3. Probability Analysis

Now, with Fire-Ox or Earth-Ox as Birth year, and 650 CE as the most widely accepted year of death of King Srongtsan, let us conduct a probability analysis through following tables to reach at the most probable year for King Srongtsan's birth. Fire-Ox year around the time could be 557 or 617 CE, the former could lead us to calculate the age of King Srongtsan as 94, and the later 33 years. The Earth-Ox year could be 569 or 629 CE, the former makes the age of death of King Srongtsan to be 82, and the later 21 years of age. So, the three probable years for the analysis are: 557, 569 and 617 CE.

Probable Years for King Srongtsan's Birth with 650 CE as the Year of Death

1. Fire-Ox Year of 557 CE

Options	If Birth Year (X)	If Lived for Y Years (Y)	Concomitant Death Year (Z)	Comments: Relationship of Concomitant Death Year Z to Widely Accepted Death Year 650 CE
1	557	33	590	<650
2	557	82	639	<650
3	557	94	651	=650 / Possible

2. Fire-Ox Year of 569 CE

Options	If Birth Year (X)	If Lived for Y Years (Y)	Concomitant Death Year (Z)	Comments: Relationship of Concomitant Death Year Z to Widely Accepted Death Year 650 CE
1	569	33	602	<650
2	569	82	651	=650 /Possible
3	569	94	663	>650

3. Fire-Ox Year of 617 CE

Options	If Birth Year (X)	If Lived for Y Years (Y)	Concomitant Death Year (Z)	Comments: Relationship of Concomitant Death Year Z to Widely Accepted Death Year 650 CE
1	617	33	650	=650 / Possible
2	617	82	699	>650
3	617	94	711	>650

4. Probable Three Options for King Srongtsan's Birth Year

Options	If Birth Year (X)	If Lived for Years (Y)	Widely Accepted Death Year	Comments: Element and Animal Years of Birth and Death
1	557	94	650	Fire-Ox to Iron-Dog
2	617	33	650	Fire-Ox to Iron-Dog
3	569	82	650	Earth-Ox to Iron-Dog

From the above tables and the deduction made, we come to the conclusion that Fire-Ox to Iron Dog years may mean that King Srongtsan either lived for 94 years or 33 years, which conforms to the popular theory on King Srongtsan's death in terms of the Tibetan calendar comprising of elements and animals, but not on the years King Srongtsan lived as per the early Tibetan scholars.

The Earth-Ox to Iron-Dog years conform both to the early Tibetan scholars' assertion that King Srongtsan lived for 82 years and the popular theory that King Srongtsan died in the Iron-Dog year [650 CE]. This clearly illustrates that the probable time span for King Srongtsan‘s life was 569 -650 CE, i.e. Earth-Ox to Iron-Dog year.

Against this background, let us now dwell on some points to further support the statement that King Srongtsan Gampo, the 33rd King of Tibet, lived for 82 years and the corresponding years were Earth-Ox [569 CE] to Iron-Dog [650 CE]. The following facts point in this direction:

Firstly, the popular theory that asserts that King Srongtsan's lifespan was 617-650 CE has some technical errors. It asserts that he lived for 33 years. However, it is established in early writings that his son Gungsrong Gungtsan was enthroned at 13 years of age. However, he died when he was 18. This compelled King Srongtsan to have retake the throne^[1]. This statement does not fit into the 33-years-lifespan-theory of King Srongtsan's life. Even if we keep minimum one year for King Srongtsan's rule after his son's death, Gungsrong had to be born in 613 CE, and King Srongtsan would have been only 14 years at the time.

This is illustrated in the table below:

617	Srongtsan Born	Fire-ox Year
629	Srongtsan enthronement	Srongtsan was 13
631	Gungsrong Born	Srongtsan was 14
644	Gungsrong enthroned at 13	Srongtsan was 28
649	Gungsrong died at 18	Srongtsan was 32
650	Srongtsan's Death at 33	Iron-dog year

It is evident from the above table that this theory of [617-650] CE as King Srongtsan's life span does not fit with the story of his son Gungsrong getting crowned at the age of 13 and dying at the age of 18, and King Srongtsan again taking over the reign. So, this theory is invalid. On this reasoning, King Srongtsan's birth in 629 CE^[2] and a life span of 22 years would make the things all the more illogical.

