Early Tibetan Paintings: Sources and Styles (Eleventh-Fourteenth Centuries A.D.

)
Author(s): Heather Stoddard
Source: Archives of Asian Art, Vol. 49 (1996), pp. 26-50
Published by: University of Hawai'i Press for the Asia Society
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/20111264 .
Accessed: 12/04/2011 09:46

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available at .
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unless
you have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and you
may use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use.

Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained at .
http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=uhp. .

Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printed
page of such transmission.

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of
content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms
of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

University of Hawai'i Press and Asia Society are collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend
access to Archives of Asian Art.

http://www.jstor.org
Early Tibetan Paintings: Sources and Styles
(Eleventh?Fourteenth Centuries A.D.)

Heather Stoddard

"I, Padmasambhava, the artist,

Grasp clearly the void of appearance.

I make drawings of non-duality
On the walls of illusion."1
THE LAST DECADE
Diffusion. This has obliged scholars to revise much of the
Xhe last decade has seen a flood of paintings, stone sculp dating,
and at the same time to make an
attempt
at estab
tures and rare textiles coming out of Tibet onto the world lishing terminology to define the new style, or rather styles,
art market, following the easing up of the political situation that have appeared. "Kadampa" (bKa' gdams pa), "post
and the surfacing of treasures hidden away during the P?la," "P?la International," have been
suggested,
as have nu

Cultural Revolution. This has transformed our understand merous hyphenated creations such as "Tibeto-Nepalese,"
ing of Tibetan Buddhist art, and created a whole new "Indo-Nepalese,"
"Kha che4-Tibetan," "Western Trans

world of discovery for specialists in Asian textiles. It has en Himalayan," "Tangut-Tibetan," "Tibeto-Chinese," etc. These

riched immeasurably private and public collections, espe all attempt to account for the broadly diverse influences
cially in Europe and the United States. The first interna that were flowing up onto the high plateau. Jane Casey
tional conference on Tibetan art, held in London in June Singer has recently published a first attempt at a chrono
1994, was largely tributary to this development and at logical study of the period, based on her doctorate thesis,
we
tempted, as itsmain theme, the definition of styles.2 with many hitherto unpublished paintings.5 Here shall
Here aworking in one of the major fields that go a step further, and try to define schools of painting dur
hypothesis
has emerged will be presented, that is, the question of style ing that same period.
in early Tibetan painting. By "early" we mean here the first At the beginning of the conference, Dr. Pal, who first
four centuries of what is known in Tibetan as the "Later launched the bKa' gdams pa style,6 made an appeal to abol
Diffusion" of Buddhism, or Phyi dar, stretching from the ish the hyphenated "misnomers." However, it became ob
end of the tenth century to the end of the fourteenth cen vious as the days went by that we are still at a stage where
tury a.D. A few isolated examples of such paintings were we cannot get beyond what is, after all, an historical phe
previously known in collections in theWest, but their small nomenon. painting during this period was highly
Tibetan
number made it impossible to draw any conclusions. upon its and geographical sources.
dependent religious
We are indebted, as usual, to Giuseppe Tucci for his ex This is seen directly in the styles that were adopted from the
tensive on-site research in
early monasteries in Central and surrounding lands, and in the names given to these styles by
Western Tibet.3 Tucci s published work provides an over the Tibetans themselves. They reflect the multiplicity of
view of styles and influences coming into Tibet during that cultural and religious ties that the Tibetans had established
period, but one is still left with a sense of puzzlement at with the outside world over the previous centuries of im
their diversity. Whereas the surrounding lands lost much of perial expansion.
their Buddhist traditions in the following centuries, Tibet
Dominant Influences
managed to retain and consolidate them all. Thus the trac
ing of foreign influences is far from easy. Moreover, it was Three dominant painting styles of that age come from the
to follow in Tucci's and Roerich's footsteps to Indian sub-continent, showing direct links with P?la India,
impossible
carry out research in Tibet itself before the major destruc Kashmir and Nepal. But Central Asia was certainly an im
tion in the 1960s, since travel was even more
severely
re
portant influence too. So far definite interaction with the
stricted under the Chinese communists, from 1951 until Tangut state of Xixia, and with the court
of the Mongol
the early 1980s. empire, has been
clearly demonstrated,7 and this makes his
Given that the Cultural Revolution has destroyed, for torical sense, but the exchange must have started earlier, no
ever, at least ninety per cent of Tibetan cultural patrimony, doubt right at the beginning of the Later Diffusion, aswill
it is in any way extremely difficult to establish criteria for be argued below. The surprise is that amongst all these early
and stylistic evolution. However, as we paintings we see almost no evidence of influence from
defining historical
have said, this last decade has opened the door to a whole China, or rather what is there is highly contained, appear
world of art produced during the first centuries of the Later ing only in textiles, such as kesi and embroidery, and in the

26
 two iconographie series of the sixteen Arhats and the four
Lokapala kings.

INSCRIPTIONS, LINEAGES AND LITERARY SOURCES

The afore-mentioned bKa' gdams pa style was too general

in its application, since it was taken to cover all the earliest
paintings, as if to one single current inher
they belonged
ited directly from India through the famous Bengali pandit,
At?s'a Dipamkara. Moreover, many early thangkas bear in
scriptions on the front and back, yielding precious histori
cal information, and in a significant number of cases, these
identify the human teachers, as well as the deities depicted.
In this way the lineage from which the painting issued and
an approximate date may often be deduced. Sometimes se
ries of thangkas made at the same time, in the same work
shop have survived. Three such series of m?ndalas all bear
historical inscriptions allowing them to be dated to ca.
fourteenth century. Such early dating is entirely in keeping
with the style. However, even in recent publications, the
so-called "Ngor m?ndalas" are still being dated to the six
teenth century.8
From the study of over two hundred thangkas, made by
the author over the last decade, it has become clear that a
wide variety of schools are represented, especially non
bKa' gdams pa ones, for example, bKa' rgyud, rNying ma
and Sa skya lineages, aswell as those of less well-known ori
gin, such as the Zhi byed of Pha Dam pa Sangs rgyas, those
of Rong ston pa, gNyos lotsawa etc. In fact, paintings of un
ambiguous bKa gdams pa origin are rare indeed (Fig. i).
Furthermore, as distinct from lineages, which are depicted
as a series of miniature idealised representations, a number
of larger individual images of important teachers have sur
vived: At?sa, Mar pa, Mi la ras pa, the abbots of sTag lung, x 35.5 cm, ca. A.D. 1100. The
Fig. i. Portrait of At?sa, 49.5 Metropoli
'Bri gung pa Rin chen dpal, Zhang ston Chos kyi bla ma tan Museum of Art, Gift of the Kronos Collections, 1993 (1993.479).
(Fig. 2), gNyos lotsawa, Kha che pan chen etc. These vary
from convincing and sensitive portraits to ideal images
adorned with gold. Most often the central figure is not
identified (being too obviously well-known at the time of secration of a
large st?pa
or statue, when many smaller older

painting), whereas all those surrounding him often are. The images, paintings and other ritual objects may be inserted.
dating depends largely, of course, on the latest historical This could be the case, notably, of an interestingly varied
person represented. Although this only gives an approxi group of sTag lung paintings, which may well have been
mate limit, we are now a
in better position to judge from consecrated all at the same time, ca. 1273, by dBon po dpal
the style as well. (1251-1296), fourth abbot of sTag lung.11
Other inscriptions allow us to give an approximate up During this whole period the vast majority of inscrip
ward date limit. For example, the name of the lama to tions on the backs of thangkas take the form of a st?pa, cor
whom the thangka belonged in a special religious sense is responding exactly to the size of the central figure on the
given inwriting that is clearly a later addition. Such objects front of the painting.12 There may be a fine outline enclos
are called "mind vows" or thugs dam,9 and may be passed ing the writing, or else the lines themselves simply create
on from
generation
to
generation,
as for
example, the su the form. The basic mantra syllables om a hum, pertaining
perb eleventh century N?landa manuscript in the Asia to Body, Speech and Mind, are placed respectively at the
House Gallery, New York.10 Certain thangkas bear the back of the head, throat and heart of the lama or deity. The
name of the lama who carried out the consecration. standard Ye dharma hetu pr?bha verses from the Pratimok
Normally, this ritual would take place at the time of com sas?tra, sometimes called the "Buddhist credo" are usually
pletion of the painting (or sculpture), but there may be in there too. Other verses, pious vows, dedications by the
other occasions, as for
example, during
a
grand ritual con donor, and poems may be added, depending on the origin

27
 to obscure what little historicity is left in a highly displaced
material culture. It is now almost impossible to envisage
linking up descriptions of art styles in the rare Tibetan works
on the subject with the objects themselves.

LARGE AND SMALL THANGKAS

In trying to put the thangkas into context, we may also

consider their size, since this is mentioned in some early
texts. The Tath?gata thangkas which are clearly of Indian
inspiration, are often unusually large. It is perhaps above all
these which may be considered as part of At?sa's
heritage,
in that logically itwas this Indian rGya lugs or P?la style that
the great Bengali master would have brought with him to
Tibet.15 On the other hand, an early text tells us that a
rNying ma pa yogin had one hundred and eight thangkas
in the Bal ris or Newari style, made one storey high, at the
time of the passing away of his father, the great twelfth cen
tury Nyang ral Nyi ma 'Od zer (1124-1192)16 whose his
tory of Buddhism in Tibet is one of the richest, earliest and
as yet little used texts. By with these huge
comparison
Newari paintings, the dozens of sTag lung thangkas come
in medium to almost miniature size, but as we shall argue
these too belong to a sub-school within the "Indian" or
rGya lugs style.
So if size may perhaps not be relevant, then quantity may
Fig.
2.
Zhang ston Chos
kyi bla ma, 129.7 x 114.0 cm. Private collec still be, and the large number of sTag lung thangkas cer
tion.
tainly reflect historical reality, since during the first century
of its existence, this monastery became one of the most
prestigious of its day, so "one was unable to rival even a dog
from sTag lung."17 The chronicles of this school tell repeat
of the painting. Sometimes whole edly of the creation of innumerable
stylistic groups (see "Body Supports" sku'i
"Red-Green-Blue-Gold: gTsang and Western Tibet (?)" rten, which include both paintings and sculptures, but es
and "Eastern or Southern Tibet (?)" below) bear almost no pecially thangkas.18
inscriptions at all, rendering their historical On the other hand, At?s'a, whom the literary tradition
appreciation
particularly difficult. The style of calligraphy, archaic holds to have been one of the greatest figures in an extra
spellings, and/or inclusion of Lantsa writing, may also give ordinary age, and who was included not only in the bKa'
clues to the date and the milieu in which the painting was gdams lineage, but also in the bKa' brgyud, is scarcely visi
executed. Thus the importance of inscriptions cannot be ble in the extant early painting tradition. Only one ide
underestimated. Twenty years ago, this author stressed the alised portrait of him is known to this author, the
early
need to analyse them, since at that time they were often above (see Fig. 1). He does also seem
thangka mentioned
quite simply ignored. It seems however, that their study is to appear as a small unidentified
figure, here and there, to
now accepted as an essential part of the work.13 with his main
gether disciple, the layman 'Brom ston pa.19
Like the rest of Tibetan art, the majority of early thang This may be due to the hazard of survival and ifwe look at
kas are moreover are and his early Ufe story, attributed to an immediate disciple, Nag
anonymous, they transportable,
their provenance is very often obscure. Traditional Tibetan tsho lotsawa,20 we find that amongst his very broad range of
society condemns traders of Buddhist "supports," i.e. stat interests, outside and inside the vast field of the Buddha
ues, paintings, books and stupas, representing the Buddha s Dharma, the Bengali pandit is represented as being a con
Body, Speech and Mind, and at least one Wheel of Life noisseur of the arts.

