In Russian
Contents Huns
Contents Tele
Besenyos, Ogur and Oguz
Alans and Ases
Russian Version needs a translation
Alan Dateline
Avar Dateline
Besenyo Dateline
Bulgar Dateline
Huns Dateline
Karluk Dateline
Khazar Dateline
Kimak Dateline
Kipchak Dateline
Kyrgyz Dateline
Sabir Dateline
Seyanto Dateline
  Tokhars and Türks  
W.B. Henning

(BSOAS, 1938, pp. 545-571 [573-600])
Reprinted in “Acta Iranica”, 1b15; Deuxieme Serie. Hommages et Opera Minora, Vols. V-VI, 2 vols, p.573


W.B. Henning Xiongnu are Huns W.B. Henning Guties
W.B. Henning The name of “Tokharian” language W.B. Henning Akathyri
W.B. Henning Argi and Tokharians  
W.B. Henning Horesmian Language  


This article is a part of citations from the works of W.B. Henning, an outstanding philologist of Iranian languages, with bearings on the history of the Türkic peoples. In his works, W.B. Henning demonstrated a level of objectivity and honesty that remain unsurpassed within the Indo-European field. The article consists of two parts, the first part addresses the ethnic terms “Tokharian”, and the Türkic terms inchu, Yaglakar, alpagut, bugu, bosqot, kurabir, qorbar, Sikari, Tongra (Ttaugara), Charig, Yabutkar, Karatag, Sulmy, Baiyrku, and Chumul found in a Sogdian document, and the second part analyzes the Argi name for Kashgar.

The posting attempts to retain major points while skipping on philological illustrations and details. Chinese hieroglyphic spelling and Arabic script are skipped, with [] indicating placeholders. Page numbers are shown at the beginning of the page NNN (BSOAS 1948) and at the end of the page [NNN] (Reprint). Page breaks in continuous text are indicated by //. Most of diacritics is dropped, to avoid font conflicts. The subheadings in bold blue, bold highlighting, and (Pinyin transcriptions) are added for the posting. Diacritical c is shown as ch, diacritical s is shown as sh, and χ retained as x to denote voiced h.

W.B. Henning
Citation on misnomer “Tokharian”


A precious fragment amongst the treasures in the possession of the Preussische Akademie der Wissensehaften in Berlin contains a Sogdian "List of nations" (nafnamak), the edition of which I am preparing. Two names, howcvei', call for a special study: (1) 'tγw'r'k, denoting a people in the Oxus-region (Amudarya, Cheihun), obviously the inhabitants of Toxaristan (See later W.B. Henning The name of “Tokharian” language, where this early “obviously” is debunked, and demonstrated that the twγry/“Tokharian” in Türkic rendition was the language of Karashar, coded as “I A”, and had nothing to do with the “Tokharian” language of Tokharistan/Bactria), and (2) 'rkcyk, mentioned immediately after Kashγar, Khotan, and Kucha. The list was written about AD 800 in the Turfun region.

1. 'tγw'r'k

During the last years the problem of the "Tokharians" has been studied by S. Levi ("Le 'Tokharien'," JA., 1933, i, pp. 1-30), Pelliot (''Tokharien et Koutcheen," JA., 1934, i, pp. 23-100), H. W. Bailey ("Ttaugara," BSOS., viii, pp. 883-921), again Pelliot ("A propos du 'tokharien'," T"oung Pao, xxxii, pp. 264 sqq.), Haloun ("Zur Uc-tsi-Frage," ZDMG., 91, pp. 243-318), and E. Sieg ("Und dennoch 'Tocharisch'," Sb.P.A.W., 1937, pp. 130-9). Facts mentioned in these articles are, as a rule, not repeated.

The Sogdian form of the "Tokharian " name, 'tγw'r'k, suggests the pronunciation ətxuare (from ətxuarak). This apparently derives from *txuare and permits the assumption of parallel forms such as *təxuar- and *taxuar-. It is possible to take as starting-point *taxuar instead of *txuar as vowel-reduction is well attested for the first syllable of Sogdian words; the entering of a prothetic vowel to ease the newly created double consonant at the beginning of a word is quite common in Sogdian as well as in other Iranian languages; here as in other cases historical spelling often obscures phonetical realities; e.g. OIr. mrγa- " bird " is məγa, mγa, finally əmγa in Sogdian: əmγa, warranted by Choresmian [] amγa, may be written 'mrγ' (cf. Gauthiot, Gramm., i, pp. 40 sqq.).

The pronunciation txuar (təxuar, taxuar) was already attested by Syriac thwrstn, in the Singanfu inscription, i.e. təxuaristan, Furthermore, the group -xu- in the middle of the word is confirmed // by Chinese transcriptions, most of them rendering (according to Pelliot, JA., 1934, p. 49 n.) foreign Tuxuar- or Toxuar- (tuo-xua-la, t'uo-xua-la, etc.); the forms as recorded by Chinese pilgrims, i.e. heard in Toxaristan itself, are of special value. There are only comparatively few transcriptions which suggest *tuxara or *toxara , e.g. []  in the Wei-shu (on the phonetical value of signs such as xuo see Pelliot. T'ouity Pao, xxxii, pp. 264, 283).

I am indebted to Professor Bailey for being enabled to quote the Saka spelling ttahvara which he has recently discovered in a Saka manuscript in Professor Pelliot's collection. (Largely phonetical details omitted; later W.B. Henning The name of “Tokharian” language demonstrated that the ttahvara/“Tokharian” in Türkic rendition was in fact the name for the Turkic tribe, Ttau(m)gara = Tongra, and had nothing to do with the “Tokharian” language of Tokharistan/Bactria)

... the fact that *txuar occurs only many centuries after Τοχαροι. Nevertheless, this difficulty should not be disregarded: the priority of the group t(α)χuar (which, in Greek, should be *ταχωροι or *ταχοαροι) cannot be taken for granted until an old example has been found. Ptolemy mentions ταχοροι with regard to the northern section of the Yaxartes (Syrdarya, Seihun) region, but τοχαροι with reference to Bacteria (see Marquart, Erdnsahr, p. 206 and n. 4); it is tempting though probably unwise to draw the inference that ταχοροι represents *taxuar as the original name of the people whilst τοχαροι is a later form developed under the influence of the Iranian language spoken in Bactria.