Secondly, having shown in the hypothesis of Fire-Ox year of 617 CE as King Srongtsan's birth year, it indicates an technical error of imposing on an 18 year old son and a grandson to a young man of 33, let us see the possible solution to this problem. The year 617 CE could be the year when Srongtsan's son Gungsrong was born, and 629 CE could be the year when he was enthroned and not Srongtsan. The Earth-Dog year of 698 CE^[3], which was taken as Srongtsan's death could be the year Gungsrong died [638 CE Earth-Dog year], and not Srongtsan.

There are several facts which point to this direction. Let us study the following table:

YEAR	EVENTS	YEAR & AGE	COMMENTS
569	Srongtsan Born	Earth-Ox year
617	Gungsrong Born	Srongtsan at 48	Fire-Ox year. But dPa' bo put this at Snake year, 621 when Srongtsan was 53. p-245
629	Gungsrong enthroned	Srongtsan at 60	Earth-Ox year at 13
638	Mangsrong born	Gungsrong at 21	Dog Year [ldeu p-187], 'Bri gung p-259, Deb dmar p-36
638	Gungsrong died	Gungsrong at 21	Popular theory he died at 18.
638	Srongtsan took over at 67	Mangsrong at 1	Earth-Dog year, 638 CE / 698 CE
650	Srongtsan died at 82	Mangsong at 11	Iron-dog /12 years after Mangsrong's birth.
679	Mangsrong died at 42	Earth-Rabbit year	rGya-yig p-16,90. deb-dmar, Tang, ldeu, 'bri-gung

Pawo Tsuglag Trengba [Tib:dPa' bo tsug lag 'phreng ba] had said that in 621 CE, when Srongtsan was 53, Gungsrong was born. Gos Lotsaba said in 618 CE when Chinese Tang's Kautsun died, Srongtsan was 50^[4]. Both of these statements point to 569 CE as the year of Srongtsan's birth.

In other supporting evidence, the fact that ancient and modern scholars both are in agreement on how long Mangsrong had lived, this is 42 years [638 CE-679 CE]. His death in Earth-Rabbit year [679 CE at age 41] takes Gungsrong's birth to 619 CE[638 CE at age 18], this takes Srongtsan's birth to 569 CE[618 CE at age 50], validating the theory that he lived for 82 years. There is no chance that the Fire-Ox year of 617 CE could fit in here as King Srongtsan's birth year. Here, we are also inspired to probe that Gungsrong could have lived for 21 years.

lDe'u chos-'byung says Mangsrong was born in the Dog year, and within a 12-year [Tib:lo skor cig] period, his grand-father died^[5]. This means that the Dog year was Earth-Dog year of 638 CE, and completing a 12-year cycle, grandfather King Srongtsan died in 650 CE. Tsalpa Kunga Dorje [Tib: 'Tsal pa kun ga' rdo rje], in his book Deb ther dmar po [1363 CE] says that King Srongtsan was born in Fire-Female-Ox year [557 or 617 CE], and in the Earth-FemaleBird year, the King along with the two queens [Bal bza' and rGya bza'] dissolved into the Avaloketishvara's statue at the age of 82^[6]. But in the preceding pages, the author has said, King Srongtsan Gampo died in the year of Iron-male-dog^[7]. Earth-bird and Iron-dog has a difference of one year only. As the author had clearly stated that the King lived for 82 years, both the years take us to 568 or 569 CE only. So, it is the Earth-Ox year [ 569 CE] of Gos Lotsaba, which the author was actually referring to. It should be noted that Gos Lotsawa's work was based on Deb ther dmar po.

Now, the early Deb ther dmar po in dPe cha form has Earth-bird as the year when Srongtsan and the two queens dissolved into the Avaloketishvara's statue^[8], but the reprint made in book form by Mi rig dpe skrung khang in 1981 has Earth-mouse year^[9], the difference of forty one (41) years. Sa bya was written as Sa byi, although a minor typo error of vowel, "a" and "i", for the researchers in this line, it is bound to create further confusion.

