Tibetan, Burmese and Chinese Inscriptions from Bodhgayā in the British Museum

Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.

The inscriptions discussed are preserved as facsimiles in the British Museum.

“The inscriptions presented in this article, preserved as facsimiles in the British Museum”

It may state two separate claims as one. The quote only partly states this claim.

A Chinese inscription records a shrine erected north of the Bodhi tree and dates to 1021 CE.

“The date corresponds to 1021 CE”

• cites Beal, 1881Not matched

  Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

It may state two separate claims as one.

A shorter Burmese inscription on a copper-gilt umbrella was excavated west of the temple and is dated 1293-94.

“A second and much shorter Burmese inscription on a copper-gilt umbrella was excavated to the west of the temple.It is dated 1293-94.”

It may state two separate claims as one.

Neither Tibetan inscription appeared in Cunningham's monograph, and neither has been noticed or published elsewhere.

“Neither of these inscriptions was included in Cunningham's monograph and neither has been noticed or published otherwise.”

It may state two separate claims as one.

A mock-up for plate XXXV in the Cunningham papers shows a dedicatory Tibetan inscription recovered at Bodhgayā, a fact not documented elsewhere.

“This mock-up shows that the Tibetan inscription was recovered at Bodhgayā, a fact not documented by other sources.”

Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.

The Chinese and Burmese records discussed belong to the eleventh, twelfth and thirteenth centuries.

“Chinese and Burmese records of the eleventh, twelfth and thirteenth century are also noted”

Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.

Inscription A's text is metrical, with nine syllables per line.

“The text is metrical, with nine syllables in each line.”

Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.

Inscription A is written in three lines and registered in the British Museum as 1897,0528,0.26b.

“This inscription is written in three lines (Figure 1).It is registered in the British Museum under the number 1897,0528,0.26b.”

Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.

The monk's name in the Tibetan inscription is hal pa skyid pa.

“The monk's name in the Tibetan inscription is hal pa skyid pa.”

Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one. The quote only partly states this claim.

The Chinese record's translation was published by Cunningham and has not attracted later attention.

“The translated text of this record, illustrated here in Figure 5, was published by Cunningham, Mahābodhi, pp.72-73.”

• cites Cunningham, MahābodhiNot matched

  Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

It may state two separate claims as one.

Inscription B mentions a group of lay-followers but gives no names.

“Inscription B mentions a group of lay-followers but does not give any names.”

It may state two separate claims as one.

The Burmese inscription records repairs to the Mahābodhi begun in Sakarāj year 657 on Pyatho waxing 10 (=16 December 1295) and completed in Sakarāj year 660 on Tazaungmon waxing 8 (=13 October 1298).

“As Fleet notes, the Burmese inscription records repairs to the Mahābodhi begun in Sakarāj year 657 on Pyatho waxing 10 ( = 16 December 1295) and completed in Sakarāj year 660 on Tazaungmon waxing 8 ( = 13 October 1298).”

• cites Fleet, 1913Not matched

  Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.

Inscription B is written in three lines and registered in the British Museum as 1897,0528,0.35.

“This inscription is written in three lines (Figure 2).It is registered in the British Museum under the number 1897,0528,0.35.”

It may state two separate claims as one.

Although the Tibetan inscriptions' find-spot is unrecorded, they were very likely originally set up near the Bodhi tree.

“it seems very likely that they were originally set up near to the Bodhi tree”

It may state two separate claims as one.

Although the 1033 Chinese tablet was found in the Mahant's residence walls, it was certainly set up in the Mahābodhi precinct like the other Chinese records.

“it was certainly set up in the Mahābodhi precinct like the other Chinese records”

It may state two separate claims as one. The quote only partly states this claim.

The inscriptions show that Tibetans were in India and that their presence was significant enough to justify permanent additions to Bodhgayā's sacred precinct.

“The inscriptions demonstrate that Tibetans were indeed in India”

• AssumptionRests on an assumption: No earlier archaeological evidence for Tibetans at Bodhgayā exists.

The quote only partly states this claim.

The three Chinese records document Chinese monks in India in the second decade of the eleventh century, during Mahīpāla's reign (c.995-1043).

“They document a group of Chinese monks in India during the second decade of the eleventh century”

Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds.

This period was also a time when Buddhist missions travelled from Tibet to India.

“This period was also a time when Buddhist missions travelled from Tibet to India.”

Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.

Inscription B's shape and size suggest it was placed on a paving stone like several medieval votive inscriptions, some still in the Mahābodhi temple floor.

“The shape and size suggest the inscription was put on a paving stone like a number of medieval votive inscriptions, some of them still in the floor of the Mahābodhi temple.”

It may state two separate claims as one.

Inscription A's palaeography is hard to date, but it can be placed between the mid-ninth and early fourteenth century.

“The palaeography is therefore difficult to judge chronologically, but for the reasons noted above it can be placed between the mid-ninth and early fourteenth century.”

It may state two separate claims as one.

Inscription A is metrical, which suggests a post-dynastic chronological horizon.

“Moreover, Inscription A is metrical, suggesting a post-dynastic chronological horizon.”

It may state two separate claims as one.

The Tibetan inscriptions probably date after the Tibetan empire's decline in the mid-ninth century but before the Tughluqs' rise in the fourteenth century.

“So the inscriptions probably date after the decline of the Tibetan empire in the mid-ninth century but before the rise of the Tughluqs in the fourteenth century.”

Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one. The quote only partly states this claim.

Inscription A's script is unusual, with aberrant letter shapes and superfluous letters and vowel marks, consistent with a Tibetan record made in India by someone without knowledge of Tibetan.

“The script looks unusual, indeed just what we might expect of a Tibetan record made in India by somebody with no knowledge of Tibetan.”

It may state two separate claims as one.

Cunningham did not record Inscription A's context, but its layout suggests it was incised on an image pedestal.

“The context of the record is not given by Cunningham but it seems likely from the layout that it was incised on the pedestal of an image.”

It may state two separate claims as one.

Dating the Tibetan inscriptions is difficult because of missing data, made worse by the records appearing to have been engraved in India by people who did not know Tibetan.

“This absence of data makes dating difficult, the problem being exacerbated by the fact that the records, especially Inscription A, appear to have been engraved in India by people who did not know Tibetan.”

Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.

The term Taizong is a posthumous imperial title and gives no evidence about the ruler's identity.

“the term Taizong belongs to the titles bestowed on emperors after their decease and so provides no evidence about the identity of the ruler.”

• cites GilesNot matched

  Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

It may state two separate claims as one.

The six individuals in Inscription B are qualified by the word skrag, which, judging from current Tibetan practices, refers to a constellation and indicates they made a pilgrimage to Bodhgayā to counter an inauspicious period in their lives.

“Judging from practices that are still current among Tibetans, this refers to a constellation and indicates that the six individuals undertook a pilgrimage to Bodhgayā to redress the influence of an inauspicious period in their lives.”

• AssumptionRests on an assumption: Contemporary Tibetan practices involving the term skrag reflect its meaning in the medieval inscription.

It may state two separate claims as one.

The Tibetan inscription seems to have been composed and prepared at Bodhgayā, while the Chinese record looks as if it was carefully copied from a scroll brought from China for that purpose.

“While the Tibetan inscription seems to have been composed and prepared on the spot at Bodhgayā, the Chinese record looks as if it was carefully copied from a scroll carried from China expressly for the purpose.”