700,000 km2. This territory comes under the
jurisdiction of the Ngari, Nagchu, and Shigatse prefectures. Upper Tibet
consists mainly of steppe and grasslands, but alpine deserts, scrub forests,
bogs, and geothermal zones are also found. Upper Tibet is a difficult region
where snowstorms are possible even during the summer months. Before its
incorporation into the People’s Republic of China, vehicular roads did
not exist, and bandits roamed at will.
Tibetan culture
is often conceived of as synonymous with Buddhism, and certainly Vajrayana
Buddhist philosophy, art, and architecture have had a huge impact on Tibetan
culture. Tibetans are well known as one of the most devoutly Buddhist populations
in the world, and this religion has permeated virtually every aspect of their
culture, society, and landscape. However, despite this basic reality, Tibetan
culture and civilization long predate the period of Buddhist domination.
In fact, beginning in 1976, the Chinese Academy of Sciences made a number
of discoveries in Upper Tibet, dating human occupation on the Tibet-Qinghai
Plateau to the  Middle Paleolithic period, some 30,000 to 50,000 years ago.1
Evidence of the Neolithic is also found in Upper Tibet, including microliths
and other types of stone tools deposited on the surface.2 These discoveries
by Chinese archaeologists demonstrate that man once lived in the most northern
part of Upper Tibet, an area largely abandoned after the Stone Age.
Fig.1: Exterior of main building at Riu Gonpa, Ruthok county (photo:
J.V. Belleza).
In the 1990s, Chinese archaeologists began excavating what can be termed
Metal Age sites in the far western Tibet regions of Guge and Ruthok. At present,
due to a lack of archaeological data, dates for the Tibetan Bronze Age and
Iron Age have not yet been firmly established. Thus the use of the more inclusive
term “Metal Age” is warranted. The Metal Age in Tibet continued
as an anachronistic cultural system until the beginning of the Imperial (Tubo)
period in the mid-7th century AD. Metal Age culture in Tibet can also be
termed pre-Buddhist, because it was not until the 7th century and the reign
of King Songtsan Gampo that Tibet began the widespread adoption of Buddhism.
The archaeological term Metal Age defines the predominant technological stage
of cultural development, while the term pre-Buddhist describes the pattern
of cultural organization.
In 1999, the Chinese Institute of Tibetology of Sichuan University excavated
26 tombs in three different cemeteries, in the Dungkar and Chiwang regions
of Guge.34 Radiocarbon analysis of these tombs has yielded calibrated dates
of 725-170 BC. The tombs of Dungkar and Chiwang are of three major types:
1) stone superstructures with stone-lined burial pits; 2) no superstructure
with earthen burial pits; and 3) earthen burial chambers with passageways
to the surface. In addition to human skeletal remains, pieces of ceramic
jars, as well as copper, bronze, iron, stone, and bone artifacts were discovered.
In 1992, six tombs were excavated at Ngalung, in Ruthok county. These tombs
are believed to date between the 4th and 8th centuries AD, and contained
human remains, as well as ceramics, beads, and iron artifacts. The use of
textile eye covers at Ngalung mirrors a mortuary practice of the same period
found among Uighur tombs in Xinjiang.
Preliminary
excavations of two tombs were also conducted at the Mangsen Cemetery in Traza
township, Amdo county, in the eastern part of Upper Tibet.5 These tombs,
believed to date from the 6th to 9th centuries AD, contained human and sheep
bones, a copper object, bits of iron, and a ceramic pot. In 2001, a collaborative
project between the University of California at Santa Barbara and Sichuan
University resulted in the excavation of a pre-Buddhist village at Dingdum,
in the Guge region of Tsamda county.6 The foundations of f our residences
were found, containing 193 pieces of ceramics in all. Radiocarbon analysis
of a piece of carbonized wood recovered from a hearth in Structure 3 yielded
a date of ca. 85 BC.
Fig.2: The great mountain-lake dyad, Mount Nyenchen Thanglha and
Lake Namtsho, located on the southeast fringe of Upper Tibet (photo: J.V.
Belleza).
The excavation of tombs in Upper Tibet and in various other areas of the
Tibet Autonomous Region has provided extremely important archaeological data
regarding the character and diversity of Metal Age culture. Nevertheless,
this work represents only the initial stage of exploration; many hundreds
of Metal Age cemeteries and other types of archaeological sites in Tibet
have yet to be explored. Even before preliminary excavations can be carried
out, it is essential that these sites be inventoried and mapped. Given the
extent of Metal Age civilization in Tibet, this is a gigantic project that
will require many years of work, manpower, and technical expertise.
