Collected Precedents of the S.C.A.: Tibetan

Name Precedents: Tibetan

Laurel: Date: (year.month.date) Precedent:

François la Flamme 2003.01 From Pelican: Regarding Registerability of Tibetan Names
This month, a submission again raised the issue of whether Tibetan names should be registerable. Previously, names from Tibet have been ruled unregisterable. The submission considered this month had to be returned for other issues with the name. At this time, we are declining to rule on whether the ban on Tibetan names should or should not be lifted. However, this issue comes up from time to time. Therefore, we are presenting the current status of collected information regarding contact between Tibetan culture and Western Europeans in period, so that members of the College may consider these points and contribute their opinions when this question is raised again.
Previous precedent states:
[returning Vairocana Belnon of Uddiyana] There are several problems with this name... More important, significant interaction between Tibet and pre-seventeenth century Western culture has not been demonstrated. The Encyclop�dia Britannica dates the first visits to Tibet by Western missionaries to the 17th century, and the fact that the 8th century Tibetan kingdom had some contact with the Arab conquerors of Iran still leaves Tibetans at least two removes from Western Europe. (Talan Gwynek, LoAR November 1995, p. 16).

The key point in the precedent cited above is the word significant in the phrase "significant interaction between Tibet and pre-seventeenth century Western culture has not been demonstrated". In order for names from a particular culture to be available for registration, evidence must be presented of significant contact between that culture and Western European culture previous to 1600.
The Middle's September 16, 2002, LoI (under the submission for Gorum Bodpa) puts forth the argument:
The client argues that in the late 16th century, Tibetan monks and lamas frequently traveled to Buddhist shrines in India (according to R.A. Stein, Tibetan Civilization, p. 59). One such shrine close to the Tibetan-Indian border in the village of Sarnath was also close to the Portugese seaport of Hoogly, occupied from 1537-1640 (according to the Oxford Atlas of World History, p. 62 and 118). The client argues that the proximity of these places made interaction possible, even if the actual event is not recorded. To extend the argument further, if it is beyond dispute that the inhabitants of India had period interaction with Europeans (and that should be apparent), it is plausible that peoples residing in the areas frequented by Europeans would have had just as much chance of interaction, whether they were indigenous to the regions or not. In sum, while not asserting that Tibetans (in Tibet) had contact with Europeans in period, it is possible that travelling Tibetans could have.

That a few Tibetans could have had contact with some Portuguese in an area in India is not evidence of significant contact between Tibetan culture and Western Europeans.
Members of the College put forth significant effort re-researching this issue and we would like to thank them for their contributions to this topic. The documented contact between Tibetans and Western Europeans in period found by the College, in addition to that supplied by the submitter, consists of:
a physician from Rome invited to Tibet in the 7th C (R.A. Stein, Tibetan Civilization, p. 61)

a physician from the Byzantine Empire came to Tibet and was court doctor to Srong-btsan-sgam-po. (Ancient Tibet, p. 220). This may be the same person mentioned above.

Additionally, the northern overland route of the Silk Road is shown going around the Taklamalean Desert of Central Asia and through Tibet (Elizabeth Grotenhuis, Along the Silk Road). Because of this route, there may have been some contact between Tibetans and Europeans who travelled on the Silk Road. The level of such contact would need to be discussed by the College to determine whether such contact was significant enough to support registration of Tibetan names.
We would ask members of the College to consider these points, especially in comparison to registerability of other Asian cultures, that they may offer their opinions when this issue is raised again. [Cover Letter to the 01/2003 LoAR]

François la Flamme 2003.01 The submitter requested authenticity for 15th to 16th C Tibet and allowed minor changes. Both elements were documented from R.A. Stein, Tibetan Civilization. The photocopied pages submitted with the submission do not contain the required title/copyright information. Stein (p. 295), under the section "Proper Names: Precise Transliterations" lists "Gorum = sGo-rum". The photocopy of this page does not contain headers or paragraphs describing this list. Therefore, we cannot be certain which of these forms is the "Precise Transliteration" alluded to in the page header (presumably, it is "sGo-rum"). Additionaly, this list provides no indication that any form of Gorum is a period Tibetan name. Stein (p. 27) lists "P�pa (Bod-pa)" as a word meaning 'Tibetan'. Regarding this byname, the LoI stated that "the client says: 'The generic nature of the last name comes from how Gorum would have had to describe himself to the Portugese.'" While such a theory is interesting, this is not documentation that such a construction is reasonable as a Tibetan name.
There are a few cultures that have been ruled to be registerable as an SCA name (which has not yet occurred in regards to Tibetan culture), but for whom there was a low enough level of contact with Western European cultures that these names are only registerable in a name consisting solely of name elements from that culture. Japanese names are in this category. In these cases, the names submitted from these cultures must follow name construction patterns for those cultures in period. In this case, the construction used in the submitted name Gorum Bodpa has not been demonstrated to be a period name construction used in Tibetan names. Lacking such evidence, the submitted name is not registerable regardless of whether Tibetan names are registerable or not.
As this name is not registerable regardless of the status of the registerability of Tibetan names, we are declining to rule on the registerability of Tibetan names at this time. Please see the cover letter for details regarding the issue of the registerability of Tibetan names. [Gorum Bodpa, 01/2003 LoAR, R-Middle]