painting shows them in the bottom-most of hot hells.14 So

BLA CHEN DGONGS PA RAB GSAL AND INFLUENCE
no wonder
antique dealers are discrete about their activi
FROM CENTRAL ASIA
ties! However it is the Cultural Revolution that destroyed
the history of Tibetan art and indeed almost the whole the problems inherent in dealing with these early
Among
civilisation, whereas the dealers have saved a considerable paintings is the recent on the part of art histori
tendency
quantity of rare and precious objects over the last couple of ans who do not have access to the
extremely rich and di
decades. In this way, tradition, money and politics combine versified Tibetan sources of this to
period simplify history.
28
The names of only a handful of teachers are recalled, with times," where he studied for twelve years, and then pro
the Bengali pandit At?sa as the dominant personality.21 Yet ceeded with his disciples, the powerful "Nine The'u rang
it iswell established, even inWestern sources, that when he Brothers," to Dan thig on the Yellow River, where he made
arrived in Gu ge in 1042, Rin chen bZang po (958-1055), numerous offerings and built innumerable temples and
who is acclaimed as the greatest Tibetan translator of the st?pas in order to "combat those yogins of the Sudden
Later Diffusion, had already reached the ripe old age of Enlightenment, who held wrong views, and practiced no
eighty-four. The latter had first been sent, with a group of virtue." He found paint in the region, and he himself did
boys aged ten, to India as early as a.D. 968 and brought back the artwork (bzo), striving towards the foundation of "cre
with him, on one of his later journeys, a group of Kashmiri ated merit."32

artists who decorated the "one hundred and eight" temples From early textual references we can gather that
these
he built in Western Tibet.22 Nyang ral records that Rin there would have been two or more distinct artistic tradi
chen bZang po was himself an accomplished artist, known tions accessible to Tibetans in the second half of the tenth
as Zhang zhung lha bzo, and that when he finally did invite century, i.e. at least one from Central Asia, familiar to
At?sa to his dwelling, many of his painted "tantric m?ndalas" dGongs pa Rab gsal and his numerous disciples, who later
were hung up, and notably, on the door, a thangka of the went back to Central Tibet to re-establish monastic
Tath?gata Aksobhya. At?sa was so impressed that he went Buddhism there; and that brought into Western Tibet
around saluting them and making up spontaneous poems in through Kashmir, at the time of Rin chen bZang po.
praise
of each one.23 During the following century, not only did At?sa and
However, as is also well
known, the Later Diffusion or other Indian masters, like Smrti, visit Tibet, but numbers of
the "Rekindling of the Flame,"24 rose at an even earlier aspiring Tibetan students like 'Brog mi, Ba ri, Tsa mi and
date, far to the North-East of the high plateau, under the Mar pa33 were travelling widely and living for long periods
"Great Lama"Bla chen dGongs pa Rab gsal (892-975) who, in India, during the eleventh century. They would hardly
again, appears to have been an artist, or at least an active have missed exposure to the sophisticated artistic traditions
builder of temples. As a young Bonpo goatherd, called Mu of Bengal, Bihar and Orissa, those of the great monastic
dza ka ra phan, he had seen faded images of monks on the universities of Vikramas?la, N?landa and Odantapur?, where
walls of a ruined temple in his native land.25 This awakened the arts were still flourishing, and some of them probably
"karmic imprints" and so moved him that he went off in went on pilgrimage to places like Ellora and Ajanta too.
search of the "Three Monks" who had escaped persecution When they passed through the Kathmandu valley, as almost
sometime in the middle of the ninth century by disappear everyone did on their way to and from Tibet, they would
ing into Amdo.26 It appears that in the early tenth century, also certainly have come across the skillful Newari artists.
the North of the Tibetan plateau, and parts of the Silk
HISTORICAL RUPTURE OR CONTINUITY?
Route were still under control of the "nine" bKa' ma log
heroes, with their left-over armies from the Tibetan em The scene is diverse and complex. In spite of difficulties
pire, who under imperial order, were not permitted to re and danger involved in travelling, Tibetan society was char
turn home to Central Tibet, and so ended up by settling acterised by high mobility. Communications were wide
where they
were.27 At the same time, in the vacuum cre open, allowing for cross-fertilisation and rich and farflung
ated by the fall of the empire, much of that same territory exchanges of experience and knowledge. This situation
was in the process of coming under a new political power, was not only the result of attempts to restore Buddhism. It
Minia or Tangut (Tib. Mi nyag, Chin. Dangxiang, Xixia), was in large part a legacy of the great military empire which
who lived in a multi-ethnic region called in Tibetan and had brought Tibet into contact with all the surrounding
Chinese, "the Nine Bends of the Yellow River," centred, at civilisations over the preceeding three centuries. Awareness
that time, around the wall city of Ganzhou, which was of the world far beyond the ring of Snowy Mountains was
dominated by the powerful Uighurs. The Minia were grad an imperial legacy. Tibetans had practical knowledge of a
ually assembling to form their own empire, which like the variety of "higher" cultures, of different religions and lan
Tibetans and Uighurs before was to firm use of this diversity from the start, in
them, stand guages. They made
against imperial China.28 marriage alliances, architecture and medicine, as well as in
The young goatherd, who was to become dGongs pa the creation of their own Buddhist culture. Their art would
Rab gsal, received ordination under the "Three" Tibetan hardly have been an
exception.
monks, somewhere in the North-East of Tibet29 and then Furthermore, it is argued here that the rupture between
studied vinaya at the feet of Seng ge grags of Go rong, inMi the anti-clerical persecutions of the mid-ninth century and
nyag Gha'i yul.30 This, as Rolf Stein demonstrated forty the revival of monastic Buddhism in the second half of the
years ago, is the territory that was in the process of becom tenth century was not as complete and radical as it is gen
ing the Tangut empire.31 Later, after much journeying, it is erally held to be. This intermediary period has been called
said that he arrived in Lha rtse Bhig thig, a "monastic es the "Splintering of Tibet," or the "Dark Age," and although
tablishment containing numerous images from former there persists a significant problem with the dating, recent

29
publications of early historical chronicles are providing An Authentic Religious Lineage with Its Source
much more information on Tibetan society during that
time. We have seen the example of the "Great Lama"
Not the Tibetan religious school or monastery from which
a painting emerged, but rather the geographic origin of a lin
dGongs pa Rab gsal, mentioned above, who appears to have
been an adolescent when he went off in search of the
eage through which teachings were transmitted, together
with the prevailing style of art, e.g. rGya lugs, "Indian style."
"Three Monks." Itwas his disciples, or disciples of his dis
as the "Ten Men re Cultural or Political Links with theNeighbours
ciples, known of dBus gTsang," who
established the monastic tradition in Central Tibet. Thus
Dependant upon patronage, and the availability of artists.
the gap between the closing and destruction of monaster or
Royal imperial patronage played a significant role in the
ies in Central Tibet, and their re-establishment was little
economic of monasteries. However, commu
development
more than one generation.34 According to the fourteenth
nications were hazardous, carried out over long distances
century Blue Annals, it was this same "Great Lama" who
and difficult terrain. Groups of artists, as mobile entities,
bridged the two periods in another fascinating way. On the could be sent far and wide, but often, as appears from on
very first page of Book Two, pertaining to the Later
site observation, they worked in succession in several
Diffusion, it is said that in his previous incarnation, dGongs over
nearby sites, long periods, giving rise to "regional" or
pa Rab gsal was none other than 'Bro Zhang sTag snang "local" styles. Two such examples are a group of early tem
Khri sum rje, foremost general of the latter years of the
ples in Southern Tibet, Ye dmar, gNas snying and rKyang
Tibetan empire, author and co-signatory of the A.D. 822
phu; and the Kha che style temples inWestern Tibet, of
peace treaty between Tibet and China.35 He was not only which Alchi and Dung dkar are the finest. In this way cer
a great warrior who led many a glorious campaign in the
tain "regional" styles also became closely associated with
North, but also a fervent Buddhist, a restorer and builder of
particular monasteries or schools of Tibetan Buddhism.
temples, including Kva chu, near bSam yas (which he re
Such is the case with Zha lu; and Sa skya during the thir
stored), and one in Dunhuang (which he built).36 He chose teenth and fourteenth centuries.
this Central Asian Buddhist city and ancient Tibetan
stronghold as his place of retirement, and there "took a Iconography
vow" to re-incarnate as Mu za ka ra
phen.37 The adoption of an artistic style from a foreign Buddhist
This link between the Tibetan military empire and culture (e.g. China or Central Asia) for the representation of
Buddhist historiography of the Later Diffusion, creates the a particular iconographie cluster, i.e. the Arhats and Lokapalas.
unusual situation of a reincarnation lineage whose origina
tor is a Tibetan military hero! This adds to the growing ev Technique
idence in serious research that the rupture between the two use of foreign or materials.
The techniques Chinese and
eras was much less complete than was previously thought,38 were
possibly Tangut workshops making textiles for the
and must inevitably affect research into the arts.
Tibetan Buddhist world throughout this period. The earli
est known examples date to the Song dynasty. Kesi "cut
SCHOOLS AND STYLES IN THE FIRST CENTURIES OF silk" tapestry and embroidery were the two main tech
THE LATER DIFFUSION also have been used.
niques, though appliqu? may

Six major styles of painting, prevalent in Tibet between the When discussing the different "styles," with their geo
tenth and fourteenth centuries A.D. will be proposed here graphic origins and dating, we must take into account the
as a working hypothesis. Where possible, terms that have structure or layout of the painted surface, the palette, the
been used by Tibetans are employed. This works for the style of representation of deities and human figures, the
first three which will be treated in some detail: "Central motifs, ornamentation and costumes, and also the
iconog
Asian" (Li
lugs), "Indian" or P?la
(rGya lugs), and raphy, the lineage, the donor figure(s) and the inscriptions.
"Newari" (Bal ris). A fourth, the "Kashmiri style" (Kha che
lugs) will be used instead of "Gu ge school," or Gu ge bris.39 THE "CENTRAL ASIAN" STYLE (LI LUGS): TENTH
During these four centuries considerable interaction ELEVENTH CENTURIES A.D.
with other Buddhist communities far beyond the frontiers
of the Tibetan plateau was taking place. A large number of This style will be dealt with in the greatest detail, since its
teachers, coming from widely divergent backgrounds, im history and definition is the most obscure, and only re
a vast array of teachings, being received by thousands cently has new research made it possible to bring together
parted
of disciples, right through into Inner Asia. All this had a di the diverse elements that create a coherent context for de
rect effect on the arts, creating the rich diversity that we scribing it. Only in the last three or four years have re
see. Itwill be argued that the different styles are the result searchers been able to examine the earliest extant examples
of the following four considerations: of paintings in Central Tibet. These date to the eleventh

30
century and consist of two wall panels in Zha lu40 and six
in Gra thang.41 They show scenes of the Buddha preaching
to hosts of monks, bodhisattvas and richly attired lay peo
ple. The is that of Mah?y?na Buddhism as seen
iconography
in many of the cave temples of Dunhuang. A recent con
sensus of opinion is that both sites do indeed demonstrate
significant influence from Central Asia.
The new discussion was initiated by Vitali42 who brings
a nuance to Tucci's earlier and suggests that
argument43

Tangutia (Minia, Mi nyag or Xixia) should be included in

:tifc im?
Li yul, and that the influence came from Mi nyag to Tibet
and not the other way round.44 Henss counters this hy

pothesis, saying that although there is considerable Central

Asian influence in Gra thang, and a little in the earliest
paintings from Zha lu, it is not acceptable that this
influence came from the Tangut Kingdom to Tibet, since
"there is no evidence that Tibetans fled to Xixia at the
downfall of the empire, following the persecution." Henss of Buddha hosts of bod
Fig. 3. Gra thang, detail teaching scene,
also affirms that there could have been no developed Xixia hisattvas, ca. A.D. 1081-1093. Photo Stoddard 1994.
culture before 1038, the year that was given until recently
for the founding of the state.45
I think that few would disagree with Henss s argument
on style. Henss declares that the "majority of Tibetan style
paintings from Kharakhoto are provincial reflections of the
contemporary Central Tibetan style." Indeed, if we com
pare the panels in Gra thang (Fig. 3) and Zha lu (Fig. 4),
they are on the whole richer and more subtle than the best
thangkas from Kharakhoto, (Fig. 5)46 or the wall paintings
in Yulinsi (Fig. 6), but they are no doubt earlier. The mu
rals in cave 465 in Dunhuang48 (Fig. 7) are similar to some
paintings from Kharakhoto, both in style and from the
point of view of iconography, and represent the richest in
situ example of the Tibetan Buddhist tradition in Central
Asia. Organised as a tantric chapel or m?ndala, the wall
paintings are complete, although what must have been the
central stucco image (of a deity in yab yum?) has been de
stroyed. This would have stood on the circular tiered
m?ndala plinth in the centre of the chapel. The whole may
well have been painted during the Tangut period,49 at a
considerably later date than the panels from Gra thang and
Zha lu, and we may observe, paradoxically, that even
though the latter are situated in Central Tibet, they appear
to be more Central Asian than the three above-mentioned
examples from Central Asia.
From a historical point of view, however, recent research
has established that Kharakhoto was not the capital of the
Tangut empire, but a far flung military outpost on their i'

Western border.50 Furthermore Professor Kychanov has put

the founding date back to A.D. 982,51 and for centuries be
L-?A ?X V ^
fore its formal creation there was strong Buddhist culture in
that region. Several twelfth to fourteenth century Tibetan Fig. 4. Zha lu, "mgon khang," detail of Buddha teaching scene, monks
historical texts refer?retrospectively it is true?to the land and bodhisattvas. Photo Stoddard 1994.
as Byang Mi nyag, when discussing the period prior to the
founding of that empire. The original Mi nyag migration