One of the most striking features of pre-Buddhist settlement in Upper Tibet
is that it was often located in places that were subsequently abandoned.
Where there were once mighty fortresses, elaborate religious complexes, and
extensive cemeteries, there is now often no sign of permanent contemporary
habitation. Areas that once supported hundreds of residents see occasional
visits by individual herders and nothing more. The vigor and strength of
pre-Buddhist civilization, as described in Tibetan texts, explains in part
why the early inhabitants were able to flourish in such a harsh, high-altitude
environment (from 4,200 to 5,500 m). Nonetheless, the most vital factor
explaining early patterns of settlement and subsequent dereliction is climatic
in nature.
Paleoclimatological
studies based on glaciology (the study of glaciers), palynology (the study
of spores, pollens, and diatoms), dendrochronology (tree ring dating), an d
geomorphology (the study of changes in landscape) all broadly agree that,
in the last 3,000 to 4,000 years, there has been a pronounced deterioration
in the climate of Upper Tibet.7 The trend has been towards a colder and drier
climate, and despite more optimal intervals, this has led to a marked degradation
of the environment. Lakes have become saline, steppe forests have disappeared,
glaciers have receded, and many sources of fresh water have dried up. This
environmental degradation has had a disastrous effect on the systems of
agricultural and pastoral production in Upper Tibet. Climate change may well
have been the most important factor explaining the demise of pre-Buddhist
civilization in Upper Tibet and the consequent shifting of political power
to the southern and eastern regions of the plateau.
Fig.3: Stone doorway at Gekhod Kharlung, Ruthok county, with remains
of a shrine inside the structure on the lowest level of the ridge-back
(photo J.V. Belleza).
In order to conclude this general introduction, let us place the Metal Age
in Upper Tibet in a perspective derived from living Tibetan culture. The
Old Tibetan Tun-huang manuscripts (7th to 9th century) and post-AD 980 Tibetan
literature (written in a still familiar language) provide a large amount
of information about culture and society in the pre-Buddhist and Imperial
periods. These sources reveal data on religious practices and beliefs, customs,
mythology, martial traditions, toponymy, and contacts with foreign cultures.
The study of cultural history, therefore, is highly applicable to archaeology,
helping in the effort to frame and interpret what has been discovered. Due
to the long process of historical continuity, even contemporary Upper Tibetan
culture can provide insights into the character of the pre-Buddhist world.
Links between the past and present are linguistic, religious, and societal
in nature. Thus, ethnographic studies, focusing on indigenous deities,
geographical lore, clan histories, and practices surrounding hunting and
herding, are invaluable in obtaining a better picture of the pre-Buddhist
cultural legacy.
Project Description and Findings: Over the last decade, I have documented
the existence of more than 400 pre-Buddhist sites, reflecting the breadth
of civilization in Metal Age Upper Tibet.8 This was the highest altitude
civilization ever to have existed in the world. The primary aim has been
to make available a body of data that can be utilized for further research
and by government planners for conservation efforts. The existence of these
pre-Buddhist sites demonstrates that sedentary culture was far more evolved
in this period than in the Buddhist period. This study of early sites also
helps to distinguish the character of pre-Buddhist religious practices, burial
customs, social structures, cross-cultural relations, and environmental change.
The project to inventory sites, however, is but an initial step towards
understanding pre-Buddhist civilization in Upper Tibet. There is still a
tremendous amount of work to do, which will require the expertise of specialists
in various academic fields such as archaeology, paleoclimatology, geography,
architecture, ethnography, and textual studies.
We must be hopeful that this project to inventory the archaeological wealth
of Upper Tibet will encourage more research and exploration, enabling us
to refine our understanding of the region in the Metal Age. It would be excellent
if comprehensive archaeological inventories could be made in other regions
of Tibet as well. Once we have a better idea of what exists on the ground,
we can better know which places should be first excavated, as in salvage
operations of damaged or vandalized sites. A plateau-wide inventory of sites
will also allow specialists to elucidate patterns of early settlement, trade
routes, the effects of climate change, and the ethnohistorical makeup of
Tibet. Systematic inventories are also very helpful for government officials
involved in the administration and conservation of Tibet’s archaeological
heritage.
