Te_42 Te_42a


Date: illegible; given on l. 5 as sixth month, 22nd day, Thursday
Lines: 17 lines of text, 8 lines of listed property
Script: ’khyug
Remarks: document damaged, especially at beginning


  1. 2S on skag [±3S?] mkhrims ’zhabs su | bster (phun tshogs) (rdo rje) sogs nas bka’ khrims ’phul don la | sngon pha mes rgyud gsum
  2. S3 |gsum| S1 [±3S?] ±13S mdangs rang ris nas shing lud sogs gang khos khur lam yod pa la | skabs
  3. sp[1] [±2S] sta sta[g] [±5S] 2S po [±4S] ±7S byas ste ’khrugs shi ’byung nas
  4. [a] |mal| la ’khrim ’thugs 4S bcod byas nas mthar lcags ’brug lo ’dzar dpon don ’grub thog rgyal [(ga ga)] rtsar nas | sngon
  5. lam ltar tsho’u rongs phyogs su ’byor [zhin] mda’ sde’i ’bar ’gyugs lam la gnyed tshed med bzhig | da lam zla pa 6 pa’i tshes 22 re gza’ 5 nyin | tshugs rgan khang bstod
  6. (o rgyan) mdang rgan tshe ring (rdo rje) | (rdo rje) tshe ring | bka’ mi sri thar | (nyi ma) (rdo rje) | dbang rgyal | tshe ring sgrag pa | pad ma | g.yu ru | spen pa rdo rje | zla ba [(bkra shis)] | 1S
  7. [dhan] | (kun dga’) rab rtan | srid [thar] dpal ’byor | padma tshe ring | kho phyogs nas khang stod men tog lhan ’dzin {3S} | tshe skyab tshe ring rdo rje | jo mo g.yu ru’i sna
  8. —{1–2S} gsu rnams bcas dgong gi bo mo — — bcob brgyad grtso ba’i | yul mi skya brtsun pho mo gang yod grang rtsi mi {1S} thub pa yongs nas
  9. ngos gi ra pho legs 6 snga sting byas nas song dus | sma bcad thang ’og slebs skabs | legs rims bzhin ’dzin bzung thog bsham gsal ’khod ltar rgyu nor
  10. phrog ’joms {3S} byas | sdo rgyug lag tu ’khur ste brdung bzhur khrag bston skra spi srog sgo ma mchod rtsam zos | ma tshad sham grang
  11. tshang skyi bsad {4S} khrim med lung med mang rig byas pa ngos khyim bdag bud med bu tsha bu mo rnams nas ma thong bzhin ma zod par rang rang gi mi thugs ’bod
  12. brgyab byas nas {1S} yong dus | tshog rnams phrang smad du slebs skabs | {1} sgrags thog nas tshugs spen pa sri thar gtsos mi 4 S- gis
  13. rtabs dho dbril zhing lam ’gags song ’du mi ’gyug pa skag ’byung zhing | ma tshad glo smon ’thang zla pa sam grub dang pad ma tsho shar lo chen dpal
  14. rtsang |tshi| ring {1S} gsum kyang tshugs yul ngar chang {2S} ’thung zhing mnyam por yong ’dug la | dgongs ’khod khrim med spar
  15. {1S} lung me ngo la byas mi phyogs pa la | mi dpon ’zhabs bdrung nas bska khrims yod brten la | sham ’khod rgyu nor khong rang nas ’khyer ba’i
  16. mi phyogs pa la dang | dgong bka’ khrims nas tsi khru ’byor snang yod pa (mkhyen mkhyen) |
  17. gsham gsal

An accusation presented to the legal authority in Kag by several Tepas, represented by Phun tshogs rdo rje. While three Tepa relatives were collecting firewood and dung from Te’s pastures, a dispute flared up with people from Tshug. The case was taken to Don grub thog rgyal, the lord of Dzar, and in the Iron Dragon year he ruled that the Tepas should be permitted, when travelling between their pasture areas, to cross a strip of Tshug’s territory in the floor of the Narshing River near Tshaurong, the location of a salt mine, without being harmed. But more recently, on Thursday the 22nd of the 6th month, an innumerably large group of Tshugpas—men, women, laypeople and monks—incited by a group of eighteen named ringleaders who included the headman O rgyan of the illustrious Khang stod house, attacked a group of Tepas below the pasture area called Macethang. They stole livestock and property and killed a dog—all the losses and their value are itemised in an appended list—and assailed their victims with stones, drawing blood and nearly killing them. Unable to endure the sight of this wide variety (mang rig < mang rigs) of lawless acts a party of Tepas—household heads, daughters, sons, grandchildren—called for support and went to the rescue, but when they reached the lower trail near Tshognam a group of four Tshugpas led by sPen pa srid thar rolled rocks down onto them from the top of the cliffs and prevented them from proceeding. The Tshugpas were assisted by two people from Lo Monthang and one from Tshoshar who had been drinking beer. The lord is requested to secure restitution for the stolen items, listed after the main text with the monetary value of each (including the dog that was killed), and to punish the perpetrators of deeds such as these that ought not to be allowed.

Unfortunately, because of damage to the opening lines, it is impossible to tell whether the clash described in this document is related to the episode described in the two preceding items. The present document is in poor condition and appears to be older. If the year is the same, however, it would be reasonable to conclude that the incident described here was the cause of a revenge attack.