A large picture would have definitely helped out with the philological exercises in 1938:

The most likely etymology of the Türkic name Tokhar ~ Tau-ar ~ Mountaineer, Highlander was as generic as the the terms Mountaineer and Highlander are. Like the terms Saka, Scythians, Massagetes, Yuezhi, Yancai, etc., they consisted of a number of separate tribes, each with its own name. Their center of gravity at the dawn of the written history was in the steppes along Syrdarya, but their ranges extended to the pastures of Balkh, Tianshan, Taklamakan, Tarim basin, and reached Ordos. Their Chinese moniker consisted of Yue and zhi = Yue was likely one of their more prominent tribes that gave its name to the rest of the tribes in their confederation, and zhi is Chinese for the “tribe”, semantically equivalent to the Türkic “gur” =  “tribe”, and probably derived from it. That is how Tokhars are first mentioned in the Chinese annals as Yuezhi, neighboring the Ordos Huns. After a defeat from the Huns at about 209 BC, the eastern Tokhars retreated to their ranges from Fergana to Aral, and after a generation or two, after another defeat, evacuated from Fergana at about 170 BC back to the Syrdarya steppes. After another generation or two, a part of them moved south and extended their ranges to Bactria at about 140 BC, together with Subaroi/Subars and Ases. Thus, after 140 BC, the generic name Tokhar becomes an ethnic name Tokhar for the tribes that occupy the central part of the Central Asia. In the Türkic sphere, their name is known as Tuhsi, they are mentioned as members of the Hunnic and later Türkic state, in the foreign languages they are mentioned as Dugers and Ottokars ~ As-Tokhars. With the allophonic spread reflected variously in a number of exonyms originating in different languages and dialects, the phonetical variations should be expected, and be explainable only in limited instances with subjective assumptions.


On the other hand, it must be examined if there is any possibility of the reverse development: *txuar from older *tuxar. Such a // change could have taken place either in the original language of the Tokharians which is completely unknown, or in the indigenous language of Bactria, undoubtedly Iranian, probably adopted by the immigrants, which, however, is equally unknown (cf. Bailey, Ttaugara, pp. 892 sq.). As we have to deal with unknown languages nothing, in fact, can be proved or disproved.

These are the words of a young philologist, who jumps to define the completely unknown indigenous language of Bactria as “undoubtedly Iranian”, presenting us with a chance to see how the Indo-European city-legends are created, and then are cited and recited ad infinitum with a reference to such authority as W.B. Henning. In later years, W.B. Henning had to face and debunk the myths that he himself naively helped to create.

As to the indigenous language of Bactria, we are at liberty to assume a strong affinity with the Sogdian neighboring language. It is a well-known fact that there was a tendency in Sogdian to replace any kind of u-sound (sonant as well as consonant), 1 especially where a Sogdian γ (representing Old Iran. h, x, g, γ) stood near to it. This tendency, however, operates in exactly the same direction as in other Iranian languages though it is much more pronounced:  (Largely phonetical details omitted); hence, in Sogdian we should expect tuxar for older txuar.

There are, however, peculiar spellings like δγwt-, sγwδ-, yγwt-, yγws- representing older δuγt-, suγδ-,  yuxt-, yuxs-, which seem to authorize the assumption of progressive u-metathesis in Sogdian. It is, of course, possible to look upon these spellings as nothing but a rather unusual case of inverse writing, (Largely phonetical details omitted) which the Sogdian // scribe would like to make us believe; on the contrary, only proves that the scribes were apt to write -γw- instead of -- without the slightest regard to phonetical possibilities and realities.