I have attributed sites to the pre-Buddhist period using non-direct means.
It is imperative that these attributions be verified using empirical methods
based on the science of archaeometry. For the time being, the attribution
of sites as pre-Buddhist must be viewed as provisional. Using a non-direct
methodology for the 
identification of archaeological sites is of variable
reliability. Yet despite the scientific uncertainties, the sites surveyed
generally
represent a distinctive archaic epoch in the civilization of Upper
Tibet. Fig.4: Map of Upper Tibet, with distribution of pre-Buddhist sites discussed
in this article (after J.V. Belleza). Archaeological sites can be provisionally attributed to the pre-Buddhist
period on the basis of the following criteria:
1) Places mentioned in Bön (the ancient and partly indigenous religion
of Tibet) literature as belonging to the pre-Buddhist Zhang Zhung kingdom
of Upper Tibet.
2) Ruins ascribed in the oral tradition to the ancient Bönpo (adherents
of Bön), Kelmon (aboriginal groups), Horpa (Turco-Mongolian and perhaps
Indo-European cultures), Zhang Zhung, and Takzig (ancient Persian regions).
3) Sites exhibiting distinctive non-Buddhist morphological and design features,
such as arrays of pillars, elaborate burial structures, and all-stone
semi-subterranean buildings.
4) The location of sites in characteristic pre-Buddhist geographical settings,
such as high mountain peaks, islands, and dry valleys. These are locations
that were subsequently ignored in the Buddhist period.
5) Cross-referencing sites with those that have been archaeologically
investigated in other parts of Tibet.
6) Cross-cultural comparisons with archaeological sites in adjoining regions
of China and other countries. For example, I have established (Bellezza 2002)
that the pre-Buddhist archaeological record of Upper Tibet shares substantial
cultural affinities with the Scytho-Siberian cultures of first millennium
BC Central Asia, Mongolia, and South Siberia.
7) Art and artifacts that exhibit archaic non-Buddhist attributes, such as
certain thokcaks (metallic talismans), zi stones (engraved agate beads),
and rock art. Prominent pre-Buddhist motifs include ithyphallic portrayals,
hunting scenes, and zoomorphic deities.
The methodology used in the inventory of sites is sometimes referred to as
“surface archaeology.” At no time did I disturb the sites or in
any way affect their integrity. I refrained from turning over stones and
from the removal of even handfuls of soil. Whenever possible, local residents
were instructed about the significance of pre-Buddhist monuments and rock
art, and their conservation. The work carried out during the inventory can
be outlined as follows: 1) geographical pinpointing of sites using GPS; 2)
description of the geographical setting of sites; 3) photography of all monuments
and rock art; 4) measurement of individual monuments and the overall dispersion
of sites; 5) description of the structural and design characteristics of
sites; 6) recording any vandalism or other contemporary threats to sites;
and 7) where possible, the mapping of ground plans.
There is an extensive assortment of pre-Buddhist typologies occupying diverse
topographical and ecological niches. The locations of these sites and their
mutual relationships provide valuable clues about the patterns of settlement
and socio-economic organization in pre-Buddhist times. The networks of monuments
also reveal information about ancient trade routes and environmental change
over the last three millennia. For example, the data collected indicates
that in the pre-Buddhist period the great lakes belt of Upper Tibet served
as a major focus of settlement and as a corridor for east-west movement across
the region. There was a concentration of high social status architecture
(such as that belonging to the priestly and ruling classes) on the headlands
and islands of the big lakes, an environmental zone largely vacated in the
Buddhist period.
On a structural, locational, and functional level, pre-Buddhist sites can
be generally classified as follows:
I. Monuments: 1)
Residential structures occupying summits (95 sites have been inventoried):
Most of the residential structures located on hilltops and the spurs of mountains
appear to have functioned as fortresses. In some cases, these structures
seem to have incorporated elite residences and temples within them. The highly
defensive aspect of most of these sites atop nearly vertical slopes leaves
no doubt that they represent pre-Buddhist strongholds and military garrisons
(fig.5). There are two major types of buildings represented: those that used
wooden rafters to support roofs, and those built with stone corbelling. The
structures built with  all-stone corbels, lintels, beams, and sheathing have
a very different appearance. These buildings tend to be smaller, windowless,
and semi-subterranean in aspect. Comparative archaeological data from central
Tibet and Central Asia indicates that fortresses were probably first constructed
in Upper Tibet in the 1st millennium BC.