31
Fig. 5. Bhaisajyaguru, Buddha of Medicine, with the Second Black
Hat Karmapa, Karma Pakshi, in the lower left hand corner.
Kharakhoto, after end of Tangut ca. a.D. 125 5-1256. State
Empire,
Hermitage Museum, St. Petersburg (X2332)

Fig. 6. Maitreya and Ma?jus'ri the Dharma, cave 4, Yulinsi,

discussing
Gansu. Tangut Empire(?), before A.D. 1227. Zhongguo meishu

chuanji, Dunhuang bihua, vol. 15, pi. 203.

to the North had started in the seventh century during the
military expansion of Tibet. The Tibetan armies followed
on their heels, and ruled their lush pastures on the "Nine
Bends of the Yellow River" for at least thirty years in the may be the most refined and detailed P?la style extant to
first half of the eighth century, and again for a considerable day, influenced perhaps a little by Newari esthetics. The
length of time in the ninth.52 Further, as we have seen, it Tibetan donor figures, on the other hand, stand in naive
was aMi nyag Buddhist teacher who, in the mid-tenth cen and hieratic simplicity. Their forms are almost two dimen
tury transmitted the vinaya teachings to the "Great Lama" sional, with flat opaque colours and a stillness in the pose,
dGongs pa Rab gsal. Thus it was precisely from what the emphasised by regular, unadorned yet elegant Une. From
Tibetans calledMi nyag territory (i.e. what later came to be the the point of view of the personnages represented, the de
Tangut empire, or Xixia) that the "Later Diffusion" of liberate variation in the robes, hats, hairstyles and facial fea
Buddhism began its return to Central Tibet. tures, echo perhaps the former Tibetan empire with its
In Gra thang the style of painting throughout the six multi-racial, multi-cultural society. In Dunhuang this kind
panels makes up an essential unity. Differences in quality of of pan-Asiatic ethnographic visual reminder of the empire
line and form seem to reflect the hand of more than one is very clearly present in several scenes dating to the time of
artist. Two extremes may be illustrated by two sections from Tibetan occupation, where a motley host of kings of the
theWest wall of the gTsang khang: the scene of the pair of various peoples of the Tibetan empire are gathered to
bodhisattvas, Ma?jusr? and Maitreya, discussing the doc gether behind the Tibetan btsan po to pay homage to the
trine, at the lower right side (Fig. 12), and three small Tibetan Buddha in mah?parinirv?na, or to listen to the debate be
donor figures standing below the throne of a Buddha on tween Vimalak?rti and Ma?jusr?.53
the left (Fig. 8). The two bodhisattvas are executed inwhat In Dunhuang we also find paintings in which two dis

32
Fig.7. Hevajra yab-yum, detail from cave 465, Dunhuang, Tangut
Empire
or
Mongol Empire (?) ca. 13 th century. Mission Pelliot en Asie
Centrale I. Les Grottes de Touen-Houang vol. 6 (Paris: Geuthner 1924), pi. 8. Detail from Buddha scene, with Tibetan donors. Gra
Fig. teaching
CCCLI, cave 182. ca. A.D. 1081-1093. Photo Stoddard 1994.
formerly thang monastery,

tinct and mature styles?Tibetan and Chinese?are com reminiscent of similar motifs in Dunhuang,55 and the
bined harmoniously within the same scene. The syncretic horseshoe-shaped halos, which are also seen in Central Asia
effect is clearly voluntary, and can be seen also in paintings the period of Tibetan rule, may be considered as a
during
from Kharakhoto.54 characteristic of early Tibetan art, inherited from P?la
The artists in Gra thang and Zha lu used a composition India56 (see Figs. 3, 4, 8, 9, 10).
similar to the Buddha predication scenes in Dunhuang, The monks in Gra thang are presented wearing robes
with a central figure seated on a large full rounded lotus with patchworking boldly emphasised, as seen in Central
a strong stem around which rich foliate pat Asia (Fig. 9). Often a ring and cord attachment fixes the
supported by
terns intertwine. The hosts of listeners stand densely avara at the shoulder, as on all the Buddhas, and among the
thronged, with a certain hierarchy of size expressing the donor figures a group of four are dressed in elaborate flow
relative importance of each group. The Buddha is the ing costumes that may be the artist's idea of Central Asian
slightly smaller, and the or Chinese attire (Fig. 10). Similar figures appear in Zha
largest, the monks and bodhisattvas
human donor figures the smallest of all. Three colours, red, lu.57 However, both Zha lu and Gra thang are also replete
blue and green dominate the palette, with several simple with non-Indian and non-Central Asian elements, and this
devices used to provide a feeling of depth within the basic ismost obvious in Gra thang, where seven of the donors
two dimensional These include the overlapping of represent Tibetans, as shown by their robes (Fig. 10).Many
plan.
figures, the modelling of faces with soft shading, and the of the bodhisattvas and other figures amongst the hosts also
use of stripes to create a perspective on the ground. The wear Tibetan princely robes with broad collars, tall turbans,

colouring and design of the leaves and flowers are distinctly embroidered boots and braided hair (see Figs. 3, 8, 10).

33
 ' -? ?***- *a?^^^?^^^^^?^?.^^^?^^^?
WP m&$iM<- *g?MMlflBMtf aya?**-

\ 'Ptv?-~\ Fig"9'Mon^s'Gra thang.PhotoStoddard

^WE?JVm K^Hh^^^^H^HHM^^H?^^^^^^^H

are almost identical to those worn

These by the stucco
figures in Gra thang and Ye dmar.58 Even the Buddhas wear
superbly embroidered Tibetan boots, and heavy warm
robes, while many of the figures show a Tibetanised phys
iognomy. The high level of individuation in the monks'
faces, most of which are bearded or moustached, may also
si-r-^ be characteristic of the Tibetan and/or Central Asian style
(see Fig. 9). The figures stand tall and straight, with simply
draped robes and strong but fine features rendered by
steady, experienced hands. The careful execution of these
paintings bears little comparison with many of those in
Dunhuang and Yulinsi, where the art work can be naive,
provincial, and even a little slapdash.
W. Moreover, certain figures in both Zha lu (Fig. 11) and
Gra thang are closely reminiscent of the Indian Pala style as
i-l V<*~ shown in manuscript illuminations. The prime example is
the Maitreya and Ma?jusr? scene in Gra thang mentioned
above,59 where the two bodhisattvas sit turning towards one
another, discussing the Dharma. They are exquisitely
painted in rich detail, with the art of Buddhist India as
clearly the direct source of inspiration. A valid comparison
may be made with Pala sculpture,60 and the delicate treat
I x-.?v ment of their faces, with protruding eyes, full lips and fine
arched eyebrows is distinctly Indian (Fig. 12). In spite of
this, if they are compared with the majority of the sur
rounding figures, which are much simpler, the difference
resides not in the style, nor even in the quality of painting,

Fig. 10. Donor figures (?) in lower right corner, in Chinese or Central
Asian style robes, Gra ca. A.D. 1081-1093. Photo Stoddard 1994.
thang,

34
 ca. a.D. Photo
Fig. 12. Bodhisattva Maitreya, Gra thang, 1081-1093.
ii. Bodhisattva, mGon Shalu. Photo Stoddard 1994. Stoddard 1994.
Fig. khang

but in detail and attention to ornamentation. Indeed they lated yet harmoniously side by side, within the same scene,
appear to have been done the same hand, or at least by as if openly declaring the diversity of Buddhist communi
by
amaster and his apprentice(s). In Zha lu, on the other hand, ties with whom the Tibetans were in contact from earliest
the differences are more pronounced, with the "Indian times.

style" very purely manifest in the faces of some bod However, here we shall follow the visual evidence of
hisattvas, and the Central Asian present in photographic materials gathered by Tucci, and identify this
style markedly
a rare in situ inscription men
the line and visual expressions of some monks and royal style with Li lugs, based on
personages (Fig. 13).61 tioning this style in the eleventh century temple of Ye dmar
In spite of the diversity, the dissimilar images in both sites in Southern Tibet. The nearby temples of gNas snying and
to the same group, and in spite of
are harmoniously combined together on the same plane. rKyang phu belong
Links with Central Asian Li lugs may be manifest in the difficulty in interpretation of the inscription itself,63 com
overall composition of figures; as well as in cultural ele parison with the monastery of Gra thang, whose wall
and stucco are dated to the eleventh
ments, in the decorative foliage (Fig. 14) and flower paintings images firmly
canopies, the lions supporting the lotus throne, as well as century, confirms the hypothesis.
the palette, all which recall earlier wall paintings found in Tucci first proposed that Li lugs referred to the "Kho
tanese style," since Li yul is often identified with Khotan,64
Dunhuang.
be claimed that Gra thang and Zha lu are surviv
Itmay and close connections existed between that city-state and
of an early syncretic stage of Tibetan art, the Tibetan empire. However, in later publications he
ing examples
when different styles and influences stand partly unassimi broadened his definition to take Li lugs as referring to

35
 Zha lu (founded1027/

ICe btsun Shes rab 'byung gnas (997-?) founded Zha lu in

the region of Myang ro, which had been bequeathed to his
ancestral clan in the eighth century by Khri srong lde bi
san, for having invited Padmasambhava to Tibet. ICes
teacher, Lo ston rDo rje dBang phyug, was one of the "Ten
Men of dBus gTsang," and so a direct disciple of dGongs pa
Rab gsal. In 997 Lo laid the foundations of rGyan gong, the
earliest temple of the Later Diffusion.68 This was closely
linked to Zha lu, through master and disciple, and also be
cause they both had the same
protecting deity, rDo rje Rab
brtan ma.69 ICe started the construction of Zha lu in 1027,
but was urged by Lo ston to go to Bodhgaya in India to take
"pure vows" of vinaya. This he did under the great master
Fig. 13. Monk, niGon khang Shalu. Photo Stoddard 1995. Abhayakara-gupta, and on his return it is recorded that he
built the Yum chen mo Lha khang on the "upper level."
This Vitali estimates to be about the time when At?sa came
to consecrate the new on his way to in ca.
temple, gTsang,
1045. The earliest wall paintings on the ground floor of the
"mGon khang" can be divided into two groups: the two
panels referred to in relation to Gra thang, and the other se
ries found inside the small side chapels extending towards
the back of the "mGon khang." The latter are executed in
an unadorned style that is unusual and A se
certainly early.
ries of seated Indian deities and a group oftall princely hu
man figures are depicted. One of these is dressed like the
others in Tibetan robes, but has a monkey head.70 These
may date to the foundation in 1027, while the Buddha
predication scenes may have been painted during the sec
ond period, after ICe returned from India. Together with
his "pure vows," perhaps he would have brought some
"pure Indian P?la art" and illuminated manuscripts back
with him? Did the artist of the Buddha scenes in Zha lu in
tegrate the Central Asian Li lugs brought in by dGongs pa
Rab gsal's disciples with the Pala style, thus commemorat
ing the vinaya traditions that had been reintroduced from
Fig. 14. Detail of floral patterns, Gra ca. A.D. Photo both sources?
thang, 1081-1093.
Stoddard 1995.
Gra thang (founded 1081)
Gra thang was founded fifty years after Zha lu, by Gra pa
Central Asia in general,65 and it is this acceptance that we sNgon shes (1012?1090) who had close family links with
follow here. The Tibetan imperial armies occupied a string bSam yas. Like ICe, Gra pa was descended from old nobil
of oases along the Silk Route, including Khotan, intermit ity, notably 'Chims rDo sPre wise minister of
rje chung,
tently for a period of nearly two hundred years (ca. eighth Khri srong lde btsan, who was nicknamed "Little Monkey."
to tenth centuries), at a time when numerous Buddhist He built the blue st?pa in bSam yas,71 and Gra pa, who be
temples were thriving throughout the region. Little by lit longed to the next generation on from ICe, took ordination
tle, the Tibetan occupants would have been exposed to the there, under a disciple of Klu mes, who was chief of the
art.66 Later on dGongs pa Rab gsal's disciples must also have "Ten Men." bSam yas, it will be recalled, was the first
seen the art in the
"many temples" that he is said to have monastery where the "Ten Men of dBus gTsang" chose to
established and adorned to the North of the Tibetan re-establish the sangha in Central Tibet.
plateau. Now, if we look into the backgrounds of the After one year of vinaya studies, Gra pa went on to other
founders of Zha lu and Gra thang we find that in both subjects with his uncle Zhang Chos 'bar, and in 1038, the
cases, they were directly connected with the "Great Lama" s discovery of the "Four Tantras," or rGyud bzhi treatise on
immediate disciples. Tibetan medicine, is attributed to him. He is said to have