θδğŋγşāáäēə ï öōüūû“” Türkic Prof. Marija Gimbutas

On the other hand, a mistaken spelling such as wc'y#ttik, to be found in carelessly written texts only, is not quite on the same level with $-ywt~ (etc.) attested for all periods of Sogdian writing. This mode of writing is confined to Sogdian writing proper, it is not employed in texts written in, e.g., Manichsean characters (cf. Man.S. Swyt', etc.), a fact which can be explained best by assuming that Sywt-, syM>3-> etc., represent dialectical forms used in that dialect which was chosen as literary language when Sogdiaii writing was established; the development: 8uyd- > &uyud- > Buyud (shifting of accent on anaptyctical vowel) offers no difficulty. Confirmation may be found in cuneiform sugud, suguud (irregularly used) and in Christian Sogd. yw$r- ~ -yuddr < uyddr- (uayddr, see Lentz, ST., ii, p. 584), ywr't-= yaghn. yurat- from uyrdt- (< idyrdl-, sec Beichthuch, p. 84). However, these cases of metathesis, restricted to sonantic u before y followed by a consonant, offer no strict parallel to *tuxar > t^nar.
"Occasionally, progressive metathesis of u before k can be found,1 e.g. Buddh. S. 'fiz'ykwstr (Dhyana 41) = d$w%kmta$f from 'ftyzywk " distressed " = dfizdxu/c,2 Chr. S. bz'xwq = fizaxuk and, through different metathesis, bwz'xq = fiuz&xk (s--e J^entz, ST., ii, p. 580) Closer parallel would be Man. S. ymnkw''tic " devilish '' = sdtiM-ttkud'ttc beside older smn-wk'nc ~ sd-ittanukdnc (intermediary form Buddh. S. 'tBrmnurkw'nch = dsmanukiianc), see Beiclitbuch, p. 78. The closest parallel imaginable exists perhaps in Chin, ^fj fg. pu-x^o, rendering the name of Bu^ara (beside f^ B^ pu-x°, *&uo-ydi, Karlgren 49 + 295 = buxdr), which possibly represents *6i*^i/dr (*puo-xudt, Karlgren 42 + 57; second sign also in p£ ^ H t'u-xuo-lo, *t'ao-xudi-ld, Karlgren 1129 + 57 + 569).
Even though it cannot be decided with any amount of certainty which of the two forms is older: txuHr (-jtxuar, tax'idr, toxuar) or toxdr (tuxdr), there cannot be the least doubt that these two forms only were used as the names of Bactria; of these two forms tx^dr (etc.) alone was employed in Central Asia. It is, therefore, completely out of the question to assume that the famous twyry in Uyγur
1 For the opposite cf. Chr. swq-: Buddh., Man. (')skw-t Chr, pcwq'd'r- beside plsqw'd'r- (see ST., ii, a.v,), Chr. pcwqyr- = pacufeir- < packuir (later > pcuhir- > yaghn. tukir-, see Beichtbuch, p. 69).
* ~y- = " historical spelling."
<>ju \V. IS. HKNNTNG—
colophons of Buddhist texts referred to Tokharistan. In Uyγur which, as a rule, closely follows Sogdian in matters of orthography the name of Baetria would be written *"lyw'ry or *tytv'ry. Moreover, the Sogdian form corresponding to Uyγur twyry is attested in the Sogdian version of the Karahalgasim inscription, in the identical1 spelling twyr'k: it is flatly impossible tiiat tγw'r'k and Iwyfk represented one and the same name.
if, however, Tokharistan is excluded, it is necessary to take up the problem afresh: which country, which nation, which language is meant by twyry 'I It is better to leave aside, for the present, the Uyγur colophons, which have proved to be anything but unambiguous. The most important passage is the Sogdian Karabalgasun inscription, line 19 (ed. 0. Hansen, p. "20); the Uyγur king is said to have annihilated:—
yfn Iwpwitfmj '-$7/3 m'ywny ZY ctfi'r twyfkciiy ZY yrp 'ny ...
'" the powerful Tibetan army completely as well as the Four-Twyry (army) and many other ..."
Near the end of the same line (ID) Qarluq and Tibetans are mentioned. The preceding line (18) deals with the destruction of the Qi'rqi'z, corresponding to xiii, 61-xiv, 38, of the Chinese version (ed. G. Schlegel, MSFO., ix). After the annihilation of the Qi'rqi'z the Chinese inscription describes at length the war against the Qarluq and the Tibetans (corr. to Sogd., 1. 19) which was waged near Pei-t'ing (Chin, xv — Bisbaliq) and Kuca (Chin, xvi); farther on a campaign is mentioned, presumably against the Qarluq, in the course of which the Qayan reaches the Pearl River (= Sirdarya). The comparison of the two versions tends 4x> prove that the country (or nation) ctfi'r iwyfk " Four Twyry " is to be looked for near (or between) Bisbaliq and Kuca.-
1 For th<3 Sogdian ending -k (also written -'w, -'//, -k, -y) was pronounced as -e. * It is my conviction that the site of " Four Twyry " is to be determined solely by comparing both versions of the inscription. The identity of (.lie Qayun, e.g., does not matter much for our purpose: it was, according to Chavannes and Pelliot (Trails Maniche&n, pp. 203, 22; f), At tangridti qut bulin'is alp bilga u'iyiir qityaii (808-821; he set up the inscription), according to Schlegel Tamjridd uliiij bidmis alp qutluy 'nitty bilga qaya/i, (795-805); the Sogdian version supports, I think, Sehlegel'a view. Even the true date of the campaigns carried out, ace. to Schlegel, before the Qayan acceded to the throne, is only of secondary import: the war against the Qirqi'z is identified (by Schlegel, p. 8(3) with their defeat in 758 (hardly credible), whilst the expeditions against Qarluq and Tibetans refer (ace. to Hchlegcl, p. £7) to the great battle near Pei-t'ing in 791; as to the siege of Kuca, cf. Chavannes-PeJliot, Traitc, p. 202, n. 1.
The final ~y of twyry, corresponding to Sogdian -'&, is a Sogdian ending; the real name, therefore, was Iwyr. From twyr, Middle Persian twyryst'n = twyr-istdn is derived, i.e. the country where the Twyr are living, twyryst'n, written in Manichaean script, proves that y in twyry was pronounced as y (i.e. voiced guttural fricative), not as % (in Sogdian characters y and ^ are written with the same sign). It occurs in a Manichsean hyinn (Miiller, Handschri/tenreste, i, p. 351) which praises:—
. m . mry wh[m]n xwrxsyd hmwc'g ['y] hwr's'n p'ygw[s]. . n . rimgyn s'r'[r] ['y] ch'r twyryst'[n].
" Mar Wahman-^war^seS, ' Teacher ' of the archbishopric ' East',
Famous (religious) head of Four-Twyr-country." It has been shown elsewhere that hwarasdn pdygos is the official designation of the easternmost Manichaean archbishopric, comprising all Manichsean communities east of the Pamirs (Beichtbuch, p. 10); the archbishop's (" teacher's ") see was Kao-c'ang (Qoco), during the reign of the northern Uygurs, probably even before that time (see ZDMG., 90, pp. 14 sqq.). It is noteworthy that in the above passage besides the usual designation hamozdy i hwarasdn pdygos the archbishop (or, perhaps better, patriarch) is given the additional title " Head of Four-Twyr-country ". One might conclude that " Four-Twyr-country " was the original name of the patriarchate before the conversion of the Uyγurs which led to the acceptance of a more ambitious title, " head of the patriarchate ' East' "; later on, of course, the older and more modest title was dropped. Tlie older name of the patriarchate was probably taken, from the name of the country where the hierarch was residing: consequently, Qoco was a town in the " Four-Twyr-country ".
In Turkish texts, apart from Buddhist colophons, twyry occurs once only, namely in the colophon of a Manicheeau book, published by von Le Coq, Turk. Man., \, p. 27. The passage is badly mutilated, as can be seen from the photograph (plate iii, top of left-hand side). The word standing immediately before twyry (end of line 3) has been read by von Le Coq: \t]oi-n (? ?); instead of this not quite satisfactory reading I should like to propose: t&rt, i.e. twyrt (r drawled to fill the line, t at its end; minute traces of initial t are still perceivable). The text runs as follows:—
(3) mr wyinnyy'ryzd twyrt
(4) twyry $qy 'wlwy mwz'k
