Contributor(s): David Germano
A feature thesaurus presents a typology of geographical features.These categories of geographic places thus help express the general nature of a given place. Overall, the thesaurus constitutes a hierarchical array of conceptual categories that show the relationship between different types of places.
The THL Place Dictionary can be viewed in THL > Reference > Knowledge Maps. This feature thesaurus is under constant development. For reference purposes, we have here pulled together some of the feature typologies that we have consulted.
political areas
populated places (གྲོང)
We need to attend to a detailed schema of low levels of political power in Tibet to not over-emphasize centralized polities like the Ganden Podrang and the Qing Empire. Some schemas would have the Qing Empire as the main polity of East Asia, with the Ganden Podrang subordinate to it (at some in the 18th c, depending on who you ask), as well as most of eastern Tibet (after 1724, with the fall of Gushri Khan's line from dominating power in eastern Tibet), especially through the tusi institution. The reality is that there is a bewildering complexity of polities, and simplistic typologies cannot cover them. This is especially true if we don't want to subsume every independently-functioning estate under the nearest (potentially hegemonic) power. For instance, Tashilhunpo, which might be considered part of the Ganden Podrang by some, had its own bureaucracy, estates, nobility, and so forth, until at least 1924 (I am not sure when it started). So I have outlined below some of the titles of political leaders, as a way of starting to think about which polities these might fit into. But I cannot say for certain what the lower limits of these polities might be, or what else is missing. I think we need to remain open to the possibility that these will keep changing.
Major Typologies (and examples):
It is unclear where to place the Ganden Podrang in this schema. From 1642 until (when?), it was clearly under Gushri Khan and his Qoshot dynasty. By 1724, it was clearly deferring to a great degree to the Qing amban (see Pholhane's biography). By 1757 or 1792 it was clearly subordinate to the Qing, and we can argue about how subordinate it was after that, but it is debatable that the Qing was totally weak in 19th c. Tibet. In any case, much of eastern Tibet fell under Qing control in the 18th c. so the header for that period needs to change in the polity wiki.
We don't want to make PRC's arguments for them, but the work we are doing here does lend itself to this, if we are trying to decide who was subordinate to whom. The only way to avoid this is to list leaders & sequences of such (list of regents, rgyal rabs, gdan rabs, etc) with some kind of loose references to their relation to other polities in a separate (and time-related markers of such) as we have with the place based materials. In some ways, Central Tibet fits the imperial model, except that it was subordinate, and it is unclear at times whether it was a principality (under Polhane) and other times a religious principality (under the Dalai Lama and various different kinds of regents).
monuments
agrarian fields
parks
pasture lands
nomad places (འབྲོག་པའི་ས།)
biogeographical regions