36
found it concealed in the "vase pillar" in bSam yas. After
that he led a very active life, building many viharas, such as
sPyan g.yas,72 where the monks followed bka' gdams pa and
vinaya teachings, and then following the death of his uncle,
he no longer wished to remain "abbot of Ri phug," and re
verted to being a layman, built himself a new mansion, and
earned fame as the kalyanamitra Gra pa, who taught nu
merous commentaries on the tantras. He
gathered many

disciples from Yar klungs, and Pha Dam pa Sangs rgyas be

stowed the Zhi byed teachings on him, while Ma gcig Lab
sgron became his house-priestess, "for the purpose of recit
ing Prajn?p?ramit?r It is said that his disciples, especially
Khu ston (to whom he had given the rGyud bzhi) "were
envious" of him. He founded Gra thang in 1081 at the age
of seventy, but died before it was finished, as a result of a
"needle operation."73 The Gra thang vihara, like sPyang,
g,yas, was modelled on bSam yas, and completed by his
nephews, 'Byung shes and 'Byung tshul in 1093. All that
remains of Gra thang today is amedium-size temple, with
some remnants of the large circular rampart that completely
surrounded the original m?ndala complex.
So ICe btsun was a direct disciple of Lo ston, one of the
"Ten Men of dBus gTsang," and Gra pa sNgon shes was or
dained by a disciple of Klu mes, who was their leader. Thus
it is quite coherent that the earliest style of painting found
in the two temples be linked with Central Asia, and this
supports Vitali s argument that the style came from the re
gion of Mi nyag.
Further, in the context of the Mi nyag immigration and
influence in Tibet it is interesting to note that Gva lotsawa
rNam rgyal rDo rje (1203-1282), who belonged to an em
inent family of Mi nyag origin, had an uncle Ye shes rDo
Lhasa, first floor, outside the Guru ca.
Fig. i5.Jokhang, Lhakhang,
rje, aswell as two sons and one grandson who took over in I2th century. Photo Stoddard 1988. Zhongguo bihua chuanji,
succession, during the twelfth and thirteenth centuries, a
Zhangzhuan siyuan bihua, vol. 1, pi. 15.
monastery in gTsang, called dBen dmar (pron. Enmar).74
Could this be Vitali s g.Ye dmar (pron. Yemar), or Tucci's
Ewang (i.e. E warn), whose statues are in Li lugs? P?la dynasty style was still dominant. There are descriptions
Whatever the case may be, we do not understand Mi of much earlier antecedents of this style in Tibet, dating
nyag as referring to Kharakhoto, nor exclusively to the back to the Early Diffusion, and we may suppose that Ansa
Tangut empire which covered a large part of Central Asia was also partly responsible for its development. The style
for over two centuries (982?1227). The "Great Monk" so that has been called bKa' gdams pa ought logically to be
journed and indeed spent the rest of his life (d. A.D. 975), long
to this group. However, there are no extant
paintings
in the Southern part ofthat region, which was not yet the in India, showing this style, and so we must look at Indian
Tangut empire of Xixia, but where lived?and all Tibetan P?la manuscripts for comparison. Also as we have said,
sources agree on this?an there is no specific doctrinal to the style, but
important group of people called affiliation
Mi nyag. This region was close to mainstream, sophisti rather strong links with lineages sprung from Indian mas
cated Buddhist centres, such as Dunhuang and Yulinsi, as ters, such as the bKa' brgyud, in its various branches, no
well as others that have long since disappeared. doubt the rNying ma pa and Zhi byed75 also, as well as the
bKa' gdams pa. The only known extant in situ examples are
THE "INDIAN STYLE" (RGYA LUGS)
(or were) in the Jokhang in Lhasa. These were removed
We shall call the second major style rGya lugs, again fol from the first floor and put into storage in 1992, during the
lowing Tibetan terminology. This was brought to Tibet major
restoration
program.76 They
seem to have been
from India during the eleventh century A.D. at the latest, by mainly Tath?gata images with attendant bodhisattvas (Fig.
such teachers asMar pa, and perhaps 'Brog mi and ICe bt 15), and were amply photographed by many concerned
sun, who spent many years studying in India, where the Westerners before their removal, as well as by the Chinese

37
 eleventh century. The second restoration was carried out
almost a century later, in 1160, by the bka' rgyud pa "her
mit" Dvags sgom Tshul khrims sNying po (1116-1169),
who was a disciple of sGam po pa. The walls outside the
Guru Lha khang may have been part of his restoration.78
The style is precisely that of the period, and recalls details
seen in many paintings that fall into the rGya lugs group.
The monk who held the keys of the Jo khang temple at that
time was Gung thang Bla ma Zhang (1123-1193) who had
close links with sTag lung and 'Bri gung, again both bka'
brgyud monasteries?and the fine early portrait mentioned
above (see Fig. 2) may be of him.79
This style appears to dominate in the bka' brgyud
schools, and we have a clear historical inscription Unking
rGya lugs with a "venerable Mar pa" and his descendants.
This is found on a wooden painted book cover bearing a
long inscription that was recently brought out of Tibet.80
While it is not absolutely sure that this isMar pa Chos kyi
Bio gros of Lho brag (1012-1097), the description of the
flourishing family sounds rather similar. Lho brag Mar pa
spent eighteen years in the Holy Land at the feet of the
most eminent Indian masters of his day. He was at once a
scholar, translator, yogin and well-to-do householder, and
if the inscription does indeed refer to him, then he fathered
a large and wealthy clan, skilled in the various arts.
The book cover has only decorative motifs, and no
proper images, but the jewel border, the dark green and
black foliage with humans and creatures nestling in the
leaves (Fig. 17), as well as the simple central motifs, closely
recall patterns seen on many of the now well known
thangkas associated with the great monastery of sTag lung
(Fig. 18). The workmanship is of excellent quality, typical
Fig. 16. Cosmic Buddha Vairochana and Acolytes. Central Tibet, 2nd half
12th century. Color and gold on canvas, in.o x 73.0 cm. ? The of this school, and it was probably executed some time in
Cleveland Museum of Art, 1996, Mr. and Mrs. William H. Marlatt the late twelfth to thirteenth century. All those concerned
Fund, 1989.104. with the production of what was no doubt a very hand
some volume (or series of volumes), are clearly of Tibetan
and Tibetans, though the thick soot disguised the major origin, including the "divine artist" Lord Gong, who
part of what must have been there.77 They clearly relate to painted in the Indian style, rGya lugs.
the large and well known group of Tath?gata thangkas, that This is extremely important, for it shows that from early
are in many collections in theWest times Tibetan artists were working in foreign styles. It is of
(Fig. 16).
According to Vitali, restoration was undertaken twice in ten assumed by Westerners that the artists producing fine
the Jokhang during the early Phyi dar. The first was some work for Tibetan monasteries and great families were for
time between 1076 and 1087, under the supervision of eigners brought in from outside. This is the first clear evi
Zangs dkar 'Phags pa Shes rab, who is recorded as having dence of Tibetan artists working in the Indian P?la style.81
extended the central Jo bo chapel, or gtsang khang dbus ma It is unfortunate, however, that we do not have the manu
where he added the eight bodhisattva statues and Vajrap?ni script inside the book cover which would show us what the
and Hayagr?va, together with the Thub pa Gangs chen mt illuminations were like.
sho rgyal image behind the Jo bo. On the first floor, he built Apart from the numerous in this style from
paintings
a wall to create a small
chapel to the south, called Zhal ras sTag lung (founded 1178), we also find several showing
lha khang. He may have been responsible for the murals in lamas of the Black Hat and Red Hat Karma bka' brgyud
side the chapel, which in the opinion of this author, are ear lines, as well as a fine series which may be from 'Bri gung,
lier than those outside, although they are painted in more founded in 1179 by the other close disciple of Phag mo gru,
than one style. One important section, on the right, seems Rin chen dpal (1143-1217).
to reflect what would be an early Newari style, whilst the This style seems to have established itself essentially in
central panel might be very close to Indian painting in the the dBus "Central" province around Lhasa and Tsethang,

38
 Pli
Xt^lf^Yg
17. Book cover
in rGya
Fig. lugs style, with
ca. 12th century. Private collec
inscription,
tion. Photo Stoddard 1994.

and probably in Lhokha where the descendants of Mar pa

lived. The tradition was passed on through the main bKa'
brgyud lineage, from Mi la ras pa, to his disciple sGam po
pa and on to Phag mo gru (i i io-i 160), who "studied the
arts in his youth." From him six branch schools of the bKa'
brgyud teachings spread far and wide, and the path he and
the multitude of his disciples followed was one of celibacy,
based on a strong vinaya tradition, inspired also by At?sa and
the bKa' gdams pas, combining monastic Buddhism with
highly developed yoga and meditation practice of the
Mah?mudr? teachings. Throughout the centuries many of
the leading lamas of this school have been skilled artists.
rGya lugs tends to sobriety of detail, purity of line and
monumental simplicity in design. The mandorla is often
absent, consisting simply of a rainbow arch, as in the paint
ings from sTag lung, with a garuda hovering discretely, al
most unnoticed, at the apex. The throne is a simple lotus
placed upon a rectangular structure with regular niches
filled by elephant and lion(?) faces. Stylised "blade rocks"
and a typical rich jewelled border adorn many of these
paintings, while the minor deities and lineages of human
teachers are seated within broad ovoid auras. The donor is
most often a Tibetan monk seated in the lower left corner
of the thangka, with a group of offerings beside him. These
are arranged on a special stand, with two crossed flywhisks,
surmounted by a book and a st?pa with a small parasol on
top. This special insignia may indicate the upholding of
vinaya vows by a fully ordained monk, but it is only seen in
Tibet during this period, from ca. twelfth century through
Fig. 18. Thanka with Two Lamas Discussing the Dharma. Tibet, Kadampa
to the fourteenth (see Fig. 18).82 School, late 12-13 century. Color on canvas, 51.4 x 39.4 cm. ? The

early on a rather naive version of rGya lugs is

Cleveland Museum of Art, 1996, John L. Severance Fund, 1987. 146.
Quite
found in several monasteries inWestern Tibet, for example
in the Lha khang gSo ma and the Lotsawa Lha khang in school (ca. 1222, if not earlier), and the Second Black Hat
Alchi (Fig. 19). rGya lugs also spread northwards from Karma Pakshi, who built a temple there in 1255-56, three
Central Tibet to the other extreme edge of the high decades after the destruction of the empire by Jengis Khan83
plateau, to the Tanguts, through lamas of the 'Bri gung (see Fig. 5). Many of the thangkas in the Kharakhoto st?pa

39
 everyone, going to and from India, even on the way to
Western Tibet, would cross through Nepal. One of the
main routes, that taken by At?sa, went through Nepal, and
then up onto the plateau via Mang yul in sPu rangs, and
from there to Central Tibet.
However, as we have noted, early datable paintings in
Newari style are rare, and as with Pala art, we need to look
at illuminated manuscripts to find a suitable comparison.86
We might also take into account the date of the book cover
estimated by John Huntington to be early thirteenth cen
tury,87 "thus placing it one century earlier than might be
supposed, from a stylistic point of view." We shall go into
this question in detail, to show the importance of inscrip
tions, and the hazards that we are faced with in trying to
deal with them. The delightful text on the book cover
could be taken as a brief treatise on art, and was translated
by Ngawang Jorden and Miranda Shaw. It says that the
carving was done by rDo rje Seng ge of Mang 'khar, in
Western gTsang. According to Huntington's article he was
a "Dharma master" who lived from 1152 to 1220. But
when we turn to the Blue Annals we find that there are no
less than four rDo rje Seng ge, none of them are described
Fig. 19. Two seated bodhisattvas, Lotsawa Lhakhang, Alchi. Photo
as "Dharma masters," and none are said to be from
Fournier (P. Pal and L. Fournier, Alchi, Basle: 1983, LS 12.) Mang
'khar. Although Huntington does not give his source, nor
explain the choice, the one chosen is clearly the younger
were in this style, thus tending to confirm that Tangut so son of Thogs med grags (1120-1156), son ofmDo sde of
ciety continued to survive into the second half of the thir the line of rGyal tsha (1118?1195),88 whose clan was closely
teenth century. This style may also have been known to the connected to Phag mo gru pa, founder of the bKa' brgyud
Mongols, during that same period, before their empire be lineages. The choice was logically guided by the iconogra
came fully established, and before the Sa skya pas came to includes a special form of
phy of the book cover, which
favour in the court. Vajrap?ni, Candamah?rosana, or gTum po khyung sham
can according to the system of Ras chung pa (1083?1161).
THE "NEWARI STYLE" (BAL Ris) Ras chung had the experience of "Inner Heat," gtum mo,
The third style is that inspired by the fine Newari tradition bestowed on him by his lama, Mi la ras pa, when he was
of the Kathmandu valley, called Bal ris/bris in Tibetan. The only eleven years old, but later he caught leprosy, and went
extant Tibetan paintings in this style seem to start off a lit twice to India to find a cure, as well as more teachings.89
tle later than rGya lugs, and in Tibet are most strongly as Among his other gurus there were two Nepalese, and his
sociated with the province of gTsang, one reason being no lineage, being specially associated with the transmission of
doubt simply because it lies closest to Nepal. The style is gtum mo,90 was known as the bDe mchog snyan brgyud.
intimately linked with Sa skya, and by the mid-thirteenth However, if the above theory on styles being linked to lin
century, it had spread from that great monastery directly to eages is valid, we might expect that the carving, made for a
the Mongol court thanks to the invitation of Sa skya bka' brgyud pa donor, would rather be in rGya lugs style.
Pandita, his nephew 'Phags pa, and a little later on, the fa Let us look at the other rDor seng. A second one was son
mous Newari artist Anige.84 Then, after becoming estab of sNur Nyi ma 'Od zer, disciple of Rva lo and gNyal Nyi
lished in the imperial workshops in Dadu (Beijing), as the ma Shes rab, who was a
disciple of Zangs dkar lotsawa
dominant Buddhist style of the Mongol empire, it returned 'Phags pa Shes rab.91 This rDor Seng went to Nepal and
again to gTsang in the first half of the fourteenth century, then to mNga' ris, with gNyal who was a disciple of Kha
much enriched, to adorn the walls of Zha lu.85 che J?anasri, who lived in Ta pho for three years. He was a
A fine tradition of Buddhist art in Nepal goes back un specialist in Yoga- and Anuttarayoga-tantras, and composed
interruptedly to the sixth century A.D., or earlier. It was numerous texts. He would have lived around the second
brought into Tibet already in the mid-seventh century as half of the twelfth century, which does seem too early for
we can see from the earliest in the the carving, although his background could fit the pic
doorways Jokhang.
There is no reason to believe that this was disrupted for any ture.92 A third rDor seng belongs to the lineage of mantrad
significant period of time (except perhaps mid-ninth to haras of Yar 'brog sgang, who were of Mi nyag origin. His
mid-tenth centuries), since, as we have mentioned, almost great grandfather was Mi nyag Zhon nu snying po, and af