" Mar "Wahman-hayar-yazd, the great patriarch (archbishop, teacher) residing in Four-Twyry."
The country where the book was written to which the colophon is attached was, therefore, part of the Manichsean patriarchate " Four-Twyr-country ". This country is determined by the following names: Aryu (district between IsbTgab and Balasayun, KasyarT, i, 31; between Taraz and Balasayun, KasyarT, i, 114), Tolas (Taraz, Aulie-ata), Yk'nknt ( = o^-XJLX-s i.e. ^-X->Lx_j_ between Taraz and Mirki, Hudud al-'Alam, transl. Minorsky, p. 119 [§"25, 93J; £^-> L£J in Isbwjab, Maqdisi, ed. de Goeje, p. 48, 1. H; 263, 1. 2; 274, 1. 9), Qasu (unknown), Ciyil-baliq (the second Cigil, a town near Taraz, mentioned by Kasyarf, i? 330, and by MaqdisT, p. 48, 1. 15, etc.; see Minorsky, Hudud, pp. 298 sq.), and Ordukdnt (probably = Ordu, Kdsyan, i, 112, a qasabah^near Balasayun; usually Ordukant is = KaSyar; it cannot possibly be intended here, though there were villages called Cigil also in the neighbourhood of Kasyar, see Kasyari, i, 330). The two last names are joined (Ordu-Ciyil-kant) in the title of the king in whose honour the book was written. His name, Cigil arslan il tirgiig alp buryucan alp tarqan bag, has been compared, by von Le Coq (p. 44), with Arslan Tarqan, name of a king of Faryana, who in 739, 745, 751 sent embassies to the Chinese Court (Chavannes, Doc., pp. 147, 149, 295). This identification, however, can hardly be accepted; for Arslan Tarqan was a powerful king of Faryana, whilst the king mentioned in the colophon was ruling over a comparatively small district round aboui Talas and Balasayun, over Aryu. Otherwise, the more modest title given to the patriarch suggests that the book was written before the conversion of the Uyγurs (762), i.e. about the time of Arslan Tarqan's reign. Howsoever that be, the main point is that the Manichsean communities of Aryu formed part of the patriarchate the head of which was residing in far-away " Four-Twyry ". I should like to add that there is no ground whatever for the usual assertion that Mar Wahman-hayar-yazd was " teacher " of Tokharistan, which is based solely upon the fact that, in 719, Tes, king of Cayaniyan and Tokharistan, sent a Manichaaan "teacher" as ambassador to the Chinese emperor (cf. Chavannes-Pelliot, Traite, pp. 220 sq.). On the other hand, it is admissible to state that Wahman-hayar-yazd was a predecessor or a successor ta the mu-sa mentioned in the Chinese Karabalgasun inscription (x, 62-3); he may have been even the same holder of office,
The only occurrence of the name " Twyr " which has not yet been mentioned in the course of the present article seems to be Saka ttaugara: its main value, I think, lies in that it has provoked Professor Bailey's ingenious contribution. It occurs in the Saka part of the Stael Holstein scroll, published along with the Tibetan document by Professor F. W. Thomas and Professor Sten Konow (Two medieval documents from Tun-huang, Oslo, 1929), in a list of names (27-31) that follows another list containing place-names (10-26). In the course of the last years, it has become increasingly clear * that this list of place-names, undoubtedly one of the most valuable documents for the history of Central Asia, enumerates at first places between (about) Khotan and Liang-tsou 2 and then the towns of Si-tsou,3 from Q.omul in the east to Urunici and Camilbali'q in the west. Several names mentioned separately at the end of the list are possibly to be placed to the south of Tun-^uang.4
The second list, however, in which ttaugara stands, contains names of nations. Professor Bailey, comparing a document from Sa-tsou which offers similar names in an enumeration of the tribes that constituted the population of Kan-tsou, drew the inference that the nations mentioned in the Stael Holsteiii scroll were to be looked for also in Kansu. On the other hand, the names which are common to both lists are comparatively few, namely (1) Tolls (tullsi <—- Uudlsa, 5), (2) Turk Bayirqu,6 (3) imju, ijuva, imjuva. The alternative possibility that the list of nations refers to the territory described before cannot, perhaps, be discarded. As there was no need for the envoys of the Khotanese king to describe the population of the Khotan region the list probably relates to the inhabitants of Kan-su (with Sa-tsou) and Si-tsou.
The list of nations is divided into two sections, the first of which (27-8) ends with tti tullsi stare " these are Tolis ". The summarization of the second section (29 sqq.) to be found in the words tti ttari
1 Besides the edition, cf. Clauson, JJtAX,, 1031, pp. 207-809; F. W. BSOS., viii, pp. 793 sq., ZDMG., 91, pp. J3-15, 47 sq.; Minorsky, Hudud pp. 271 sq., 292.
2 Gakimamni (14), between Kua-tsou and Wu-tsou, is probably ^ P (* lujiMol-mutn, Karlgrtm 1318 -f- 609).
3 Secu (17, 20), see Bailey and Minorsky, B8OH., viii, p. 120.
* Anittumga may be the same name as later Handling (s. Hretsohneider, lies., ii, pp. 218 sq.).
6 Cf. twlys ~ Tolls, in Manichtcan script (as part of a name, Mabrnamag H See Minorsky, BSOS., viii, p. 918.
Thomas, al-'Alam,
Medieval , line (17).
ttrusahula is less clear. Professor Bailey, with whom I had the pleasure of discussing the passage, believes that du is to be read instead of ttru; he further suggests taking ttaridusa- for one word and comparing Tardus, the well-known name of a federation of Turkish tribes, written ttardasa in unpublished Saka documents. In that case I should like to propose to take -hula for an irregular spelling of classical Saka kvata, and to translate "these are called Tardus". Three further names constitute the end of the list.
The two federations, Tolis and Tardus, were, according to V. Thomson (Inscriptions, pp. 146 s.), the main constituents of the Eastern Turks.1 It is the natural course, therefore, to pay attention to the names of Eastern Turkish tribes in attempting to identify the names offered by the Saka list. The Chinese lists of fifteen. Tolis tribes and of nine proper Uyγur tribes, will prove helpful (enumerated by Chavannes, Doc., pp. 87 sq., 94; by Schlegel, Karabalgasun, pp. 1, 8 sq,; Schlegel has earned the gratitude of non-Sinologists by indicating the contemporary Chinese pronunciation which alone, even though sometimes not quite correct, renders identifications possible). The various names of the Saka list are to be examined separately:—-
(1) Both sections begin with the same word, or with two similar words, namely (a) ijuva, probably misspelt for imjuva, and (b) imju. Professor Minorsky compares Turk, incii " appanage " (BSOS., viii, p. 918) or inju " the tribe belonging to the chief's household " (ffudud, p. 292). It is indeed very likely that the word is a term for a tribal division if it is not the name of a tribe. It occurs in the Uyγur fragment published by Haneda (Mem. Res. Dep. Toyo Bunko, Nr. 6, pp. 1-21), A 10 sq.: incu urungu sangun apa cur oo incii ... As the names of the Uyγur Manichaeans enumerated in the fragment are usually preceded by an indication of their origin, either a geographical term (e.g. k'dsanliy) or the name of a tribe (e.g. k'nc'k, see Bailey, Ttauf/ara, p. 913, n. 1), it is probable that incii has a similar meaning; Haneda's interpretation2 of the word as "pearl" (p. 7) is hardly admissible: in Uyγur " pearl " is yineii, not 'yncw.—Qf. also lei iinjuva, surely the name of a tribe, in the Satsou document published
1 It is not felt necessary to enter into a discussion of the iSie-ien-to (supposedly Sir Tardus) here.
2 In the same fragment, B 2, nyws'kl'[r] " auditores " is to be read instead of the mysterious H'^iwikla[r]; the cigsi Myr "y&y (Mif-tiyaBe] is a Sogdian (" Sunday-wish ").