Elsbeth Anne Roth 2001.04 Tibetan names were ruled unacceptable by Talan Gwynek in November 1995:
More important, significant interaction between Tibet and pre-seventeenth century Western culture has not been demonstrated. The Encyclopædia Britannica dates the first visits to Tibet by Western missionaries to the 17th century, and the fact that the 8th century Tibetan kingdom had some contact with the Arab conquerors of Iran still leaves Tibetans at least two removes from Western Europe.
Also, the documentation for this name consisted of a letter from a professor of Tibetan studies in Sakya Monastery. However, no background information was given for the academic status of the monastery, and the information on the letter was not supported by, for example, photocopies of a dictionary showing the name elements. Thus we would have had problems with the documentation even if Tibetan names were registerable. [Mu-Man Dkon-Mchog Näm, 04/01, R-An Tir]

Da'ud ibn Auda (2nd tenure, 2nd year) 1995.11 [returning Vairocana Belnon of Uddiyana] There are several problems with this name. First, the documentation is insufficient to show that it is formed according to Tibetan practice or even that Vairocana is Tibetan. Uddiyâna (with a dot under each d) was apparently a land `famous for its magicians'; the context doesn't make it clear whether this was a real or merely a legendary place but does show that it was not Tibetan. More important, significant interaction between Tibet and pre-seventeenth century Western culture has not been demonstrated. The Encyclopædia Britannica dates the first visits to Tibet by Western missionaries to the 17^th century, and the fact that the 8^th century Tibetan kingdom had some contact with the Arab conquerors of Iran still leaves Tibetans at least two removes from Western Europe. (Talan Gwynek, LoAR November 1995, p. 16)