40
 ter his father settled in rGya ma of Rong,93 he took over the the same artists who adorned Zha lu.101 The Green T?r?
monastery of Rong mKhar phug, while his elder brother Ye from Cleveland may be dated to this period as well, ca.
shes rDo rje, mentioned above, took over dBen dmar. The 1330, agreeing with Pal's later estimation, and Iwould like
two brothers were uncles to Gva lo (1203?1282), also men to add to the debate about her origins, by making what
tioned above,94 and so probably lived into the first half of the now seems to be an obvious connection with the Imperial
thirteenth century. The dates would fit, as does the geog Mongol court style, and Anige's school, even with Anige
raphy, since they seem to be rather localised in gTsang. But if himself (Fig. 23). The suave delicacy and intricate detail,
we follow the logic of lineages being associated with styles, the delight in rich textile patterns, as well as the overall
we may expect this eminent Mi nyag family to follow the of conception, is very close to the finest
monumentality
Li lugs style. The only information given on the fourth work in Zha lu.
rDor seng is that he was an
acarya who sent an attendant to Several early m?ndalas may also be included here,102 since
the monastery of bDe chen stengs, founded in 1308 by they too compare closely with the remaining fragments of
Grags pa Seng ge, to see the Tantrics there.95 According to the Bu ston m?ndalas in Zha lu. Their execution however,
our present imprecise knowledge of the evolution of Bal shows no influence from the Mongol court style, and so
ris, this last fourteenth century dating would be acceptable, they may predate this ultimate phase.
as Huntington remarks. Moreover, the Blue Annals makes The next large group may date from the middle or sec
no mention of proficiency in the arts for any of the four. on
ond half of the fourteenth century, carrying through to
Thus, iconography and not style is the only clue to the the fifteenth. Extremely fine and powerful tantric deities
identity of rDor seng of Mang 'khar, and if we accept dominate in this smallish group.103 The style is flat and "hi
Huntington s suggestion as the most plausible, then we do erarchical," with a highly structured surface,
symmetrical
have evidence that by the early thirteenth century at the the line perfectly controlled, the forms superbly rendered,
latest,the bka' brgyud pa lineages were employing two and the decoration more austere than in the early four
quite distinct artistic styles, rGya lugs, and Bal ris. Since by teenth century Zha lu paintings. No revealing inscriptions
that time the centre of Buddhist activities had moved from help, so far, to fill in the historical background, but the lin
India up to Nepal and Tibet, this is not at all out of the eage belongs to the Sa skya pa school. A number of elabo
question, and many Nepalese teachers were being attended rate mandolas belong to this period and style, asmentioned
on by Tibetans at this time. It should be confessed, how above.104 Like the portrait tradition of the bKa' brgyud
ever, that the sculptor, who does not have the title of lamas which follows the rGya lugs, a fine portrait tradition
"Dharma master," but is described in the inscription simply including many of the Sa skya pa teachers, is also part of the
as "with dharma and intellect," chos dang bio ldan, rDo rje gTsang Bal ris style.105
Seng ge of Mang 'khar, may in fact be none of these four.96 In Bal ris, the most striking element is the elaborate
The Tibetan Bal ris includes several fine and distinct mandorla with its triumphant garuda at the summit, clasp
styles which are distinguishable from the small number of ing two large humanoid n?gas in its talons. The arch is
known contemporary patas made for Newari patrons. The composed of their sinuous dark bodies, against and in strik
style, iconography and layout of the latter, the inscriptions ing contrast to the flamboyant tails of lively makara, or
and donor figures who appear with their large families, hamsa geese, who perch on the crossbeams of the throne
mark them off from contemporary paintings produced for back.106 This garuda mandorla is in fact present in all the
Tibetans. On the whole it is true to say,whatever the rea main Tibetan styles, and is indeed unique to Tibetan art
sons
may be, that the extant Tibetan versions are more so
(see Figs. 18, 20, 21). The author has searched all over Asia,
phisticated.97 inHindu or Buddhist cultures, without success, looking for
Here we shall attempt, very briefly, to arrange the the garuda in this pro-eminent position. It does infiltrate a
Tibetan Bal ris styles in some kind of chronological order, few Newari pata, probably because the artists were working
grouping them in iconographie families, gradually leading for Tibetans, and sometimes adopted the garuda in place of
up to the end of the fourteenth century, stopping just prior the traditional Indian ktrrtimukha. Inversely, a few Tibetan
to the creation of the rGyal rtse dPal 'khor chos sde and sKu thangkas do display the ktrrtimukha where one would ex
'bum. pect a garuda, and this may be evidence that aNewari artist
The first group
is that of the Tath?gatas and other bod is at work (see Fig. 23). The throne in Bal ris ismore elab
hisattva figures98 (Fig. 20). They are dated, according to orate too, with an archictectural, three dimensional rectan
different authors, from ca. 1200 through to the fourteenth gular base. This contains animated lions or other animals
century. A set that may be amongst the earliest is said to emerging from the niches, stretching out and posing in var
have been made in Sa skya (Fig. 21),99 whilst the style cul ious athletic stances, usually giving a side view. The thone
minates in the sophisticated Tath?gata series in Zha lu, dat cloth is characteristic, as exemplified in Zha lu, with its
able to the turn of the fourteenth outer edges on either side curving inwards and
century (Fig. 22).100 upwards to
The great st?pa of Jo nang also had some paintings in a form fine, mannered pleats.
similar style dating to ca. 1330, perhaps even executed by The offerings in Bal ris are distinct from those in rGya

41
 E3BBBh& l^' ^^BBB'?J^^^T^BBBBBBBBBKBBl0M.~I^BBk'^9K\^Z^RBB^9E>li Mi^^^V^aP'.^^KmH91m i ^BBvi
WjBBBjB)^\m^bl?4% v^BPffP^K^B^H^KyjL'-^^^^^^ ^-^lajPwmm ^wWW/mEi>%?BmT^BiBB?Bpj A -^JS1-'

mAhBBBBBhBBBBBI rTialB^HtLl ac^hBBBt^ 'WX^ _jCV ^^fc^?i\.. ' 'Ar .1<*r3BBBVBBBBBBBBi I

B^ Y,IbeSvB?? r*BBBr <1- j?f< ^\* Vt ^ ^C^\ *T i'Bfci^i fBBWJiB^HbT^BWBm I

KSBjMBBBB^^MBJfciBB^gHB'^yCTM^ ^BBjjB^BJ^BBBBBJB?l^lJir^j%.* ^^BbTI^HIBCBWbTWb^bTbJ

';*'*
I^^B^rgjtBi^i*:; >?JE^y^^BBgWP-Sl^BHMBBTBTfl^MBl?^^S!. ^7*iBaBwBBBBiaMl I

20. Ratnasambhava, with attendant bodhisattvas. Los Angeles

Fig. County Museum of Art (M. 81.90.5),
x 32.9 cm, ca. second half of 13 th
41.0 century. P. Pal, Art ofNepal, 1985, p. 7.

lugs. Both form part of a small inset scene with the donor were to develop into the largest the world has ever known.
seated in the lower left or right corner of the painting. The ecclesiastical structures put in place by his followers
There are two main (a) in bowls and tall
arrangements: permitted the dge lugs pa to begin their slow ascent until
pots, placed in long horizontal rows on an altar, or on tri came to full
they political and religious power three hun
pod stands; (b) in small round bowls on a tall offering stand dred years later under the Fifth Dalai Lama. These events in
with branches rising on either side of the central stem. the second half of the fourteenth century, created a shift of
The second half of the fourteenth century saw profound the political centre from dBus to gTsang.
changes that were to bring about a new religious and po In art, the same period saw the beginnings of a mature
litical era in Tibet. Byang chub rGyal mtshan of the Phag full-blown "Tibetan style," centred in gTsang, yet clearly
mo gru dynasty of sNe'u
sdong in dBus, passed away in taking a new departure in relation to Zha lu. Line is dy
1364. Four years later, in 1368, the Mongol empire col namic and flowing, expressing a new
suppleness of form,
In the kha arrived in Central and creating a three dimensional
lapsed. 1372, great Tsong pa quality, with rich patterns
Tibet from Amdo, and started founding monasteries that and textures, and a much more varied use of colour.

42
 BMBl& J?BBFwLw '',^nlf?^K?BBTBBBr^??mS'??^ '*
M* 'If diJt- TJHttBBByBBjMBflMfirBE?M^?wS^3lh3rf^n!^ Bs

|JH^3H|E|HfiflBWBBtfG??S^ f ~*JI?jm?/ ? ^^J^S^^j^sffnjBT^arT^f^^^BTBTWf

MffjBtfjjt^im^flH^BlBB^'^y^T^fc^ "''?^M*i?
j?4 \m i*fa BMf L^^P^
^M^9HHBMB^BBr?S^^ra*[fl
?BjB?air^WSBSofiKBtt^ i?*' s?**** ^C*^Mi^^?i*^3&^9BHBi^'wi(i!2lBfl

*^BmDB?JIbB^?bBBDh1bBIBV &?^ YJSRbTJm. j^BBBTBTr ?^*>>"

?BBBEb^Km^^bBbBBBBBhI

TBBBBhBBiJMBB>MjB3B3BT^BWBffBBE.^? *:?. J?afJ*?^?l__^jA^^BTB^y^B?B^BBBBMMBBBMBMBBB3

V"^?>JPP/W?t%'w-

fla^O J?MrlrigR
$ yjJBTttrT*v^BfJy^^9r '^HSB??5*^!t&$ES?F
5!3*^''31bi#''-.^Brmf^flBBEB^B^H^BBBl

"
V * * *?" ^I?^b |,rr*4tfiH5S^^?Jffa:^M" *%Spi & i'it i<yJT
^"f?T^mti ^Sjl^B^BMBMBMiBBB^^nMfl^BBBBBB?BaM?

Fig. 2i. Vairocana with attendant bodhisattvas, Sa skya monastery (?) 13 th century. San Francisco
Museum of Asian Art (1991.1). Museum photo.

Chinese influence, coming into Tibet at the fall of the Tibet and to the dominant style of painting there. Tucci
Mongol dynasty, no doubt plays a large part in this new first referred to "the art of Gu ge,"107 and this has been gen
freedom (Fig. 24). Fused with all the other influences that erally accepted in theWest. A preferable term may be Kha
we have already seen, the new style finds its full expression che lugs, i.e. "Kashmirian style," which ismore in the Une
in the rGyal rtse sKu 'bum and dPal skor chos sde mon of the other Tibetan terms proposed here, in that it recalls
astery, built
under the patronage of prince Rab rten Kun the geographic origin of the style of art, brought in with
bzang 'phags, at the beginning of the fifteenth century. the Buddhist teachings, and disseminated in
Western Tibet.
We shall now more briefly run through the other schools According to Nyang ral, the three principalities of
of painting proposed in this hypothetical schema: mNga' ris sKor gsum were created in the ninth century by
Nyi ma mgon, grandson of Lang Darma, and his three
WESTERN TIBET, MNGA' RIS SKOR GSUM
companions, "ministers of the maternal clan," when they
(GU GE BRIS OR KHA CHE LUGS?) fled westwards, at the fall of the sPu rgyal dynasty.108 Gu ge
Gu ge is often used to refer in a general way toWestern was in the middle, with mTho lding and Tsaparang as the

43
 RED-GREEN-BLUE-GOLD

(GTSANG AND WESTERN TIBET?)