by Bailey, Ttaugara, p. 883, mentioned along with Tolis, Turk Bayirqu, and hdltibara.1
(2) yah:idakari, i,e. yaylaqar, is ^ |§ ^ itt't.i~lo-ko, *iak-ld-Mt (Karlgren 568 -j- 569 + 73), clan of the Uyγur kings. Professor Bailey has kindly drawn my attention to Yaγlaqar qart ata, an Uyγur chief, whose epitaph has been published by llamstedt ('' Zwei uigurische runeninschriften," JSFO., xxx, 3, p. 4); furthermore, he told me that Professor Miuorsky had cominuuicated to him his discovery of the same name in the Mahrnamag, line 62: yy^x? ( — yaylaqar) 'inal.
(3) adapahutti, i.e. alpayut " the men bound to pay a tribute or .to take service" (Minorsky, Hmlud, p. 292); cf. Uyγur alpayut as
title (Muller, Pfahlinsckri/ten, p. 23, line 14), Orkhon inscr. alpayu, etc. (Thomsen, p. 163).
(4) bdku, i.e. *boqu or bttqu, and (5) baslkalti, i.e. *bosqot, busqut, are unknown to me. Besides the name of the famous Uyγur Qayan Bogii (Buyuy), *buqu recalls |^ ^ pu-ku, a Tolid tribe (*b'uok-ku3t, Karlgren 760+427: i-plural?). There is some likeness between bdsikdUi and fg Uffc ,g, f£ wo-ko-si-ki ^muk-kd-sidk-ki'Jt, Karlgren 686 + 413 + 780 + 332, might be *boqs$qU), an Uyγur tribe; it would be necessary to assume a mistake in the Chinese rendering.
(6) kumbwi 2 (different from karibari), i.e. *kurabir, *kurabor, is exactly (J=L j£ >S$ ku-lo-po (*kiu-ld-b'u2t, Karlgren 488 + 569 + 748), an Uyγur tribe, mentioned in the Kiu-T'ang-su along with a long list of Tolis tribes. Ku-lo-po also occurs as the name of an Qyyur chief (ace. to Chavannes, chief of the tribe Ku-lo-po) who plays an important role in the internal Uyγur quarrels in 648, v. Chavannes, Doc., pp. 91 sq., 338. I have not been able to find any other mention of the Ku-lo-po; I should like, however, to propose that Kii-lo-po is to be regarded as the same name as P[iJ H ^j or [ijg; , i.e. the third Uyγur tribe. The Chinese signs (tu-lo-u) indicate *tu3t-ld~miudt and *~xudt-ld-miu&t (missing 3 -f 569 -f 1278); -ld-miudt is an exact rendering of -rablri; #/ miudt = Saka biri is to be found elsewhere; cf. also ^
1 Ace. to Minorsky, BSOS., viii, 918, |q]" Pg xo-tie (*xd-d'iet), a Tolis tribe. The Chinese rendering would be unusually imperfect; other transcriptions, e.g. [JpJ jj^
o-tie (*-d-d'iet, Karlgren 414 + 880) cf.
o-pa (* -d-b'uut and -d-(
I -WT. * - | itn * .
750) indicate a vowel as initial; ace. to Chavannes, DOG., p. 88 n., = Adiz.
2 karabiri (BSOS., viii, p. 884) is a misprint; so also is inijuva.
3 Dr. W. Simon kindly communicated to me T'ang values (in keeping with Karlgren's system) for the characters in question, missing in the Analytical Dictionary.
W. B. HJSNtflNG—
*miet («**', Karlgren 617) transcribed by bin (F. W. Thomas, ZDMG., 91, p. 33). The difficulty, therefore, lies with the first sign: P$ *tuat and pJ3t *%U3t side by side suggest a mistake. The original spelling may have been JJ3j *k'iudt (k'u, Karlgren 493); hence, *kciudt-ld-
and kiu-'lu-b'udt = Saka kurabiri.
(7) karibari, i.e. *qorbaf, *qurbar, probably the Tolis tribe ^g; & 3£ K'i-pi, *kidl-piet (Karlgren 334 -f 717) and kidt-b'iet* It is true that there is also a trisyllabic spelling, %% (u, *jju, 1320), further, that for the first sign the alternative pronunciation *k(iei is admissible 2; consideration of these points may account for Schlegel's *Kibyi. The vowels do not disagree with the proposed equation; kidt-piet appears to be a correct rendering of *qorbar if, e.g., ^ *wiet is considered wlu'ch corresponds to inn as well as to mola (inuda), see farther on.
(8) sikari, preceded by imju, is the first name of the second section. There can be no doubt about the identity of sikari with ^ $j si-kie, *si-kiet (813 + 325), a Tolis tribe; for the first sign, si, cf. F. W. Thomas, ZDMG., 91, p. 38. As far as I know, it is not mentioned elsewhere that the Si-kie were the royal clan of the Tardus 3; this inference is to be drawn from our text if imju is indeed the same word as i[m]juva and if the meaning " royal clan ", as proposed by Professor Minorsky, is to be admitted; it suits very well in connection with Yaγlaqar who were the '"' royal clan " of the Uyγurs, therefore of the Tolis too. Its does not matter in the least that the Si-kie (and other tribes mentioned in our list as Tardus) are called Tolis elsewhere as the composition of the great federations was subject to constant changes.
(9) Uaugara is followed by (10) ayabmf written ayamri in unpublished Saka documents, according to Professor Bailey. This is, I think, the last of the nine Uyγur tribes, ^ !flj fy hi-ie-u, *yiei-ia-miudt (126 -f 791 -f- 1278), i.e. *eyabor or ei/afiir (Schlegel: Eyamur); £rj = inn has been found in kurabiri (see above); ~ya- in Brahmi
1 Here again, I owe the T'ang pronunciation of the last sign (not in Karlgren's book) to the kindness of Dr. Simon.
2 I am not aware if there is any means of deciding which pronunciation is the correct one in a given case; if i'l'ei should prove correct one might think of qyftyr in the Fragment Haneda (in that case, of course, the above explanation of kdribari had to be abandoned). "*