Fig.5: Fortress at Kharpoche, Ruthok county, attributed to the aboriginal
Kelmon culture (photo: J.V. Bellezza).
2) Residential structures in other locations (108 sites have been inventoried):
As with the fortress typology, the ruins of buildings with wooden roofs and
those with all-stone corbelled roofs are also found in this typology. These
structures occupy a wide variety of locations, including mountain slopes,
valley bottoms, and inside caves and overhangs. Both structures that functioned
as religious centers and those with a wider domestic function seem to fall
within this typology. In many instances, these appear to represent social
elite, pre-Buddhist residential architecture. It seems that the majority
of the pre-Buddhist population lived in mobile perishable structures such
as the banak (black yak hair tent). The banak remained the dominant residential
type in Upper Tibet until the last 20 years, when the construction of permanent
housing became popular.
a. Among the most interesting and valuable structures are the all-stone temples
and religious residences. These are found throughout Upper Tibet, most notably
at the holy mountain Gangs Rinpoche (Gangs Tise). In exceptional cases, these
archaic religious buildings were in use well into the 20th century. They
appear to have been constructed over a very long period of time, beginning
sometime in the 1st millennium BC. Customarily called sekhar/sekhang, they
are usually composed of a warren of very small rooms that are partly set
into the ground, particularly on the up-slope side of the building. Upwards
of 30 buildings, each with 4 to 12 rooms, are found at a single site. By
AD 1100, the sekhangs (which must have been associated with the early Bön
religion) were being superseded by Buddhist monasteries, which feature a
very different type of construction. The monasteries that were constructed
have high profiles and large rooms and halls. They feature large central
ceremonial spaces, while the sekhangs have decentralized floor plans.
b. Buildings that had permanent wooden roofs and semi-permanent roofs (possibly
made of animal hair or animal hides) appear, in many cases, to have been
general-purpose villages. The most extensive pre-Buddhist villages are located
in Ruthok county, some of which may have been inhabited by as many as 1,500
people. These structures, however, are in a very poor state of preservation.
Therefore, little from my inventory could be gleaned about their original
architectural character.
c. Façades and buildings were also commonly built around caves, some
of which appear to have been abandoned before the Buddhist period. Like their
Buddhist counterparts, these usually functioned as religious centers and
hermitages. Construction ranged from simple enclosing walls to two- and
three-tiered multi-roomed complexes set around the mouth of caves. At some
of the early sites counterclockwise swastikas (yungdrung) are found painted
in red ochre.
 3) Ceremonial
pillars (131 sites have been inventoried): There are three distinctive types
of pillar monuments in Upper Tibet: a) individual pillars; b) pillars erected
inside a walled enclosure; and c) large arrays of pillars with appended
buildings. In many instances, all three of these typologies are associated
with pre-Buddhist burial grounds.
a. Individual pillars and rows of up to 20 pillars are found in various
locations. They stand alone or occasionally in the vicinity of tombs, and
attain a maximum height of 2.3 m (fig.6). Pillars that stand in isolation
provide few clues about their function and age. Perhaps in certain situations
they were erected as border markers, a practice known to exist in the Buddhist
period. Fig.6: Single pillar of Doring Che, Nyima county (photo: J.V.
Bellezza).
b. Pillars erected within a walled enclosure represent one of the most
distinctive types of pre-Buddhist monuments in Upper Tibet and help to define
the early ethnohistorical domain of the region. Pillars set on the west side
of a quadrangular enclosure aligned in the cardinal directions are well
distributed west of 88º E longitude. Anywhere from one pillar to more
than a dozen can be found standing inside a single enclosure. These pillars
range in height from 30 cm to 2.4 m, plus an additional 40% or so of length
underneath the ground. Precedents for this type of monument are found in
the south Siberian Tagar culture of the 8th to 6th centuries BC.
c. Pillars set in rows aligned in the cardinal directions form another
characteristic type of monument distributed west of 88º E longitude.
At a single site, there can be anywhere from several hundred to several thousand
pillars set into the ground in more or less evenly distributed rows. They
range in height from 20 cm to 1.4 m, with an average height of around 60
cm. Immediately east of each concourse of pillars is what appears to have
been a mortuary temple. Human skeletal remains are reported from certain
sites. This fact, along with the oral tradition attributing a funerary function
to these sites, indicates that they did indeed function as pre-Buddhist
necropolises. Other types of tombs are sometimes found in the vicinity of
the pillar complexes. Precedents for extensive Iron Age pillar monuments
are found in Central Asia, such as Ichianli in Turkmenistan.
