PRIOR to communist Chinese take-over of Tibet in 1959, body of law, or custom, by which anti-social behavior was controlled among was an amalgam system, compounded of three different kinds of law: canon law, royal law, and of tradition or custom. Tibetan thinking is quite clear as to origins of first two: canon originated in word of Buddha2 and royal came into being by pronouncement of ruler-king or whatever else he was called. There is more uncertainty, however, as to origin of of tradition, but it is described as the pattern manner of Tibetans, and defined as country law or epic law. There are reasonably definite dates for appearance of canon and royal in Tibet. The basic ethic of Buddhism and rules of conduct for monks became known when Buddhism was officially introduced in seventh century, although it was about two centuries before it was firmly established as of Tibetans. This religious code and this system of ethics were known to rulers of that time, so-called of religion of nascent and expanding Tibetan empire, and they exerted a marked influence on formulation of royal law: codified as Thirteen Pronouncements (Tharchin 1956:217-234); traditionally ascribed to Srong bTSan sGam Po King of Religion; and venerated since time of kings as basic of land. There are, however, no dates for origin of the pattern manner of Tibetans or epic law but long prior to time of of religion, or coming of Buddhism, it was system by which anti-social behavior was controlled. As exemplified in violence-charged episodes of epics of land-notably those of Gesar cycle (David-Neel 1931; Stein 1956)-its earliest form was of reprisal. Two aspects, one of concept and one resulting from application, marked this primal of reprisal. It was based on concept that antisocial behavior, in its varied manifestations, consisted of offenses against individuals and families, and not crimes against society as a corporate whole or against any abstract legal code. Whenever it was applied, moreover, it effected reversal of roles of victim and aggressor. In counter reprisal, these basic roles were again reversed and reversal might continue, throughout much action and counter action, until labels of aggressor and victim belonged with equal validity to both parties. Reprisal, characterized by retaliation in kind, took many forms. In homicide it became blood feud with its chain-reaction killings; in cases of theft it resulted in seizure by force of wealth in convenient form as a substitute for restitution, or taking and holding of hostages as a way of exerting pressure to extract full restitution with additional and appropriate tokens of apology; in instances of personal assault it took form of violent action-the matching