3 No connection can be traced between the Si-kie and the (Sie-)ien-to, apart from the fact that the Si-kie " occupaient 1'ancien campement des Yen-t'o (Tardouch) ", Chavannes, Doc., p. 88 n.; the name of toe royal clan of the (Sie-)yen-to was •—- ^i] PJ i-U-tie (t^et-lji-d'iet, *Elitir], Chavannes, Doc., p. 94.
script = " Ancient Chinese " ia is attested, e.g. for Jfo (223) and 31$ (226), see F. W. Thomas, ZDMG., 91, p. 41. It is perhaps to be considered if this explanation is to be preferred to Professor Thomas's combination with Emit, Emin (ibid., p. 48), written in Chinese P(§ H ien-mie (*'ien-wiet, 273 + 622) and
5 ^en-mlen (*m'ien-'tman, 624), i.e. exactly Emit, Emin L (also tribal name, Chavannes, Doc., p. 123 n.).
(11) caraik.i, i.e. *cany, *6arix> perhaps even *car'iq (on h and h: see Bailey, BSOS., ix, pp. 297 sqq., esp. p. 300 n.). This tribe, uS^-r" = Car'iq, Caruq, is to be found later on in Barcuq (Maralbasi), as stated by Kasyari (i, 318) who, furthermore, indicates that at his time (second half of eleventh century) the <J,^f" were living between Yayma (in Kasyar) and Cuinul (near Manass), i, 28.2
(12) yabuttilcari, i.e. *ydbuiqar or *yabiitkdr, probably the eighth Uyγur tribe, ijjjg ^j ^ lau-u-ko, *iak-miudt-kdt (568 + 1278 + 73), Schlegel's Yamukar. The first and the third sign are employed also for yay-la-qar; it is, however, rather strange to find the same character used in rendering both ya and yay; no doubt need be felt about ^j as equivalent of butti (but) as well as bin (bor).
(13) anak.idi'pabkiitti is a puzzle (-bh- is also unusual). Possibly two words: ana " other " yilpabut ? Another (equally unsatisfactory) explanation has been proposed above, p. 557, n. 1.
(14) karattakapata, Professor Bailey explains karattaha as Turkish Qara-tay. This is surely right 3 and could be supported by ylpikim-nittah'.i (in the Sa-tsou document, Bailey, Ttaugara, p. 883) which can be explained only as Turk, yipkin tay " brown (violet) mountains ". -paia (Bailey, Ttaugara, p. 884 n. 3: = pati " lord ") is rather curious here; one might expect a post-position " in " ( = classical Saka paid11.).
(15) saditmya, struck out in the manuscript, follows upon tti ttaridusa kuta. Professor Bailey has recognized Sulmi (Solmi), cf.
1 The combination of ayablri and emil would require the presupposition of (erroneous) re-transcription from Chinese (confusion of m and b); the mysterious ailuhiuJipabkuMi may have to be explained in that way; this could be re-transcribed from Chinese, say, *-^J- ^ j£ •fyj *1dti-iak-li3p-mj,-it3tl representing Turkish *anyaylibu,t or the like. A Chinese intermediate form alone explains Saka hvaifiiura = uiyur, containing hvai = [D] yudi (xuei), s. Bailey, Ttaugara, p. 883, n. 2.
2 I disregard the iyraq, u-yraq, living between Yayma and Cariq.
3 The alternative explanation as name of a nation, suggesting *qara-taypat with the name of the Wei (t(o-po, *t'dk-b'udt, 1159 -f- 750; cf. t'-u-fa, *t'uk-piu>ot, 1131 -f 750, s. Haloun, ZUMG., 91, p. 275), is certainly to be rejected.
Haiieda's above-mentioned article, pp. 10 sqq.; Pelliot, T'oung Pao) 1931, 493 sq.; JA., 1934, i, p. 58; Minorsky, Hudud, p. 272. It occurs in a. Sogdian letter published by Reichelt, Soghdische JHandschriftenreste, ii, p. 61, line 3, where swrin'y ywfiw "king of Sohni" should be read (instead of sw'mny).1 It does not appear to be known which country is meant by Sulmi: it is somewhere " near " Bisbali'q (in Mongol time), it is one of the five important places in the Uyγur
country (Kasyarl), situated much nearer to Qoco than to Bisbaliq (Kasyari's map); it was not always dependent upon the Uyγurs (suhm yivfiw side by side with " the Uyγur king " in the Sogdian letter);  called Uc-Sulrm "three Sulnn ", it is mentioned on the same level with Kuca (tort kiisan) as a country of importance for the propagation of Buddhism. It is tempting to think of Qara-sahr.
(16) Tlirk Bayirqu is followed by (17) cunuda, the last name on the list; the employment of n suggests a mistake on the side of the scribe: probably cumuda was intended. This is obviously a later form of cimola in the Niya documents, written cimudct and, as Professor Bailey has told me, cumuda in unpublished Saka documents. The identity of this people with Kasyari's Cumul (cf. Minorsky, Hudud, p. 275) has been stated by Bailey, Ttaugara, p. 917, n. 1. They were known to the Chinese as ^ ^ or ^ ts'u-mi, *t's''iwo-miet (1256 -f 617), living in exactly the same region as the Cumul were according to Kasyarl, i.e. near Manass (cf. Chavannes, Doc., register s.v. Tch'ou-mi); the Chinese transcription points to cvmul rather than cumul.z On 3^ wiet see above, pp. 555 sq.
Accordingly, the Saka list of nations may be translated: " The royal clan Yaγlaqar, the fief tribes *Buqu, *Busqut, Kiirabdr, Qorbar: these are Tolis. The royal clan Sikar (the fief tribes) Itauyava, Eyabo'r, Cany, Yabtitkar, (and) *other *yilpabut in the Black Mountains: these are called Tardus. [In (?) Sulmi] the Tiirk Bayi'rqu and the Cumul."
If the main points of the interpretation as proposed here are admitted it seems necessary to reconsider the import of ttaugara, mentioned as they are in a long list of purely Turkish tribes, perhaps actually designated as a Tardus tribe; a reference to the "Tokharians "
