坌达延非吐谷浑小王考辨——以敦煌本《吐蕃大事纪年》为中心

A Textual Research on the View that vBon da rgyal was not the Lord of Tuyuhun——Centered on the Old Tibetan Annals from Dunhuang

“达延”或“坌达延”与附蕃的“吐谷浑王”是否出自同一世系,学术界迄今尚存争论,分别有“吐谷浑王族说”“达布王族说”“澎之达域说”等。文章以敦煌本《吐蕃大事纪年》《吐谷浑(阿柴)纪年》为主要线索,结合两唐书《吐蕃传》《弟吴宗教源流》《贤者喜宴》等汉藏文献重新做了梳理,提出了坌达延非吐谷浑小王的四点证据:第一,达布与吐蕃王族的甥舅关系源远流长,远比吐蕃与吐谷浑结成甥舅关系早了许多;第二,两者的活动轨迹没有交叉且不重复,特别是688、689年两个吐蕃公主分别与达布王族和吐谷浑小王结亲,所生之子成年后又于同一年(706)分别登上政治舞台;第三,在8世纪前20年里,坌达延是《吐蕃大事纪年》中除赞普之外的第一主角,而同一时期同一文献内吐谷浑小王一次未见,角色的重要性判然有别;第四,8世纪初达布王的领地被整合进了吐蕃王朝之后,再不见达延世系的活动,而附蕃的吐谷浑小王一直到10世纪左右尚见于敦煌文献。总之,从两者在文献记载中出现的差异,族源与名号的不同,双方与吐蕃王族联姻的先后,在吐蕃政事中角色的区别,以及小王世系长短不一等因素,可以辨明坌达延非吐谷浑小王。

Whether“Da rgyal”or“vBon da rgyal”comes from the same lineage as the“lord of Tuyuhun”of Tubo is still controversial in academic circles.There are“Tuyuhun Royal Family Theory”,“Dags po Royal Family Theory”and“Theory of Dags yul in vPhan”and so on.The article uses the Old Tibetan Annals and Tuyuhun(vA zha)Annals as the main clues,c ombined with the historical records of Tubo in the Old Book of Tang and the New Book of Tang,lDevu chos vbyung,mKhas pavi dgav ston,and other Chinese and Tibetan texts,puts forward several points of evidence that vBon da rgyal was not a lord of Tuyuhun:firstly,the nephewuncle relationship between Dags po and Tubo has a long history,much earlier than the nephew-uncle relationship between Tuyuhun and Tubo;secondly,the activities of the two were not the same.There was overlap and no duplication,especially in 688 and 689,the two Tubo princesses married the Dags po royal family and the lord of Tuyuhun respectively,and the sons they gave birth to became adults and entered the political arena in the same year(706);thirdly,in the first 20 years of the eighth century,vBon da rgyal was the first protagonist besides the bTsan po in the Old Tibetan Annals.However,in the same period and in the same text,the Tuyuhun lord was not seen once,so the importance of the role was completely different;fourthly,after the territory of Dags po was integrated into Tubo in the early eighth century,the activities of the Dar rgyal lineage were no longer seen.However,the lord of Tuyuhun who attached to Tibet can still be found in Dunhuang manuscripts until around the 10th century.In short,from the differences between the two in documentary records,the differences in family origin and name,the sequence of marriages with the Tubo royal family,the differences in their roles in Tubo political affairs,and the different lengths of the lineage,we can see that vBon da rgyal was not the lord of Tuyuhun.