吐蕃中央職官考疑──《新唐書‧吐蕃傳》誤載論析

Rethinking the Central Political Official System of the Medieval Tibetan Empire: Mistaken Interpretations of the ''Monograph of the Tubo'' of the New History of the Tang

《新唐書‧吐蕃傳》記載，吐蕃的中央官制總號為「尚論掣逋突瞿」，並說明內分九個官職。漢文意義為「九大尚論」。歷來學者專家均以之作為吐蕃的中央官制解釋，並未有任何的質疑。僅有日本佐藤長氏懷疑此記載，應屬吐蕃早期的官制。中國社會科學院民族研究所所編纂的《西藏簡史》，直言此應為吐蕃宰相的稱號，但語焉未詳，其餘均接納《新唐書‧吐蕃傳》的記載，並以之作為根據，加以分析。筆者透過吐蕃原典史料的分析、比對，包括《敦煌古藏文卷子》、吐蕃碑銘及《賢者喜宴》的記載等，發現「九大尚論」指的是吐蕃宰相會議的總稱，屬西元八世紀以後的產物，九位尚論均為「宰相同平章事」，藏文為chab srid kyi blon po chen po bka' la gtogs pa，《新唐書‧吐蕃傳》的記載完全錯誤。本文將舉證，並說明為何錯誤，如何錯誤，並提出正確的解釋。

The ''Monograph of the Tubo'' of the New History of the Tang mentions a Tibetan central political official system named as zhang lon ched po dgu. It is described as a political system with nine officials. Throughout the ages, scholars and historians have considered this to be the explanation for the rise of the Tibetan central political official system and very few doubts have been voiced about its veracity. Only Satō Hisashi has questioned this and stated that it actually might constitute an early official system of the Tubo. The Brief History of Tibet edited by the Institute of Ethnology and Anthropology of the Chinese Academy of Social Science argued that it is the title of the Tibetan prime minister, and provided no further detailed explanation. The vast majority of historians have accepted the records of the ''Monograph of the Tubo'' of the New History of the Tang as a foundation for further analysis. The author has compared the Account of Tibetan Documents from Dunhuang (shog dril yig rigs), Tibetan manuscripts (rdo ring), archival data (khram), Feast of Scholars (mKhas pa'i dga' ston), as well as the Chinese textual records. After extensive comparative study, this paper has found that ''Nine Ministers'' (zhang blon ched po dgu) is the general title for the Cabinet Ministers, which started at the eighth century. All the ''Nine Ministers'' are the members of Cabinet Ministers (chab srid kyi blon po chen po bka' Ia gtogs pa). The records of ''Monograph of the Tubo'' of the New History of the Tang were interpreted in a biased way. In this paper, the author provides reasons for this inaccuracy and rectifies this error by placing the document in its proper historical context.