1 The tm'ryws -ysy& (line 5, verso line I) is noteworthy. tm'rywSis to be looked for in Faryana as is proved by the title y^eS; hence, tm'ryw^, tamarxus = yamu^ui near Isfara (Barthold, Turkestan, p. 160).
a 1'rofes.sor Bailey kindly told me that the equation te'tt-mt = cumul has been found before by Pelliot, T'oumj Puo, xxxia, p. 363.
or dayovpoi or " Little Ue-tsi " appears to be impossible. If, therefore, the ttaugara are a Turkish tribe, as seems practically certain, only an Anusvdra need be added to the first aksara to obtain *ttaumgara = totigra, the name of a Tolis tribe, recorded in the Orkhon inscriptions (Thomson, p. 163); they were known to the Chinese as [p] Jf t'uiig-lo (*d'ung-ld, 1150 -f 569).1
ttaugara being eliminated, the only genuine mentions of the Twyr-country are one Sogdiau, one Uyγur, and one Middle-Persian
passage. It is noteworthy that the name occurs only in connection with " Four ", as " Four Twyr ". Nevertheless, it can be regarded as certain that the " language of twyry ", twyry till, is the language of the country " Four Twyr(y) ". In his latest contribution, Professor Sieg has maintained, rightly I think, that twyry tili refers to the language IA, which was the language of Qarasahr, as established by Bailey, or of Qarasahr and Turfan, as suggested by S. Levi (JA., 1933, i, p. 29). As has been proposed above, " Four Twyr(y) " relates to the territory between Bisbaliq and Kuca, or a part of it: the
1 The Oyuz tribe jTy tnkdr (KaSyari, i, p. 57), living far awii^ in the west, is ruled out; tiikdr would be written *U-uka,ri; the spelling ltau[m)gara leaves no doubt that the word ended in a, not in r. The presence of such a, great number of Turkish tribes in Kansu, Sa-tsou, and Si-fc(jou is hard to explain if the date proposed bj the learned editors for the Saka document and the Tibetan document attached to it (second half of eighth century) is adopted. Though, of course, the infiltration of Turkish, mainly Tolis, tribes into this region began at ail early date, one would not expect so many of them there before the destruction of the Northern Uyγur empire (840), which led to the foundation of Uyγur principalities in the territory in question by emigrant Uyγur tribes. The Khotanese king Visasambhata may have been a namesake of Vijayasambhava, not the same person. Preservation of Tibetan as official language at the beginning of the Uyγur reign would not be surprising. The name of the Sa-tsou king The-po, The-bo, otherwise unknown (according to Professor Thomas, p. 129), recalls the name of the leader uf the Uyγur immigrants, P*ang-t'd-h (BretMchneider, lies., i, p. 241; Minorsky, Hudud, p. 226 n. 2, 264 n. ,r»); this name, suggesting (if jjfe is the correct reading) P'aiuj ley in, a wholly unsatisfactory name for an Uyγur, ia apparently distorted (so as to obtain the well-known title t'a-li "~ tegin). It is, I tliink, the same name as T's-p'ang-h (another Turkish chief, Chavannes, Doc., p. 86); alternatively, the possibility that the correct form of the name was *T'd-p'ang-t<s-h = T'y-p'ang teyin should be considered. In any case, The-po, T he-bo might be a shortening of this name, thus rendering t'a-p'ang (it ia probable that plang, *b'dng, Karlgren 585, would correspond to *bo or the like in Central Asia; ^p t's is employed also in (j$= ^ t's-h, to-Us), If the documents were written shortly after the Uyγur invasion the interest displayed by the Khotanese envoys in the population of the neighbouring country would be comprehensible. I do not know if any chronological inference can be drawn from 11. 41-2 of the Saka text: "Cam tt&ttu ordered to build the st it-pa (Bailey, BSO8., viii, p. 119) of gu,tnatt.iri," i.e. "the great stupa of ff gum-stir " (F. W. Thomas, Tibetan Literary Texts ami Documents, i, p. 108).
geographical or political term coincides regionally with the name of the language.
According to the Uyγur colophons, carefully examined by Pelliot, JA., 1934, i, pp. 54 sqq., translations were made not only from Indian into " the language of Twyry ", thence into Turkish, but also from " the language of 'wkw kusa-n " into Twyry and finally into Turkish (of. Miiller-Gabain, " TJigurica iv," Sb.P.A.W., 1931, pp. 678 sq.); 'wkw = Oqu is possibly equivalent to Tibetan '0-sku, name of a country (see F. W. Thomas, Tib, Literary Texts and Doc., i, pp. 132 sq., 135); as k-Usdn unquestionably = Kuca, that region is excluded from " i'our Twyry ". Consequently, " Four Twyry " comprises Bisbaliq, Qoco, and Qarasahr. A further limitation (viz. to Qarasahr alone) is hardly possible, though at a later date the use of the language of Twyry was restricted to Qarasahr after having become extinct in Bisbaliq and Qoco, where Turkish speech became predominant (for the series: oku kOsan till > twyry tili > turk, equals: Kuchean > Twyry of Qarasahr > Uyγur of Qoco). This limitation seems to be excluded by the importance attached to the "Four Twyry" in the Karabalgasun inscription, where they are mentioned nearly on the same level with the powerful Tibetans.