This group of paintings is characterised by a "red-green
blue-gold" palette. The earlier thangkas tend to be designed
as if they represented the inside of a chapel, with a central
niche containing the main deity, represented as a three di
mensional sculpture set against a wall painted with the
Thousand Buddha motif. Later on the figures are clothed in
rich heavy textiles, and a swirling lively movement covers
the entire surface. Small animated scenes in the background
recall those seen in paintings from Gu ge, but the physiog
nomy ismore distinctly Tibetan, with bold, masterly out
lining, and delicate detail. There is no free space, and richly
gilt gesso bas-relief patterns highlight the jewelry, face,
hands and feet of the Buddhas. This group is apparently
linked both with Western Tibet and gTsang, but its histor
ical context is difficult to establish, due to an almost com
plete lack of inscriptions. The style may represent an ex
pression of the "Old" rNying ma pa school?since the two
or three
earliest Padmasambhava images appear in this
group?or else perhaps an indigenous, pre-rGyal rtse era
Tibetan style? Some of the paintings use light, clear colours,
and large cloth wall panels are known. Published images are
rare, and quite a range of sub-styles exists111 (Fig. 25).

EASTERN OR SOUTHERN TIBET (?)

This last group is small, and in some ways related to Red

Green-Blue-Gold, being equally difficult to pin down,
again because of the lack of inscriptions. Rumour has it that
the paintings have been brought out of Eastern Tibet, but
Fig. 22. Akosbhya, Zha lu, sGo gsum Lha khang, ca. 1330s. Photo no Chinese influence is present at all, and a rigourous sym
Stoddard 1994.
metry is noticeable. A light and delicate use of form and
colour, slender limbs and floating scarves, small tongue-like
main centres. sPu was to the and Mar
hrang South-East, yul gold touches for flames, are distinguishing features. The
to the North-West.109 Since this style, or group of styles, of the known is with the most
iconography examples Tantric,
cover a large domain in terms of art history, being amply dam deities the scene
important yi dominating (Fig. 26).
treated by other scholars,110 we only recall it here. The
dominant influence clearly comes directly from Kashmir. iconography: the ch?nese arhats and
After the destruction of Buddhism there in the twelfth cen
LOKAP?LAS, FIGURES AND LANDSCAPES
tury, it continued to develop, inWestern Tibet, as a highly
refined painting tradition covering an extended period A seventh group is set apart from the others, in that the cat
from the eleventh through to the seventeenth centuries. egory is really not one of style, but is strictly limited to two
Within this tradition, already at the beginning of the Phyi Chinese iconographie groups, transplanted in their totality,
dar, various different styles co-exist, and we could refer to into the Tibetan world. The Arhats are seated within nat
the wall paintings in rTa pho, Tsaparang and Alchi, as three ural landscapes, whereas the Lokapalas have no specific
major distinct styles. background accompanying them. The adoption by Tibet
In "Kha che lugs" the mandorla is often as flamboyant as of these two iconographie groups may have been the start
in gTsang, but with much larger serpentine loops domi ing point of a more generalised introduction of Chinese
nating the whole structure. The throne is often placed high influence into Tibetan painting and sculpture which is
on an elaborate lotus pedestal, and the throne cloth often clearly manifest by the beginning of the fifteenth century.
contains alcoves with one or two small deities inside. The In this context we must also recall the Mongol court style
basic halo and aura pattern is purely circular, and the back as conserved in Zha lu, which has been described above. As
ground of the most elaborate paintings is filled with de a profoundly modified form of Newari art, it developed
lightful, highly detailed miniature scenes. within the imperial workshops under Anige, and had a

44
 ^ >jf
BI^^^BBBHBBBB^ |B^ttM
.jjyFre^^f'; XyBB^bV^bVbVbh

SBTflMTSBSR&BBfiB&BTflHB^B^B^B^HBBl^Bf>^^^
^C^sW^^^B^^B^B^^B?^Bmm^^^^U^^U
SI^B^S^SIbTbbBV'bTbTb^bTbbbbV^
H??r^ **&>?$
M ^^k^^k?^b?^^^K??b?s?s^^^^^

BHpjf. iBBBBMB^BMB^B^By \ J^W^HB^^??B????^W?^?

>^T fflft??^^8lBBm

H^V^^^H^BTBBBTBTbBbV^' ^'aA\?V u?. t V' L^^r^^BfBTBTBTBJU^BTBHB^^tt^JH

Ka^ tJKSlfBBSBTBTBTBV-' ^T?m\!">A V A T ?Ib?A^)^ ?BB?B?B?BKXSS@la?H
Ht^lMSABflHBB^^BYflaflaflaflW^ **^^X^T^f^?. flN*^r -"nHEMBTPn *^*~~*^^^BiflTflBBHBBaflK?tl!KJHABTJ

** ^t~'
^^BBHBBBBBfBIB^B^BIBV?^^?d^aHliln^BK*^ ^I^BBM 'j~lb1^H^^^^HHb?b?b?bS

BfBfBfBM '^^^v^BlJi^BlBBBlP* 1 SB^ .AbV ^T^i" "BBb I '^^Sb^BuB^E"E&? ">JbbIB??

'^ . ^b^bbbI?i / ywyfftb**^ R~? *--^

bTbTbV? ^^bbbbb^-*" **'!? AnwrB^BBiV^^ ^bi^bh

- ^///////a??????im,' ^
^BjfcJ^jMBBP* ;-\" ^^m^bbV^bVJ

Fig. 23. Tlianka with Green Tara. Tibet,

c. 13th century A.D. Color on cloth, h. 52.1 cm. ? The
Cleveland Museum of Art, 1996, Purchase from thej. H. Wade Fund by exchange, 1970. 156.

powerful, long term influence on Tibetan, Chinese and tury sGrol ma Lha khang temple in sNye thang, where
later Mongol art.112 At?sa spent his last years, seem to date to that period, and
Several partial sets of early Arhat paintings are known in recall similar images in Dunhuang.
theWest. The attributions are highly variable, though some
certainly date to the period of the Mongol dynasty. In style TEXTILE TECHNIQUES
they range from subtle and sophisticated Chinese-type rep
resentations, traditions of the Song, A last important group related to early Tibetan painting
inspired by painting
Yuan or early Ming to expressive, bold, almost is that of Buddhist textile images. Song China, and also
dynasties,
childlike imagery.113 The Lokap?las, or Kings of the Four very probably the Tangut Empire were producing exqui
Quarters, are distinguished by their Chinese
or Central site kesi thangkas on command for Tibetans, by the twelfth
armour. In no if not earlier. However, with one ex
Asian very early representations century exception,115
painting,
or no influence of Chinese
seem to have survived, except inminiature included amongst tant kesi thangkas show little
hosts of other minor deities a main figure.114 follow Tibetan models, as if the weavers
surrounding style. They closely
However, four life-size stucco statues in the eleventh cen were copying directly from painted thangkas.116 A number

45
 (Tib. Yul 'khor srung), Guardian of the
Fig. 24. Dhritarastra King
East. Late I4th-early 15th century, rtse (?). Private collection.
rGyal

Fig. 25. Maitreya and Ma?jusr? discussing the Dharma 14th

century. Private collection.

46
of exquisitely fine embroideries made for the Tibetan
Buddhist world have also survived from this period.117

CONCLUSION

Thus amongst the profusion of early painted thangkas, we >> J ^^ ?>ftBB^B^B^B^B^^^^^^^^^^^*B^B^^?A?^k* BBBlttttiM?^*'
can distinguish five or six major styles up to the second half
of the fourteenth century: Li lugs in Central Tibet during b1 i ^Br j^bt ?f ?t ^ WbbbbIm?EbVbVbT
V^BbT^K^LI^p
the earliest period; followed by rGya lugs in dBus and Lho
kha; Bal ris in gTsang; Kha che lugs inWestern Tibet from * JaJfT
- ?>. m?'* : \ Ij^^^^L ?' ^BBf1 JHbmHbmj
the earliest period right on through; and the "Red-Green ^|r " " 3r
runs through
BbbttI J^'? '?s :V. i^HP^"^ jbhRFbbb^bT^b^bhVhM
Blue-Gold" style which also probably the
whole period. The "Eastern Tibetan" style may perhaps be
included in one of several sub-styles that emerged from
each of the major ones.
The construction of temples and monasteries, as well as
the art work that adorned them, was carried out under the
direction of many of the leading religious figures of the day.
Indeed in several cases the lamas themselves were artists.
The creation of "supports," rten, reminders of the Buddhas
Body, Speech and Mind, was part of the "action" or 'phrin
las of a bodhisattva. dGongs pa Rab gsal, Rin chen bZang
po, Atisa, Gra pa sNgon shes, Mar pa, Phag mo gru pa, the
sTag lung pas, Sa skya pandita, and no doubt the Black Hat
"
Karma pas too, were great builders and artists. The styles J**! !vK?^^S?^^^ _?' i?^^^ ^wH**^^^b^^^bib^^bbu1bhbb
that they adopted, amongst the various possibilities avail
able in Tibet at the time, depended on the authentic lin
eage of a religious teaching, its first teacher and his geo '
B?? ?9* ^vnBBIBrBWBHflSEBBU^BViBHBBBIBrfl^BrflT
graphic origins. However, as the political and historical
situation evolved inside and outside of Tibet, and as the re AjjflL *^9AB0KBlBBBsVjBu^rflBcflM^B /~ ^KbHP^B^bW'BB^BpHb^BbHBwBH
ligious lineages became more and more densely overlap
ping, distinct artistic styles confronted each other, and were
Fig. 26. Guhyasam?ja yab-yum, second half 14th century. Private col
even included within one painting. At first each kept its lection.
own characteristics. Later with the geographic spread of
monastic establishments belonging to a particular school,
different styles were adopted and assimilated, until gradu
to fuse and create new "Tibetan 7- See Karmay 1975, pp. 20-21, 35-54; Vitali 1990, pp. 89-122.
ally they began styles."
8. See Rossi and Rossi 1993, reading of inscriptions and thirteenth
fourteenth century dating by the author. Cf. Burawoy 1978, where the
finest series was dated to the sixteenth century, but which also probably
to the fourteenth century. An in-depth
belongs study of this latter series
remains to be done. See Thurman and Rhee 1991, pi. 73, where
Thurman dates one series correctly
Vajravali m?ndala for the first time, to
Notes ca. 1390s. They were
painted following the passing away of the lama Sa
one of Tsong
gsang 'Phags po, i.e. kha pa's lamas, who died in the 1380s.
i. 'Di Itargnang su ri mo bris/ nga a m?ndala from the same Vajravali series, is
ba'igyang logs la/ dongnyis medpa'i Cf. B?guin 1993, pi. 7, where
lha bzo Padma 'byunggnas yin/ snang stonggsal ba'igdams ngag bdog/ Nyang dated to the end of the fifteenth century without mention of Thurman s
ral Nyi ma 'Od zer (1124-1192), p. 283. reading. Several other in the Guimet
m?ndalas catalogue need in-depth
2. This article is a rewrite of a paper given at the conference "Towards study. Pis. 19, 20 have
early attributions, but one may wonder especially
a Definition of Style the Arts of Tibet," hosted by SOAS, University of about pis. 26, 28, and also 5, 21, 23, 29, 30. See p. 105 for B?guin s dis
London, I3th-i8thJune 1994, and is based on the authors forthcoming cussion of the dating.
book; see Stoddard 1997b. 9. Casey 1994, p. 132, transposes this term into English as
Singer
3. See Tucci 1988. "meditative commitment," though it seems from the various occurences
4. i.e. Kashmirian. that the function of thugs dam during this period was much broader than
5. Casey Singer 1994. this suggests.
6. Pal 1984, pp. 29-45 for a discussion of the bKa' gdams pa, Newari 10.
Reading of inscriptions by the author in 1987. The manuscript has
and Kha che (i.e. Kashmiri)-Tibetan His three separate the first identifies a Tibetan
styles, and possible origins. inscriptions; Buddhist scholar,
"Ladong," founded 103 9/1093, is in fact the great monastery of sNar called "Kun dga', the Dharma specialist who dwels in glorious Nalanda"
founded in 1153, which was one of the main bKa gdams pa cen in the eleventh century, as the scribe and the artist of the book,
thang, perhaps
tres. dPal Nalandargnaspa'i chos smra ba Kun dga'zhes bya bas bris so/. The sec