4) Superficial ceremonial structures (69 sites have been inventoried): There
are a variety of superficial structures that appear to be the superstructures
of tombs found throughout Upper Tibet. There may be structures among them
with an alternative function, but this cannot be verified until systematic
excavations take place. In the oral tradition of the drokpa (shepherds),
they are commonly called Mondur, Monpai Durkhung, and Mondo, and are thought
to be the tombs of the Kelmon, a tribal group of unknown origins that appears
to have been part of the aboriginal ethnical substrate of Upper Tibet. The
oldest tombs potentially date to the 2nd millennium BC.
a. Single-course enclosures: These superstructures of tombs are commonly
square, rectangular, sub-rectangular, oval, or irregularly shaped. The enclosures
are formed by a single line of stones planted in the ground along the edges
of the structure. Perimeter walls are composed either of thin slabs of stone
set into the ground edgewise or of blocks of stones. The slab wall constructions
bear a strong resemblance to similar funerary structures of the Scytho-Siberian
cultures of the first millennium BC. The sheer diversity in the design and
construction of the Upper Tibet variants probably indicates that native
inhabitants produced them over a very long span of time.
b. Double-course enclosures: This typology shares the same design variations
with the single-course type described above, with the exception that the
perimeter walls are composed of two lines of stones parallel to one another.
The thickness of these walls ranges between 40 cm and 1.2 m.
c. Heaped-wall enclosures: Another type of tomb superstructure is composed
of piles of stones heaped along the perimeter to form sub-rectangular, oval,
and irregularly shaped enclosures. These vary in length between 4 m and 50
m.
d. Bangso: Burial mounds of earth and stone, known in Tibetan as bangso,
are found in various locations throughout Tibet. On account of the substantial
resources and labor needed to build them, we can surmise that their use was
restricted to high status members of pre-Buddhist Upper Tibet society.
 Comparative evidence from southern Tibet suggests that they were built between
the second half of the first millennium BC and the collapse of Imperial Tibet
in the mid-ninth century AD.
e. Terraces: What
appears to be another type of burial structure consists of a series of terraced
walls on steep mountain slopes (fig.7). This typology is most common in the
eastern portion of Upper Tibet.
Fig.7: Terraced Tomb MD-44 at the La-ro cemetery, Pelgön county
(photo: J.V. Bellezza).
5) Cubic-shaped tombs: Cubic-shaped masonry tombs located on top of mountain
summits are primarily found in far western Tibet (Gertse, Gegye, Gar, Pu-rang,
and Ruthok counties). This unique pre-Buddhist burial monument defines a
specific Upper Tibetan paleocultural orientation. A literary account of the
tombs of the ancient Bön priests matches the locations and general
characteristics of the cubic-shaped tombs.12
6) Minor stone constructions: At the sites of ancient religious buildings,
the remains of small cubic masonry structures are sometimes discovered. These
appear to have functioned as shrines, probably used in the worship of indigenous
deities. According to Bön tradition, sekhar (referring to both ancient
temples and tabernacles), tenkhar, lhatsug, and other similar types of shrines,
have their origins in the pre-Buddhist period. On prominent summits, the
remains of ancient tho or lhabtse are also occasionally encountered. They
are of indeterminable age.
II. Rock Art (31 sites have been inventoried): Several of the rock art sites
I have inventoried were previously studied by Chinese and Tibetan specialists.13
Since 1984, around 80 sites have been discovered in Upper Tibet. The oldest
sites are thought to date to around 1000 BC. Rock art sites in the region
include both petroglyphs (compositions pecked and carved in stone) and
pictographs (compositions painted with red ochre and other pigments; fig.8).
