Bsgrubs the Word (from the D-Mac)

Further thoughts on the etymology of “Tibet”...

The absence, previously passed over in silence, of any
etymology or even explanation of the word “bod” in the
otherwise insanely rigorous White Conch Encyclopedia (Dung
dkar tshig mdzod chen mo), is very noteworthy. Its complier,
Dungkar Rinpoche, is extremely exacting in his entries, and
the absence of any attempt at an etymology of Tibet is quite
odd. It can only mean that Dungkar himself was neither
interested, nor perceived an interest amongst his Tibetan
readership, in the origins of this word. To give the reader a
sense of this glaring omission: the first of many entries
concerning “bod” in this massive encyclopedia occurs in vol 2,
p. 1405: “bod kyi khos drug” (the six Tibetan administrative
units”). The last entry, “bod sa gnas srid gzhung ‘og gi sa
gnas rim pa’i spyi sgrig gzhi” - the “composition of
governors-general of the regions inferior to the (central)
Tibetan Government” - a rather high-fallootin’ term for
“states” - occurs on page 1461. So we have 56 pages,
including a full six on bod sa gnas srid gzhung
(“principalities of Tibet”), over four on bod gyi lo gsar
(“Tibetan new year”), etc - you get the picture. It is
distinctly possible that, this section having mainly to do
with contemporary (ie, Chinese-institutional) governance,
Dungkar was reluctant to write on possibly “separatist”
topics. I am not familiar with any etymology of Tibet which
has it owing everything in its entire history to China, but I
have no doubt that there are several, and Dungkar probably
chose silence over the less desirable options of acquiescing
to absurd propaganda, or printing something that might get him
into significant trouble.

It is somewhat surprising that Dungkar has equally little to
say about another possible etymology, “bon,” the name given to
the pre-Buddhist Tibetan religion, which apparently originated
in/from Central Asian influence.
On a completely different register: Dr Abu Bakr Amir-uddin
Nadwi relates the etymology of “Tibet,” which is generally
attributed to Persian sources earlier than any others, as
follows: In ancient times, the Turkish-based Tubba dynasty
ruled over Yemen, coinciding with a title given to old Tibetan
kings (i have no frame of reference for the truth of this
claim). He relates the story as follows, citing the Arabic
historian Yaqut Hamir:

"It is said that Tubba ul-Agran started from Yemen, crossed
the Jihun river and marched up to Samarkand. Finding the area
uninhabited, he founded a city there, rested for a few days
and then proceeded toward China. After a month’s journey he
reached a fertile land with an abundance of water. Here too
he founded another city and thirty thousand of his men, who
were not fit to travel onwards to China, were left behind to
colonize the place. He named this place ‘Tibet.’" (Tibet and
Tibetan Muslims, 6).

The idea of ‘leftover’ Yemeni soldiers providing the primal
stock of the Tibetan people seems... counterintuitive. Still,
the story is intriguing - and, unfortunately, not less bizarre
than any other account we have of Tibet’s etymology.

Despite its not-particularly-credible status, the account has
interesting consequences:

"The word ‘tubba,’ according to the dictionary (sic), is
connnected with the Arabic ‘tubba’ or ‘tabiat’ and may be
linked with the Arabic word ‘matbuh,’ that is, he who commands
obedience. However, according to latest research, ‘tubba’ is
a Hebrew word which means dominant, aggressive, powerful. It
is the equivalent of the word ‘sultan’ in Islamic parlance."
(Ibid, 8)

Dr. Nadwi concludes from all this, and other quotations, that
“the earliest settlers in Tibet were those Arabs who had
migrated there several centuries before Christ” (9).
I personally find this extremely difficult to believe, mainly
for linguistic reasons. For example, the Tibeto-Burman
language family is much closer to Chinese than to Arabic, and
these accounts do not mention these stout-hearted early Arabs
settling across the broad swath of Tibetan linguistic/cultural
influence, which ranges (and ranged, at the least) from
Tajikistan to Gansu down to Hunan provinces in China, and into
northern Thailand and Burma

It is also unclear exactly when these Yemeni forces might have
entered Tibet, but archaeological evidence suggests
settlements in Tibet proper (i.e., not Kashmir or Tajik, etc,
but part of the contemporary TAR) as early as 1500 BCE, and
certainly by 1000 BCE. Adding to the mystery is the origin of
the peoples of Shang-Shung, who settled between Tibet proper
and Persia, and who seemed to be have been deeply influenced
by Zoroastrian beliefs (cf. John Bellezza, _Antiquities of
Upper Tibet_).
As of now, I am struck with the thought that ‘Tibet’ seemed to some first and foremost a Persian word, and left without a satisfactory etymology.
Perhaps it will be solved when you, the intrepid reader, Tune
In Next Time.


DMac, the benign face of Orientalism.