47
 ond inscription gives the line of illustrious owners, whose thugs dam it 30. See BA pp. 61?67.
was, from Kha che Panchen Shakya Shr? (i 127?1225) right down 31. See Stein 1951, pp. 223-265; Stoddard 1996.
Bu ston Rin po che, and his disciples into the fourteenth cen 32. See BA pp. 61?67; text Deb ther sNgon po, vol. 1, pp.
through original
tury. 89-92. See also Nor brang O rgyan, Bod sil bu'i byung ba brjodpa Shel dkar
11. Either
just before or after his deposition and departure from sTag phreng ba, Lhasa, 1991, p. 273, where a
slightly more elaborate version is

lung, and installation in Ri bo ehe in Kham? given. LESR pp. 63-64 gives an unfortunately garbled version of this
12. As part of the macro/microcosmic structure of the Buddhist brief reference to dGongs pa Rab gsal's artistic activity.
world, in which the human body, m?ndala, st?pa, and cosmos are inter 33. See BA p. 1021, where in India, Tsa mi, showed an
image of the
see Stoddard 1997a. Buddha, said to be made Vishvakarman to Ba ri
penetrating symbols, by (born 1040). 'Brog
13. See Karmay 1975, pp. 29-30. mi (died ca. 1064) was of Mi nyag origin, and was sent to study in India
14. See Pal 1991, pi. 113, bottom in the "Wheel of Lo Gra shes's teacher. He was one of Mar
section, right, by ston, pa sNgon pa's first
Life." teachers, and transmitter of the Lam 'bras teachings to the Sa skya pas,
15. See Macdonald 1962, on different sizes of pata in the Indian tradi see BA pp. 205-210.

tion, and the large Amitayus in the Los Angeles County Museum of Art, 34. There are different lists of these "Ten Men" in almost every
245.1 x 149.8 cm, Pal 1984 pl.7. Tibetan chos (byung, or "History of the Dharma." Sometimes the num
16. See Dargyey 1977, p. 102, and Nyang ral 1988, introduction, 10, ber goes up to thirteen and sometimes it is only six, depending on the
Bal ris kyi thang ka thog tshad ma brgya dang brgyad kyang bzhengs/. Dargyey source. However, most do agree that Klu mes was their chief. Cf. Vitali
says that they were "several stories high," but does not give her source. 1990, p. 62 n. 2, and Richardson 1957, p. 62 for a chronology of the lead
This recalls the huge present day mthong grol appliqu? thangkas. ing figures.
17. See BA pp. 625-626, on the wealth of sTag lung. 35. As noted by Richardson 1957, pp. 58-59, and Watson 1978, p. 273.
18. sTag lung Chos a detailed
'byung, Lhasa 1992. 36. Vitali 1990, pp. 15-18, gives historical account, linking
19. See for example, the Green Tara from the Ford Collection, Pal the foundation of Kva chu with Khotan and the Li lugs style. See also
1984, appendix; J. andj. Huntington 1990, pi. 108. See note 21 below, Demi?ville 1952, pp. 287, 364, on Khri sum rje in
Dunhuang.
on 'Brom ston. 37. See BAp. 63.
20. Nag tsho lotsawa 1970. However doubts have recently been raised 38. Mme. treated this theme during her conferences at the
Spanien
on its early dating. EPHE, Paris, in the early 1970s, concentrating on the Avalokitesvara re
21. This is perhaps due to the present domination of the dGe lugs pas incarnations, which link up, amongst others, two of the most important
(who trace their lineages back to bKa' gdams pa origins). This has led to figures of Tibetan history, Srong btsan sGam po and the Fifth Dalai
doubtful attributions, as for the yogin identified as Lama. See
also Karmay 1988, Ruegg 1989, and Stoddard 1996.
example "Jnanatapa"
Ansa, in a thangka now in the Metropolitan Museum, New York 39. Suggested by Tucci 1949, p. 275, Huntington 1969, and J. and J.
(Friends of Asian Arts Gifts, 1987.144); see Kossak 1990. This rather un 1990, p. 614.
Huntington
likely idenfication is supported by Casey Singer 1994, p. 133. See also 40. Although another series of wall paintings at the back chapels of the
one same in Zha even the two panels
Thurman and Rhee 1991, pi. 95, where of the earliest thangkas is "mgon khang" lu may predate in ques
described, this present art historical as a tion.
again following "ideology,"
"Lama Atisha or an Kadam The Atlsa 41. See Zhongguo bihua
(possibly Early Lama)." chuanji, Zangzhuan siyuan, vol. 3, pis. 1-39
identification iswell nigh since the shows a for the most detailed coverage of Gra thang, in spite of the
impossible, painting balding published
Tibetan monk, wearing distinctive Tibetan robes. Another example is in poor quality of photography.
1994, p. 113, fig. 17a, where a portly Tibetan in monk's 42. Vitali 1990, pp. 53-54, and taken up at the SOAS conference
Casey Singer by
robes is identified as 'Brom ston pa." Again this is quite unlikely Fournier, Henss, Kreiger and Stoddard.
"maybe
since it iswell attested that 'Brom ston was a layman, and when he does 43. See Tucci 1973, p. 177 on the Gra thang-Central Asian connec

appear together with Atlsa in the smaller lineage portraits, he has thick tion.

curly hair and is shown wearing layman's robes. 44. Following Stein 1951.
22. See Tucci 1988 vol. 2 for a detailed history of Rin chen bZang po 45. Henss 1994, pp. 52-53, but see LESR pp. 49-50.
and his time; and Nyang ral p. 467 for an earlier which differs 46. LESR 11 show a style very close indeed to Central
version, pis. 9, 10,
somewhat in detail. Tibetan rGya lugs, or Pala style painting, but from the trilingual inscrip
23. Nyang ral Nyi ma 'Od zer (1124-1192), p. 467. tions, in Tangut, Chinese and Tibetan, it is clear that the work was done
24. In Tibetan: me ro 'bar. in Xixia.
25. Depending on the source this is either Tsong kha in North-East 47. See Zhongguo meishu bihua, vol. 15, pi. 203.
chuanji, Dunhuang
or in Phen name
Amdo, yul, North of Lhasa. His also varies. See 48. See Zhongguo meishu chuanji, Dunhuang bihua, vol. 15, pis.
Richardson 1957; and Watson 1978, for discussion of dating and the role 189-192; Zhongguo bihua chuanji, Zangzhuan siyuan, vol. 1, pis. 3-5,
of dGongs pa Rab gsal, according to BA and Thukvan. 11; and Pelliot 1924, pis. CCCXLVII-CCCLI.
26. BA pp. 63-67. See Stoddard 1995 for a detailed study of the pe 49. The author visited Dunhuang in 1991, and was able to pay a visit
riod between the Buddhist and the "Later Diffusion of to cave 465, but not allowed to take photographs. Ursula Toyka-Fuong
persecution
Buddhism," to newly available sources. of Bonn was allowed to make a detailed icono
according University recently
name they are cave.
27.
rGya BodYig tshang, pp. 401-402. The by which graphie analysis of the
known, bKa' ma log, is literally "no return without imperial order." 50. The capital was discoved by the Chinese at Xingzhou (Yinchuan),
28. See LESR pp. 48-58, historical essay by Prof. Kychanov, "The S-E of Kharakhoto, near the Yellow River; see LESR pp. 48-50.
State of Great Xia (982-1227 a.d.)," which is one of the most accessible 51. LESR pp. 49-50.
and interesting
descriptions of the Tangut Empire yet published in a 52. See Stoddard 1996.
Western See also Beckwith 1987, on Kan chou (i.e. Ganzhou), 53. The two most are in caves 158 and 159. See
language. published examples
the Tanguts etc., and Dunnell 1996. This has just been published and the also 98 for a later (Five Dynasties
cave 907-960) example of the Vima
author has not had access to it yet. lak?rti debate with the "son of heaven" of Khotan (Gantian) and his var
29. Several later sources identify this with the Eastern Tibetan Khams ious dependants as onlookers. It is interesting to note that a correspond
Mi nyag, but it is clear from earlier writings that the region where he ing Tang dynasty scene, with the Chinese emperor present, does not
most of his years in exile was Mi nyag, in the North. Vitali appear to show different ethnic peoples in the entourage; see cave 103.
spent Byang
1990 notes this, p. 54 and n. 107. See also Stoddard 1996. 54. See LESR pp. 43, 44, and the Thousand-armed Avalokitesvara

48
from Dunhuang at the British
Museum, Stein 1951, p. 32, dated by the 82. A on this symbol is included in Stoddard 1997b.
chapter
author to A.D. see Karmay
836; 1975, p. 10. 83. Karmay (Stoddard) 1975, p. 42, where the author identifies the
55. For example caves 58, 158, 159. Tibetan lama as a 'Bri gung monk, because of the dating.
possibly
56. See, for example, the British Musuem banner, Stein 1951, p. 32. However, it is now known that the Tanguts did continue to function af
57. See Zhongguo bihua chuanji, Zangzhuan siyuan, vol. 3, pis. 5, 18, ter the destruction of their empire and that Karma Pakshi
by Jenghis,
19, 37 and 27. built a temple there in 125 5-1256. There is very little doubt that the por
58. The cut of the dress of the bodhisattva figures is not, as Henss 1994 trait is of him, since even to this day in
thangkas, he resembles very
says pp. 50, 52, in "Central Asian design," but in early Tibetan costume this image, with a dark and a goatee beard.
closely complexion
style, with the patterned cloth perhaps reflecting Central Asian textiles. 84. See the important article on him, Jing 1994.
See Karmay 1975, pp. 14-17, and Karmay 1977, for early Tibetan cos 85. See Vitali 1990, pp. 89?122, who first proposed this convincing
tume, ninth?eleventh centuries. theory, in his detailed study of Zha lu.
a book,
59. Lower right panel of the west wall. Left, Ma?jusri with 86. See Pal and Meech 1988 for an overall view of the subject, as a
and right, Maitreya with vase and st?pa in crown. See Casey Singer 1994, background to Tibetan art in this early
period.
p. 108, n. 60, for an elucidation of the origin of this scene. Compare with 87. Sadder Museum, Harvard University, Hofer Collection of the
the painting from Yulinsi, cave 4 (see above, meishu Arts of Asia 26.6 x 69.9 x 2.9 cm. The Tibetan is
fig. 6), Zhongguo (1978.515). inscription
chuanji, Dunhuang bihua, vol. 15, pi. 203. in the centre on the reverse side. See J. andj. Huntington 1990, no. 132,
60. Cf. J. andj. Huntington 1990, pi. 49, Maitreya, ca. twelfth century. ca. first quarter of the thirteenth century.
61. See Vitali 1990, pi. 50 showing the fine early rGya lugs style of the 88. This rDor seng is mentioned in BA pp. 412-413. tsha
rGyal
eleventh century, as well as "Central Asian" and a Tibetan was the elder brother of Kun ldan ras pa (d. 1217), and they
type monks(?) (1118-1195)
princely figure, all side by side. PI. 51 shows another part of the same were uncles of Khro
phu lotsawa (b. 1173) who was one of the chief dis
panel overpainted in the early fourteenth century. of Phag mo gru pa. tsha was of the
ciples rGyal disciple pandit
62. Cf. Zhongguo meishu chuanji, Dunhuang bihua, vol. 15, pis. 25, Vairocanaraksita from Southern India, who was a great and spe
yogin
34, 53, 54, HS, 175. cialist of Mah?mudr?, and amongst many other teachings obtained the
63. Vitali 1990, pp. 53-54, and Henss 1994, p. 52, note that the wall gTum po'i sgrub thabs from him, which is connected with the iconog
in Ye cover.
paintings dmar follow closely the Indian Pala style, in spite of the raphy of the book On rGyal rtsa see also BA pp. 99, 705-711,
inscription, which is not complete; see Tucci 1988, iT IV:2, 8. It must 844-846, 1023. Perhaps Ngawang Jorden had further reasons for the
be the stucco images that are in Li lugs. identification, but these are not mentioned.
64. See Tucci 1949, pp. 563 and 572. 89. BA pp. 436-440 on Ras
chung pa.
65. See Tucci 1973, P- H4 90. See Stoddard 1997a.
66. For
example 'Bro sTag snang Khri Sum rje, mentioned above, 91. Mentioned above for his restoration of the Jokhang.
who one of the foremost
was of the late imperial period, and 92. BA pp. 354-355, 376", 1009.
generals
also a builder and restorer of Buddhist in Dunhuang and in 93. In gTsang, to the North of Myang, where
temples gYe dmar (dBen dmar?)
Central Tibet. is situated.
67. See Vitali 1990, chapter on Shalu Serkhang pp. 89-122, for a de 94. BA pp. 789-791; see supra n. 74.
tailed account of the monastery, the founder and his teacher. 95-^4 pp. 524-525, 529.
68. See Vitali 1990, pp. 91-92. 96. The present author examined the book cover and read the in
69. Nebesky-Wojkowitz 1956, p. 35, a form of dPal ldan Lha mo. scription in the Sackler Museum, November 1994.
70. Cf. infra, n. 71, Chims rDo rje sPre chung, wise minister of Khri 97. See, however, B?guin 1993, pi. 19, Pa?caraks?, thirteenth century,
srong lde btsan, was known as "Little
Monkey." Could this early wall one of the earliest Newar pata, pi. 20; and two other fine fourteenth
painting in Zha lu be a reference to a
personality such as he? Other an century such as Amoghap?s'a and Acala
examples, (private collection),
imal (horse?) headed human figures in similar style are seen in a ca. (published as Candamah?rosana) Newark 81.361, close to the Zha lu
eleventh century wall painting in Grong mkhar, Lhun mdzes rdzong. style.
71. Cf. supra, n. 70. 98. Cf. Ratnasambhava, Los Angeles County Museum of Art; Sadak
72. The main temple is still standing in the upper Yar klungs valley, san Avalokitesvara, British Museum; iooo-armed Avalokitesvara,
with only very faded early Thousand Buddhas around the inner 'khor Museum, New York.
Metropolitan
lam, and fine but late paintings adorning the main chapel. The author 99. The Museum of Asian Art, San Francisco, has three of them.
visited there in 1992. 100. See Vitali 1990, chapter on Zha lu, pis. 71, 72.
73. BA pp. 95-101. Dates of his death differ; with respect to the "nee 101. This author took photos, in 1988, of all paintings in the second
dle operation" see Vitali 1990, pp. 39, 58. storey chapels of the Jo nang sku 'bum, built in 1330 by Dol po ba Shes
74. BA pp. 789-793, in gTsang, near Shambhar, another vihara rab rGyal mtshan, but which were effaced during restoration.
subsequently
founded by Gva's second son Shes rab Seng ge. The 102. E.g. Rossi and Rossi 1993, Abhibhava, and
great-great-grand Vajrav?r?hi
father of this Gva lo was Mi nyag Zhon nu snying po. read and dating established
Buddhakapala m?ndalas, inscriptions by the
75. From Pha Dam pa Sangs rgyas and his disciple, Ma gcig Lab sgron, author.
cf. infra, "The Central Asian Style (Li lugs)"and subsection "Gra thang" 103. See Thurman and Rhee 1991, pi. 69, Cakrasamvara, and a later
for Gra thang and Gra pa sNgon shes. one, pi. 104, Vajrabhairava.
76. The author corrects a statement made in Orientations, 1994, 104. See Thurman and Rhee 1991, pi. 73 dated 1390s; and another of
June
where she wrongly said that they had been destroyed. When the walls the same series, B?guin 1990, pi. 32, see supra n. 8.
were the soot covered were
taken down paintings removed, put on 105. However early Sa skya pa style paintings are rare, so far. See Pal
frames, and put into storage in the Jokhang. 1983, pi. 20, dated by the author to ca. 1500; and Jackson 1986, who has
77. See Zhongguo bihua chuanji, Zangzhuan siyuan bihua, vol. 1, pis. made detailed studies of other Sa skya pa portraits, dating this one to
14-16. mid-fifteenth century.
78. See Stoddard 1994, pp. 70-72, for a point of view contrary to 106. See 1985, pp. 301, 311-314, on their
Snodgrass symbolism.
on the
Vitali 1990, pp. 78-83 dating of these two sections. 107. Tucci 1988 (IT), vol. 3, pp. 2, 5-15.
79. Private collection, see Casey 1994, fig. 24. 108. Nyang ral Nyi ma 'Od zer (1124-1192) See also
Singer pp. 456-459.
80. For full inscription and translation see Stoddard Tucci 1988 (IT), vol. 2; BA, and Nag tsho's At?sha'i mam
1995. thar, which
81. Cf. also supra n. 10, the manuscript from N?landa. correspond best to the genealogy as it appears in
Nyang ral.