Examination of a Few Selected Sites: Yul Khambu (4,700 m elevation;
fig.9): Probably the single most spectacular pre-Buddhist site in Upper Tibet
is the necropolis known as Yul Khambu, in Rishi township, Drongpa county.14
It is a site of global significance, and is probably the largest funerary
pillar site in all of Eurasia. I first visited Yul Khambu in 1999, and returned
there in 2002. Despite its importance, it has not yet been visited by other
researchers. This large pre-Buddhist funerary complex consists of six concourses
of standing stones aligned in the cardinal directions, with a temple-tomb
edifice appended to the west side of each of the concourses. Adjacent to
the east side of the fields of standing stones are long double-coursed slab
walls running parallel to one another in an east-west direction. The functions
of the pillars and slab walls are not clear. They may have been erected in
homage to the constituent members of the ancient community. Their alignment
suggests that astronomical and astrological elements may have been an integral
part of the ritual practices of the site. According to Bön tradition,
the sky realm and celestial deities played an important role in pre-Buddhist
religion. The appended tombs are massively built structures where presumably
the ancient chieftains and royal priests were interred.
Gyateng Bur Doring (Wide Lofty Hill Long Stones) (4,600 m elevation):
The Gyateng Bur site consists of two rectangular enclosures spaced within
one kilometer of each another. Inside each of these enclosures is a series
of pillars. According to local sources, Gyateng Bur Doring was magically
created in primordial times, a mythic attribution pointing to the antiquity
of the site.
The west site
of Gyateng Bur consists of an enclosure measuring 12 m (east to west) by
14 m (south to north). The enclosure is built of unhewn stones mostly between
10 cm and 25 cm in length, which are l evel with the surface of the ground.
Near the west wall of the enclosure are four standing pillars and two fallen
pillars. These pillars are tabular in shape, and those in the ground have
their broad faces oriented north to south. The largest pillar stands 2.4
m in height, and has a reverse swastika carved on its south face. The advanced
wear and patina of its surface is an indication of the significant age of
the carving.
Fig.8: Red ochre and white image of Taparista, a Bön saint
of the 8th century AD, who is said to have left his body in a rainbow; located
at the Lhakhag Marchak hermitage, Drongpa county; painted sometime before
the eviction of the Bönpo from the region in the 11th or 12th century
AD (photo: J.V. Bellezza).
The east site of Gyateng Bur is composed of an enclosure that approximately
measures 10 m (east to west) by 11 m (south to north). Five pillars are clustered
near the southwest side of the enclosure. These mostly tabular stones reach
a maximum height of 2.3 m. On the north side of the most southerly pillar
are highly worn Tibetan letters, including cha and ma written several times.
These Buddhist period inscriptions were produced much later then the founding
of the monument.
Gyablung Mondur (Back Valley Mon Tombs) (4,520 m elevation): The Gyablung
site (also known as Tswamed Godsa) consists of seven cubic-shaped tombs built
on top of a ridge in Rabang township, Ruthok county.15 These tombs overlook
Radrok Lake to the south, and from the site there are open vistas in all
directions. The walls of the tombs are generally aligned in the cardinal
directions. No human remains were discovered in the central depositories
of the graves. Only light grazing takes place on the rocky ridge-top, and
there are no signs of Buddhist culture, such as prayer flags and stones inscribed
with prayers, at the site.
Gekhod Kharlung (4,380 m - 4,500 m elevation; fig.3): Gekhod Kharlung
is the name of a location and ancient fortress situated near the famous mountain
Gekhod Nyanlung in Ruthok county. Gekhod, an important Bön yidam (tutelary
deity), is the main yullha (god of the locale) of Ruthok county. The presence
of a large fortress and temple complex at Gekhod attributed to the pre-Buddhist
Kelmon ethnic group may help to explain the significance of this mountain
to the Bön religion. The bulk of Gekhod Kharlung occupies a rocky backbone
with four main levels, each separated by vertical expanses of rock. On each
side of the rocky backbone there are other structural remains, the most important
of which appears to have been a temple. Near the base of the hill on which
the fortress sits are two cave complexes and associated ruins. Most, if not
all, the buildings of Gekhod were constructed entirely of stone in the archaic
style. A clue hinting at pre-Buddhist origins is the lack of any Buddhist
elements at the site, such as stupas (temples), inscribed prayer stones,
or prayer flags.
The best-preserved building at Gekhod sits on the lowest level of the rocky
backbone. Its external dimensions are 18.5 m by 7.8 m. The east-facing
entranceway, measuring 80 cm by 1.4 m, is still largely intact. It accesses
a long room on the lower level of the building. On the east end of this room,
seven stone steps lead to the poorly preserved upper level of the building.
In addition to the long room running the entire length of the lower level,
there are five smaller rooms with their stone roofs still partly intact.
