The book under review mounts a provocative challenge against previous studies on the imperial period of Tibet. Michael Walter sharply claims that Buddhism had a stronger influence on Tibetan society from the very early stages of the Empire than previous studies supposed. Another thesis of the book is that early Tibet was heavily influenced by Indo-European culture, which Christopher I. Beckwith calls the “Central Eurasian Culture Complex” (see p. 63, n. 63).Footnote ¹ Whether or not readers agree with his argument, it is undeniable that the two theses Walter raises in the book are significantly stimulating and important for Tibetologists. This is evident in the fact that three reviews of the book by young Tibetologists have already appeared, all very soon after the publication of this book.Footnote ²

The book is truly a cross-area and interdisciplinary study of early Tibet. Though “a study of early Tibetan religion” (p. xvii), Walter does not follow the orthodox methods of Buddhist studies. Instead, starting afresh with a clean state, he uses philological methods to reanalyse usages of fundamental religious terms in early Tibet. This is an effective method, and a correct one, especially when dealing with the early period, for in the process of religious reformation which took place from the tenth century, the meanings of many religious terms used in early Tibet were clearly transformed and applied to later Buddhist concepts. Using philological methods, Walter presents new and audacious interpretations of fundamental Tibetan terms such as sku, bla, lha, and the like.

Walter also expands his research to the whole of Eurasia to offer a reinterpretation of early Tibetan culture. Looking at his “Select Bibliography,” readers will quickly notice that the background of Walter's research is far wider in scope than previous studies of Tibet. From the broad perspective of the “Central Eurasian Culture Complex,” he rightly points out that early Tibet had several features in common with the Complex (comitatus, oathings and the cup rite).

This book consists of a prologue, four chapters and two appendices. In his “Prologue on Old Tibetan,” Walter surveys Old Tibetan documents, along with contemporaneous sources consisting of inscriptions and documents unearthed in Central Asia. In Chapter 1, “Religions and Politics in Tibet's Imperial Government, and the Place of Buddhism Therein,” Walter argues that the relation between religion and the court in early Tibet should be considered in comparison with other Central Eurasian empires: Scythians, Turks, and those of early medieval Europe. He raises questions for previous studies which have been sceptical of heavy Buddhist influence in the imperial period. In Chapter 2, “Sku, bla, lha, etc: the Language and Phraseology of Early Tibetan Politics and Religion,” Walter reinterprets several fundamental terms such as sku bla, bla and lha, to which previous studies gave arbitrary translations, and demonstrates that these terms had significant religio-political meanings in the imperial period. In Chapter 3: “Rituals in the Imperium and Later: Continuity in the Rituals of Tibetan Buddhism,” Walter argues that some rituals such as rim gro and sku rim were court rites in the Imperial period, and that these were continued even in later periods, but with many transformations. For example, Walter traces back the term ri (‘mountain’) appearing in oathings in later periods and points out that it actually originates from the old term re ‘emphatic “never”’ in the Imperial period (pp. 178–81). In Chapter 4: “The Intersection of Religion and Politics,” he deals with several other religio-political terms and concepts such as the cult of Avalokiteśvara, gtsug lag, “mountain cult,” Cakravartins, the distinction between btsan po and rgyal po, and nongs ‘to die’. In Appendix 1, he points out that the significance of gold in Tibetan culture can be understood in the context of the Central Eurasian Culture Complex (“The religio-political significance of gold”), and in Appendix 2 suggests that Bon ritual texts, including funeral rites appearing in PT1042, might belong to early Phyi Dar traditions (“A Brief Excursus on Bon”).

Every chapter has several sub-headings, each of which contains new interpretations and interesting ideas. Even the endnotes are so rich in material that a single endnote could be a short, separate article in itself.

However, like others, this book is not immune from errors and inconsistencies. For instance, OTM on p. 7 should be OTC or OTMET, Bu chos on pp. 190 and 238 should be BU CHOS. “Une lecture …” (p. 127) should be UNE LECTURE… . “HELLER.A.1997” (p. 5) appears neither in Abbreviations nor in the select bibliography. “Wenzheng” (p. 219) should be “Wencheng” in the Pinyin system. Although the book is equipped with a “Select bibliography,” an exhaustive bibliography would have been more convenient for readers.

While his bibliography is rich in European language sources, scholarship in China is ignored. For example, Walter says, “PT986 and PT1291 were probably translated from a collection like the well-known Wen xuan” (p. 2), but Ma Mingda has rightly pointed out that PT1291 is the Tibetan rendering of the Chinese historical text Chunqiu Houyu 春秋後語.Footnote ³

For some reason no translations are given for many Tibetan passages, for example in pp. 170, 181, 184, 238 and 249. The lack of English translation is inconvenient for both Tibetologist and non-Tibetologist readers, as Walter's arguments are heavily based on philological approaches.

Conversely, the lack of original Tibetan text also occurs in the interpretation of the term bla (p. 142, n. 37). Denying the general interpretation of this term as ‘soul’ by previous Buddhist studies, Walter suggests that it should be interpreted as ‘government’ (p. 142, n. 37) and affirms that “in Old Tibetan documents it never means ‘soul’ or the like” (p. 153, n. 51). Walter simply tells us that “[u]nderstanding bla as ‘government’ is a definition taken from context.” However, as “government” is only one of several extended meanings as Walter admits (p. 142, n. 37), readers will want to check this context, particularly since the interpretation of bla as “government” strongly relates to his analysis of the other Tibetan terms sku bla and lha.

Walter's attitude to historical sources is inconsistent. On the one hand he rigorously sieves through Old Tibetan texts from Dunhuang to select evidence for the culture of the imperial period in his Prologue, while on the other hand he does not hesitate to use later Tibetan texts such as Sba bzhed [SBA BZHED.1982]Footnote ⁴ for sources on the imperial period (p. 262, n. 6), saying only that “a kernel of truth often lies within later exaggeration.”

Yet, despite the above-mentioned points, this book is valuable and worth referring to not only by Tibetologists but also by those who study early Eurasian culture. Even those who disagree with Walter's analysis will acknowledge that the main question Walter has posed, the relationship between religion and politics in early Tibet, is an important issue requiring further study. This book expands the range of Old Tibetan studies. Those who study early Tibet hereafter must consider Tibetan culture in the context of the Eurasian culture complex.