49
 109- Mar yul (orMang yul) corresponds roughly to Ladakh. pa Series of Lam 'bras Thangkas," Berliner Studien 2:181?
Indologische
no. See Vitali 1996 for his magnum opus on W Tibet, and many oth 191.
ers, such as Klimberg-Salter, Goepper, Fournier and Neumann, have Jing, A.,1994: "The Portraits of Khubilai Khan and Chabi by Anige (1245?
made studies of individual sites. Furthermore, this author has not been 1306), A Nepalese Artist at the Yuan Court," ArtibusAsiae:40-86.
either to Ladakh, or toWestern Tibet and so is not in a position to give Karmay, H. (Stoddard), 1975: Early Sino-Tibetan Art, Warminster.
a well-considered H. 1977: "Tibetan Costume, Seventh to Eleventh
opinion. Karmay, (Stoddard),
in. See for the Mus?e Guimet MA5112, Centuries," in Essais sur VArt du Tibet, Paris, pp. 64-81.
example Amoghasiddhi,
1988, and Eskanazi 1995, no. 24, the Medicine Buddha, which appears Klimberg-Salter, D, 1982: The Silk Route and The Diamond Path, New
to be a later version of the Gra thang style. York.
112. 1994. Kossak, S. M., 1990: "Lineage and Nascent Monasticism in
Seejing Painting
113. See Little 1993, for a new study of both Arhats and Lokap?las in Medieval Tibet," Archives ofAsian Art XLIIL49-57.
the Tibeto-Chinese tradition. See Pal 1984, pi. 56, the Arhat Kanakavatsa LESR: Lost Empire on the Silk Route. Buddhist Art
from Khara Khoto (X?
in the Los Angeles Museum of Art, Heeramaneck Collection, Xlllth
Country centuries), Milan, 1993.
for what is still the most magnificent example. Little, S., 1993: "The Arhats in China and Tibet," Artibus Asiae LIL255
114. See Vitali 1990, pi. 49, for an individual 318.
representation, dating
to the second half of the fourteenth century. Macdonald, A., 1962: Le M?ndala duMa?jusnmulakalpa, Paris.
perhaps
115. The Sumeru kesi, Metropolitan Museum, New York, which is Nag tsho lotsawa 1970: Jo bo rje dPal IdanMar me mdzadYe shes kyi mam
an fine and early example of Sino-Tibetan or Tibeto thar rgyas pa (Life of Atisa), Sarnath.
exceptionally
Chinese art. 1956: Oracles and Demons
Nebesky-Wojkowitz, of Tibet.
116. See Bod Lama Zhang." This is ral Nyi ma 'Od zer (1124?1192), Chos
kyi thang ka, pi. 62, "Gungthang Nyang (byung Me tog snying po
probably the same lama who held the keys of the Lhasa gTsug lag khang sbrang rtsi'i bcud, Lhasa, 1988.
in the twelfth century, see
pi. 2; he looks very similar in the thangka por Pal, P., 1983: Art of Tibet, Berkeley and Los Angeles.
trait to the kesi. Pal, P., 1984: Tibetan Paintings, Basel.
117. See Bod kyi thang ka, pis. 85, 88, and Orientations, August 1989 Pal, P., 1991: Art of the Himalayas. Treasures from Nepal and Tibet, New
and April 1990. Anne Wardwell of the Cleveland Museum of Art, Valrae York.

Reynolds of the Newark Museum, Jacqueline Simcox of Spinks, Pal, P., and Meech, J., 1988: Buddhist Book Illuminations, Kumar.
Khrishna Ribou of the Association pour l'Etude et la Documentation Pelliot, 1924: Les Grottes de Touen-houang,
P., Paris, tome 6.
des Textiles d'Asie, Paris, amongst others, are research into these Richardson, H. E., 1957: "A Tibetan from rGyal Lha khang:
doing Inscription
important and rare textiles that have come out of Tibet over the last And a Note on Tibetan from A.D. 841 to A.D. 1042,"
Chronology
decade. An important exhibition will take place in Cleveland and New Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society, April: 5 7-78.
York in 1997. Rossi and Rossi,
1993: Tibetan Painted M?ndalas, London.

Ruegg, S.,
1989: Buddha-Nature, Mind and the Problem of Gradualism in a

Comparative Perspective. On the Transmission and Reception of Buddhism in

India and Tibet, SOAS, London.
Bibliography Snodgrass, A., 1985: The Symbolism of the St?pa, New York, Cornell

University.
BA: Blue Annals 'Gos lotsawa nu (1392?1481), translated Stein, R. A., 1951: "Mi nyag and Si-hia," BEFEO XLIV.I 1945-50.
by gZhon dpal
by G. Roerich and Amdo Gedun Chompel, 2nd ed., Delhi 1976. Stoddard, H., 1994: "Restoration in the Lhasa Tsuglakhang and the Fate

(Tibetan original: Deb ther sNgon po, Chengdu 1984, 2 volumes). of Its Early Wall Paintings," Orientations (June) ?69?73
Beckwith, C. I., 1987: The Tibetan Empire in Central Asia, Princeton Stoddard, H., 1995: "rGya lugs, the 'Indian Style,'" communication given
University Press. at the Eighth IATS Conference in Graz, June, to be published in the
G., 1991: Art Esot?rique de VHimalaya. La Donation Lionel Fournier, acts of the conference.
B?guin,
Paris. Stoddard, H., 1996: "The Nine Brothers of theWhite High. Mi nyag and
B?guin, G., 1993: M?ndala. Diagrammes Esot?riques du N?pal et du Tibet au 'King' Pe har revisted," Hommage ? Alexander W. Macdonald, Les
Mus?e Guimet. Paris. Habitants du Toit du Monde: Tibet et Himalaya, Nanterre, Soci?t?
Bod kyi thang ka (Tibetan Thangkas), Lhasa, 1984. d'Ethnographie.
Burawoy, 1978: Peintures duMonast?re de Ngor, Paris. Stoddard, H., 1997a: Lecture at Harvard, November 1994, to be pub

J., 1994: "Painting in Central Tibet, ca. 950 14.00," Artibus lished in Artibus Asiae, Structures in Buddhist M?ndalas.
Casey Singer, "Dynamic
Asiae LIV 1/2 MCMXCIV:87~i36. Apradaksina and Mystic Heat in the Mother Tantra Section of the

Dargyey, E., 1977: Rise of Esoteric Buddhism inTibet, Delhi. Anuttarayogatantras."

Demi?ville, 1952: Le Concile de Lhasa, Paris.
P., Stoddard, H., 1997b: Tibetan Thangkas of the Second Diffusion, Serindia.
Dunnell, R., 1996: The Great State ofWhite and High: Buddhism and State Thurman, R., and M. Rhee, 1991: Wisdom and Compassion, New York.
Formation in 11th c.Xia, University of Hawaii Press. Tucci, G., 1949: Tibetan Painted Scrolls, Rome.
Eskanazi, J., 1995: catalogue of the Inaugural Exhibition, Images of Faith, Tucci, G., 1973: Tibet, Paris, Arch?ologia Mundi.

25th May-23rd June, London. Tucci, G., 1988: Indo Tibetica (IT), in 7 volumes (English trad.), New
Goepper, 1990: "Clues
R., for a Dating of the Three-storied Temple Delhi, Aditya Press.

(Sumtsek) in Alchi, Ladakh," Asiatische Studien XLIV.2:159-169. Vitali, 1990: Early Temples
R., of Central Tibet, Serindia.

rGya Bod Yig tshang: Chinese and Tibetan Annals by dPal 'byor bZang po Vitali, 1996: The Kingdoms
R., ofGuge Purhrang, Dharmasala

(composed in 1434), Chengdu, 1985. Watson, C. E., 1978: "The Second Propagation of Buddhism from
Henss, M., 1994: "A Unique Treasure of Early Tibetan Art: The Eleventh Eastern Tibet according to the 'Short Biography of dGongs pa Rab
ma
Century Wall Paintings of Drathang Gonpa," Orientations (June)?48?53. gsal' by the Third Thukvan bLo bzang Chos (1737?
kyi Nyi
Huntington, J., 1969: Styles and Stylistic Sources of Tibetan Painting, Ph.D. 1802)," in Central Asiatic Journal XXII (3-4):263~285.
dissertation, of California
University at Los Angeles. Zhongguo bihua chuanji 33, Zangzhuan siyuan, vol. 3, Beijing, 1992.
Huntington, J. andj., 1990: The Art of P?la India (8th?12th Centuries) and Zhongguo bihua chuanji, Zangzhuan siyuan bihua, vol. 1, Tianjin, 1989.
Its International Legacy. Leaves of the Bodhi Tree, Seattle. Zhongguo meishu chuanji vol.15, Dunhuang bihua 2, Shanghai, 1988.
Jackson, D, 1986: "A Painting of Sa skya pa Masters from an Old Ngor

50