In the northeast room there is an alcove containing a masonry structure
resembling both a bumpa (ritual vase) and a tenkhar (shrine for the worship
of indigenous deities), which is in relatively good condition. This structure
is composed of seven tiers of various sizes and its overall dimensions are
80 cm by 70 cm. It is rare to find ancient ruins with original appointments
and objects inside.
Conservation of Pre-Buddhist Sites: Because the discovery of pre-Buddhist
sites in Upper Tibet has only been recently made, a plan for the protection
and conservation of these monuments has not yet been formulated by the
People’s Republic of China and Tibet Autonomous Region governments.
A comprehensive conservation plan, taking into account the natural and manmade
threats to these sites, is vital if they are to survive. Each monument will
have to be carefully catalogued, mapped, and entered into an official register.
A system of regional accountability also must be instituted, so that local
people are held responsible for the protection and maintenance of archaeological
sites in their area. They should also benefit economically from any excavation
or tourism that takes place. For such a plan to be effective, a close central
government partnership must be fostered with the townships and counties.
During the Chinese
Cultural Revolution (1966-1976), pre-Buddhist sites were mostly spared because
they had little modern cultural significance. However, in the last 20 years,
with the permanent settlement of Upper Tibet’s shepherds, a huge demand
for building materials has ensued. Although, according to Chinese law, it
is illegal for individuals to destroy archaeological sites, this has not
prevented many of them from falling prey to such desecration. Largely out
of ignorance of their own ancient history and the centuries-old Buddhist
suppression of pre-Buddhist cultural achievements, local residents frequently
see nothing wrong with stealing stones from tombs, temples, and other monuments. Those who carve  Buddhist mantras on top of earlier compositions are also
defacing pre-Buddhist rock art. Moreover, the construction of roads and towns
has taken a large toll on pre-Buddhist archaeological sites. In fact, close
to 50% of the more then 400 sites inventoried either have already been
vandalized, or are in imminent danger of destruction.
.
Fig.9: Yul Khambu, Drongpa county, Lower North Complex (photo:
J.V. Bellezza).
An unfortunate example of an archaeological site of exceptional historical
and cultural value that has succumbed to local vandals is Riu Gonpa (Little
Mountain Monastery), located in northeastern Ruthok county (fig.1). This
unique religious complex appears to have been constructed in the early Buddhist
period (AD 620-980) and consists of six all-stone buildings. The main building
measures 18 m by 13 m and contains two inner courtyards and approximately
20 small rooms. It was built entirely of skillfully hewn pieces of brown
sandstone. The corbelled roof and fine decorative features constitute techniques
of construction that have long since vanished in Tibet. The presence of inner
courtyards, decorative lintels and jambs (Buddhist features), and the maze
of small windowless rooms (pre-Buddhist features), suggests that this monument
represents a transitional form of architecture between the pre-Buddhist sekhang
and Buddhist monastery. A foundation in the early Buddhist period is also
suggested by the legend attributing Riu’s ownership to an uncle of
Tibet’s epic hero, Gesar. In the winter of 1999, local herders started
to remove the stone beams and slabs from the roof and the paving stones from
the courtyards. These well-shaped stones, up to 2 m in length, are believed
to have magical religious power and were hauled back to the various homesteads
of the shepherds to serve as talismans. Without the benefit of their roofs,
the buildings of Riu will quickly crumble, along with the loss of one of
Upper Tibet’s greatest architectural wonders.
Conclusion: It is essential to raise interest in the pre-Buddhist
heritage of Upper Tibet among the international community and to facilitate
a plan for the conservation of pre-Buddhist monuments. The work I have done
is a prelude to much more intensive archaeological investigation. It is my
hope that concerned government bodies will become involved in the protection
and documentation of pre-Buddhist sites. Time is of the essence if we are
to save a number of great monuments from destruction by greedy and ignorant
people working outside the grasp of the law.
There is still a tremendous amount to discover, for my work is only a first
step in a field with great promise. Higher levels of resources, expertise,
and commitment are needed if we are to move forward in the exploration of
pre-Buddhist Tibet. Such an endeavor will have many long-term advantages,
and will help to showcase China’s strong progress in the sciences and
humanities. Finally, I would like to call for a strengthening of collaborative
research in Tibetan archaeology through the expansion of international
partnerships.