Thirdly, Shakabpa says that his finding indicates that 28th King Lhathothori was born in 173 CE and that King Srongtsan Gampo's birth is generally taken as 617 CE^[10]. Between the rule of Lhathothori to that of Srongtsan, there were four Kings^[11] : Khrinyan Shungtsan, Dronyan Deru, Tagri Nyanzig and Namri Srongtsan. Lhathothori was believed to have lived for 120 years; therefore, his death was in 293 CE [173+120]. The princes were said to ascend to the throne when they reach 13 years of age. So, from King Srongtsan's ascendency to the throne, some 336 [629-293] years had elapsed between the reign of four Kings, which means the four Kings lived an average of 84 years. Even if we take this average life span as accurate measure, this will not connect King Srongtsan to 617 AD.

Assuming the princes were born when the Kings were in their 30‘s (average), and crowned at 13 years of age, let us see the following table:

Name of the King	Born [Years in AD]	Crowned	Death	Lived
Lhathothori	173	186	293	120
Khrinyen Gungtsan	203	216	284	81
Dronyan Deru	233	246	314	81
Tagri Nyanzig	263	276	344	81
Namri Srongtsan	293	306	374	81
Srongtsan Gampo	323

So, as per the above table, with Lhathothori's life span at 173 CE-293 CE, Srongtsan Gampo's birth should be around 323 CE as per above table. But the assertion here is that Srongtsan Gampo was born in 617 CE. Now, if we try to bring Srongtsan's life 617 CE-650 CE in the above matrix, then the preceding princes should have been born when the Kings were in late 80s [89 years old]. Study the following table:

Name of the Kings	Born [Years in AD]	Crowned	Death	Lived
Lhathothori	173	186	293	120
Khrinyan Gungtsan	262	275	284	87 average
Dronyan Deru	351	364	314	87
Tagri Nyanzig	440	453	344	87
Namri Srongtsan	529	542	629	87
Srongtsan Gampo	617	629	650	33

Princes being born at an average age of 89, when the average age of the four Kings themselves were only 87 is quite a stretch. This is illogical, therefore, the years and chronology between Lhathothori [173 AD] and Srongtsan [617 AD] is not valid.

Fourthly, Nyatri Tsanpo's birth is said to be in 127 BC., with 28th King Lhathothori at 173 CE. This would imply we had twenty seven Kings in three hundred years [127+173]. This gives each King an average of around eleven years, which is also illogical. How can twenty seven Kings from Nyatri to Lhathothori have three hundred years with eleven years each, when four Kings from Lhathothori to Srongtsan had three hundred and twenty four years [617-293] with an average of eighty one years each? So, this year of 127 BC for Nyatri and 173 CE for Lhathothori is not valid. Shakabpa also expressed doubt on the validity of this theory of Nyatri at 127 BC, Lhathothori at 173 CE and Srongtsan at 617 CE–a Tibetan school text book^[12] makes a special comment on this chronological inconsistency.

The logical approach is to see Nyatri Tsanpo and Srongtsan's period beyond 127 BC and 617 CE respectively and Lhathothori later than 173 CE. Bon history takes Nyatri's period to 1137 BC^[13] Jumipham and Zapatrul have put Lhathothori at 374 CE,^[14] and Sachen Kungnyingpo and sTag tsang rzdong put him at 408 CE^[15]. Based on these facts, and with Srongtsan's birth at Earth-Ox year of 569 CE, assuming the average age of the Kings when princes were born at 32, and the princes crowned at 13, the following scenario could be observed:

Lhathothori [408 CE] to Srongtsen Gampo Period

[Assuming that princes were born when the Kings were 32 and Princes crowned at 13 ]

S.No .	Name	Born	Crowned	Reigned	Died	Lived	Remark
28	Lhathothori Nyantsan	408	421	32	527	120
29	Trinyan Sungtsan	440	453	32
30	Drognyan Deru	472	485	32
31	Tagri Nyanzig	504	517	32
32	Namri Srongtsan	536	549	32
33	Srongtsan Gampo	568	581		650	82

The above table looks quite logical bringing Srongtsan's birth to 569 CE. With the death of Srongtsan at 650 CE, the Earth-Ox year of 569 CE would justify his living for 82 years as mentioned in many ancient texts.