Laurel:	Date: (year.month.date)	Precedent:
François la Flamme	2003.01	From Pelican: Regarding Registerability of Tibetan Names This month, a submission again raised the issue of whether Tibetan names should be registerable. Previously, names from Tibet have been ruled unregisterable. The submission considered this month had to be returned for other issues with the name. At this time, we are declining to rule on whether the ban on Tibetan names should or should not be lifted. However, this issue comes up from time to time. Therefore, we are presenting the current status of collected information regarding contact between Tibetan culture and Western Europeans in period, so that members of the College may consider these points and contribute their opinions when this question is raised again. Previous precedent states: [returning Vairocana Belnon of Uddiyana] There are several problems with this name... More important, significant interaction between Tibet and pre-seventeenth century Western culture has not been demonstrated. The Encyclop�dia Britannica dates the first visits to Tibet by Western missionaries to the 17th century, and the fact that the 8th century Tibetan kingdom had some contact with the Arab conquerors of Iran still leaves Tibetans at least two removes from Western Europe. (Talan Gwynek, LoAR November 1995, p. 16). The key point in the precedent cited above is the word significant in the phrase "significant interaction between Tibet and pre-seventeenth century Western culture has not been demonstrated". In order for names from a particular culture to be available for registration, evidence must be presented of significant contact between that culture and Western European culture previous to 1600. The Middle's September 16, 2002, LoI (under the submission for Gorum Bodpa) puts forth the argument: The client argues that in the late 16th century, Tibetan monks and lamas frequently traveled to Buddhist shrines in India (according to R.A. Stein, Tibetan Civilization, p. 59). One such shrine close to the Tibetan-Indian border in the village of Sarnath was also close to the Portugese seaport of Hoogly, occupied from 1537-1640 (according to the Oxford Atlas of World History, p. 62 and 118). The client argues that the proximity of these places made interaction possible, even if the actual event is not recorded. To extend the argument further, if it is beyond dispute that the inhabitants of India had period interaction with Europeans (and that should be apparent), it is plausible that peoples residing in the areas frequented by Europeans would have had just as much chance of interaction, whether they were indigenous to the regions or not. In sum, while not asserting that Tibetans (in Tibet) had contact with Europeans in period, it is possible that travelling Tibetans could have. That a few Tibetans could have had contact with some Portuguese in an area in India is not evidence of significant contact between Tibetan culture and Western Europeans. Members of the College put forth significant effort re-researching this issue and we would like to thank them for their contributions to this topic. The documented contact between Tibetans and Western Europeans in period found by the College, in addition to that supplied by the submitter, consists of: a physician from Rome invited to Tibet in the 7th C (R.A. Stein, Tibetan Civilization, p. 61) a physician from the Byzantine Empire came to Tibet and was court doctor to Srong-btsan-sgam-po. (Ancient Tibet, p. 220). This may be the same person mentioned above. Additionally, the northern overland route of the Silk Road is shown going around the Taklamalean Desert of Central Asia and through Tibet (Elizabeth Grotenhuis, Along the Silk Road). Because of this route, there may have been some contact between Tibetans and Europeans who travelled on the Silk Road. The level of such contact would need to be discussed by the College to determine whether such contact was significant enough to support registration of Tibetan names. We would ask members of the College to consider these points, especially in comparison to registerability of other Asian cultures, that they may offer their opinions when this issue is raised again. [Cover Letter to the 01/2003 LoAR]
François la Flamme	2003.01	The submitter requested authenticity for 15th to 16th C Tibet and allowed minor changes. Both elements were documented from R.A. Stein, Tibetan Civilization. The photocopied pages submitted with the submission do not contain the required title/copyright information. Stein (p. 295), under the section "Proper Names: Precise Transliterations" lists "Gorum = sGo-rum". The photocopy of this page does not contain headers or paragraphs describing this list. Therefore, we cannot be certain which of these forms is the "Precise Transliteration" alluded to in the page header (presumably, it is "sGo-rum"). Additionaly, this list provides no indication that any form of Gorum is a period Tibetan name. Stein (p. 27) lists "P�pa (Bod-pa)" as a word meaning 'Tibetan'. Regarding this byname, the LoI stated that "the client says: 'The generic nature of the last name comes from how Gorum would have had to describe himself to the Portugese.'" While such a theory is interesting, this is not documentation that such a construction is reasonable as a Tibetan name. There are a few cultures that have been ruled to be registerable as an SCA name (which has not yet occurred in regards to Tibetan culture), but for whom there was a low enough level of contact with Western European cultures that these names are only registerable in a name consisting solely of name elements from that culture. Japanese names are in this category. In these cases, the names submitted from these cultures must follow name construction patterns for those cultures in period. In this case, the construction used in the submitted name Gorum Bodpa has not been demonstrated to be a period name construction used in Tibetan names. Lacking such evidence, the submitted name is not registerable regardless of whether Tibetan names are registerable or not. As this name is not registerable regardless of the status of the registerability of Tibetan names, we are declining to rule on the registerability of Tibetan names at this time. Please see the cover letter for details regarding the issue of the registerability of Tibetan names. [Gorum Bodpa, 01/2003 LoAR, R-Middle]
Elsbeth Anne Roth	2001.04	Tibetan names were ruled unacceptable by Talan Gwynek in November 1995: More important, significant interaction between Tibet and pre-seventeenth century Western culture has not been demonstrated. The Encyclopædia Britannica dates the first visits to Tibet by Western missionaries to the 17th century, and the fact that the 8th century Tibetan kingdom had some contact with the Arab conquerors of Iran still leaves Tibetans at least two removes from Western Europe. Also, the documentation for this name consisted of a letter from a professor of Tibetan studies in Sakya Monastery. However, no background information was given for the academic status of the monastery, and the information on the letter was not supported by, for example, photocopies of a dictionary showing the name elements. Thus we would have had problems with the documentation even if Tibetan names were registerable. [Mu-Man Dkon-Mchog Näm, 04/01, R-An Tir]
Da'ud ibn Auda (2nd tenure, 2nd year)	1995.11	[returning Vairocana Belnon of Uddiyana] There are several problems with this name. First, the documentation is insufficient to show that it is formed according to Tibetan practice or even that Vairocana is Tibetan. Uddiyâna (with a dot under each d) was apparently a land `famous for its magicians'; the context doesn't make it clear whether this was a real or merely a legendary place but does show that it was not Tibetan. More important, significant interaction between Tibet and pre-seventeenth century Western culture has not been demonstrated. The Encyclopædia Britannica dates the first visits to Tibet by Western missionaries to the 17^th century, and the fact that the 8^th century Tibetan kingdom had some contact with the Arab conquerors of Iran still leaves Tibetans at least two removes from Western Europe. (Talan Gwynek, LoAR November 1995, p. 16)