Acknowledgements:
I wish to express my heartfelt thanks to the many government officials of
the Tibet Autonomous Region, the People’s Liberation Army, and the ordinary
citizens who assisted me in this project. Without their technical and logistical
support, such a large enterprise would not have been possible. I also want
to thank the Shang Shung Institute, Spalding Trust, Rubin Foundation, Asian
Cultural Council, and all others who provided me with financial support for
this work.
Notes:
1 For data on early human occupation of Tibet, see Huang 1994; Chayet 1994.
2 Refer to An Zhimin 1992.
3 Huo Wei et al. (Chinese Institute of Tibetology) 2001.
4 Huo Wei 1995.
5 Investigation Team of the Cultural Relics Management Committee of Tibet
Autonomous Region 1990.
6 Aldenderfer 2002.
7 See Bellezza 1997, 2001, 2002 for a review of paleoclimatic studies conducted
by both Chinese and foreign specialists.
8 For detailed information about these findings see Bellezza 1997, 1999,
2001, and 2002.
9 Mortari Vergara Caffarelli 1997.
10 See Bellezza 2002, pp.87-89.
11 See Bellezza 2002, p.96.
12 Hoffman 1961.
13 For information on the study of rock art on the Tibet-Qinghai Plateau
see Suolang Wangdui 1994; Li Yongxian 2001; Tang Huisheng and Zhang Wenhua
2001.
14 A description of this site is found in Bellezza 2001.
15 This site is first described in Bellezza 2001.
References: Aldenderfer, M. In press. “Excavations at Dindun, a Pre-Buddhist Village
Site in Far Western Tibet.” In Papers Prepared for the International
Conference on Tibetan Art and Archaeology, 2002. Beijing, Institute of
Nationality Studies of the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences.
An Zhimin. 1992. “Neolithic Communities in Eastern Parts of Central
Asia.” In A.H. Dani and V.M. Masson (eds.), History of Civilizations
of Central Asia. The Dawn of Civilization: Earliest Times to 700 BC, vol.1,
pp.441-458. Reprint. Delhi, Motilal Banarsidass, 1999.
Bellezza, J.V. 2002. Antiquities of Upper Tibet: Pre-Buddhist Archaeological
Sites on the High Plateau. Delhi, Adroit Publishers.
Bellezza, J.V. 2001. Antiquities of Northern Tibet: Pre-Buddhist Archaeological
Discoveries on the High Plateau. Delhi, Adroit Publishers.
Bellezza, J.V. 1999. “A Preliminary Archaeological Survey of Da rog
mtsho.” The Tibet Journal 24: 56-90. Delhi, Library of Tibetan Works
and Archives.
Bellezza, J.V. 1997. Divine Dyads: Ancient Civilization in Tibet. Delhi,
Library of Tibetan Works and Archives.
Caffarelli, Mortari Vergara, P. 1997. “Architectural Style in Tombs
from the Period of the Kings.” In Tibetan Art: Towards a Definition
of Style (J.C. Singer and P. Denwood, eds.), pp.230-261. London, Laurence
King.
Chayet, A. 1994. Art et archéologie du Tibet. Paris, Picard.
Hoffman, H. 1961. The Religions of Tibet (K.A Verlag, trans.). London, Simson
Shand.
Huang Weiwen. 1994. “The Prehistoric Human Occupation of the Qinghai-Xizang
Plateau.” Gottinger Geographische Abhandlungen 95: 201-219. Gottingen.
Huo Wei et al. (Chinese Institute of Tibetology). 2001. “Trial Excavation
of Ancient Tombs on the Piyang-Donggar Site in Zanda County, Tibet.”
Kaogu 6: 14-31. Beijing.
Huo Wei. 1995. Xizang Gudai Muzang Zhidushi. Chengdu, Sichuan Renmin Chubanshe.
Investigation Team of the Cultural Relics Management Committee of TAR. 1990.
“Zang bei shi guan zang diao cha shi jue jian bao.” Kao Gu Yu Wen
Wu 1: 44-49. Beijing.
Li Yongxian. 2001. Xizang Yuan Shi Yi Shu. Hebei, Jiao Yu Chu Ban She.
Suolang Wangdui. 1994. Art of Tibetan Rock Paintings. Intro. by Li Yongxian
and Huo Wei. Chengdu, Sichuan People’s Publishing House.
Tang Huisheng and Zhang Wenhua. 2001. Qinghai Petroglyphs: Dualism in Prehistoric
Art. Beijing, Science Press.
This article appears in Vol.3, No.4 of Athena
Review.
.
|