Fifthly, it was maintained that during King Srongtsan's reign, a delegation of some sixteen ministers and their sons were sent to India to study Indian scripts, but the mission failed. Many died on the way, and some could not stand the Indian heat and some returned without having learnt anything. Another delegation of sixteen people was sent and Thonmi Sambhota, a 11-yearold intelligent boy, was one of them^[16]. Thonmi Sambhota studied under Pandita Lharigpai Senge [Devavidyasimha] and Sage Libyin for seven years, and he took another three years to work on the Tibetan script. It was said that King Srongtsan Gampo took four years to study and master the language. The two classic scriptural volumes, Manikabum and Kachem Kakholma, running into thousand of words were attributed to his scholarship.

The seven years of study in India, three years of inventing the script and establishing the grammar, and four years of King Srongtsan's study, all approximately add up to over 15 years. We do not have the exact year when Thonmi Sambhota went to India. Some scholars put this at 633 CE^[17], during King Harshavardhana's (also known as Harsha) reign [606-648 CE]^[18] in India.

As King Srongtsan was to have been crowned in 629 CE, the first delegation without Thonmi Sambhota, and the second delegation with Thonmi Sambhota, could have travelled to India within the period 629-648 CE. Although these 15 years can fit in the 20 years of King Srongtsan's reign, it is far-fetched considering the time and energy Srongtsan had to devote for this and other great events at the time.

It is also well known that around the same time, Huen Tsang, a Chinese scholar, was in India for fifteen years from 630-645 CE^[19]. He was respected and greatly welcomed by King Harsha [reign 606-648 CE]. Huen Tsang had written at great length about his visit to India and about King Harsha^[20]. We do not find any mention about Tibetan delegations being in India or meeting the King around the time. This prompts us to reason that Thonmi Sambhota's visit to India happened much before 629 CE, taking King Srongtsan' s era beyond 617 CE.

Footnotes and references:

[1]:

1) 'Gos lo-tsa ba, Blue Annals, p-49. 2) dPa' bo tsug lag, p-245. 3) Shakabpa, p-27. 4) She rig dpar khang, Tibetan Reader VI p-24.

[2]:

Unintentional mistake by 'Gos lo tsa ba in his Deb ther ngon po

[3]:

dPa'-bo tsug-lag, p-259

[4]:

'Gos lo tsa ba, The Blue Annals, George Reorich's Intro, p-xx

[5]:

mKhas pa lDeu, p-187

[6]:

1) 'Tsal pa kun dga' rdo rje, Deb dmar, p-32/33 -TBRC, Namgyal Institute of Tibetology, Sikkim, 1961 2) Mi rig dpe skrun khang, Tibet, 1981, p-35, 36 (page 36 byi should be bya)

[7]:

Deb dmar, 1) TBRC p-18, 2) Mi rig dpe skrun khang, p-18/19

[8]:

Deb dmar, p-33 -TBRC pdf, Namgyal Institute of Tibetology, Sikkim, 1961

[9]:

Deb dmar, p-36, Mi rig dpe skrun khang, Tibet, 1981

[10]:

Shakappa, p-25

[11]:

Tibetan spelling: Khri nyen gzungs btsan, 'Bro gnan lde'u, sTag ri gnyan gzig and gNam ri Srong btsan

[12]:

She-rig las-khungs, Tibetan Reader VI Part II, p-13-14

[13]:

bsTan 'zin Nam dad, 'Bel gtam lung gi snying po, p-189

[14]:

She rig dpar khang, Tibetan Reader VI Part II, p-14

[15]:

Byams pa bsam gtan, Bod kyi lo rgyus lob gnyer, p-6

[16]:

Nyang ral Nyima 'Od zer, p-169-170. 2) Rang sdra, p-65 ff

[17]:

1) 'Dri-gung sKyabs mgon, p-187. 2) Rang-sdra, p-94

[18]:

Upinder Singh, A History of Ancient and Medieval India, p-562/564

[19]:

Samuel Beal, India in China The Gift of Buddha, p-239/331

[20]:

Upinder Singh, A History of Ancient and Medieval India, p-563