At the beginning of the ninth century the Uyγurs were fighting with the Tibetans and " Four Twyry "; about a century before that date the Northern T'u-kiie, predecessors of the Uyγurs, were waging war against the Toquz Arsin (rzaznz) "the Nine Arsin", next-door neighbours of the Tibetans. Professor Schaeder's ingenious identification of arsin with am', the designation used by the speakers of IA for themselves and their language (according to Professor Sieg), will certainly be accepted. Toquz Arsin, therefore, is about the same as " Four Twyry ": the existence of a two-fold designation for the country, the nation, and the language, drsi and twyry, is warranted by the inscriptions set up by the rulers of Mongolia.1
As to the pronunciation of twyry, the following points are certain: initial t, u or o (preferably a short vowel), y (not x)> 'r> finally the Sogdian
1 It is, as a rule, seldom possible to give any historical reason for the numerals which farm part of tribal designations in Central Asia: toq-itz arsin. recalls " the nine cities " of fen-k'i mentioned in the Wei-su (>S. Levi, JA., 1933, i, p. JO); it is, however, improbable that tvquz arsin was confined to len-k'i. I leave aside twyrk in the Mahrnamag (line 109; part of a personal name); the ending (-k in Manichasan writing is wholly different from -(')& in Hogdian script) is not very well in accord with the other examples; possibly Turkish toy-rag " poplar "; as the person of whose name twyrk forms part was living in Arg (see farther on) it would not contradict our conclusions even if it should be proved to contain twyr-.
ending -e 1 < -ok which, of course, did not belong to the original form of the name. Assumption of a vowel (a) between y and r is not supported (though not completely excluded) by the spelling; if the name were *toyar one would expect at least one example of *twyr, especially in Uyγur. If twyr is considered with unbiased mind, by far the most probable pronunciation appears to be Tuyr.
The country " Four Tuyr " covers roughly the same area as the Tibetan " Brugu-country ", a name of Bisbaliq, Turfan, and Qarasahr, as has been shown by Professor Thomas's researches (see JRAS., 1931, pp. 807-827, esp. p. 826). It may be worth considering if dru-gu (durgu) can be regarded as transcription of tuyr; even if originally dru-gu had been meant for t'u-kue, the choice of this term for the region in question was probably influenced by the indigenous name tuyr.
It is necessary to touch on the question (though a full review of the problem cannot be given here) if an original connection between txuar, the name of Tokharistan, and tuyr, the name of Bisbaliq-Qarasahr, is conceivable. It is hardly justifiable to take the presence of such a connection for granted as is usually done; on the contrary,-its existence very much needs proving. Until this proof (or disproof) is forthcoming a considerable element of uncertainty will necessarily be inherent in all theories on the origin of the "Tokharians ".
As unknown languages, however, are involved, it will be found impossible to disprove any proposal to unite all the different forms notwithstanding their indubitable disparity at the time when the Central Asian documents were written. The scheme shown on the following page, e.g., would cover all the forms.
Professor Haloun, in his excellent contribution " Zur Ue-tsi-Frage ", maintains that the "Tokharians " were Ue-tsi everywhere, in Bactria as well as in the Nan-san..2 He refrains, however, from
1 Quantity undecided. Sogdian loanwords in New Persian suggest e rather than e (might be, however, influenced by the ordinary Persian ending -a). Chinese transcriptions may be helpful in solving the problem, cf., e.g., H^, JgJ, pj|£, Parthian /msemty (Waldschmidt-Lentz, Stdlung Jexu, pp. 83, 85 sqq.); ^o-ai'-wa?ij/, * ydt-si-iwng presupposes sogdianized pronunciation as yusme (yasim); on the Central Asian pronunciation of Chin, -ng, see Pelliot, JA., 1912, i, pp. 588 sqq., and particularly F. W. Thomas, ZDMG., 91, pp. 10 sq, (where, however, fg is rendered by ditfiiii, i.e. ding).
2 The second part, at least, of this assertion is open to further investigation. Apart from Bayovpoi in Ptolemy (b. vi, ch. 16), Saka tta^ara and Tibetan Phod-kar (etc.), Professor Haloun's demonstration is based mainly on the fact that Kumarajlva explains Tou-k'ii-lo, i.e. transcribed Skt. Tukhara, by /]•* ft f£ siau iie-tsi " Little
W. Ji.
inverting this sentence and assuming tfiat the Ue-tsi were "Tokharians ". Finding it impossible to reconcile the name of the "Tokharians " with ^ jfc, ^J fc Ue-tsi and other Chinese spellings of the name of this nation adduced by him, which according to him suggest " Archaic Chinese" pronunciations such as *zngiwdt-t'ia (ngltvdt-t'ial), *nyiu-t'ia (znyo-tia), he proposes to take Ue-tsi' for *zgu'ja(l-a) as the name of the Scythians. On the other hand, the general trend of his survey of the problem tends to demonstrate against his will not only that the "Tokhariaus" were tle-tsi, but also that the (Je-tsi were the "Tokharians ". Professor Bailey was, I believe, right in his attempt to liud in (Taj Ue-tsi the name of the West East 't'-jyitr rayovpoi *i'uyur *t'6ysr tuyr Jt.xar ta-\Ue-tgi", In Professor Maloun's opinion, this gloss proves that Kumarajiva knew that the "Little Ue-tsii" of the Nan-san region called themselves "Tokharians" (p. 280). It will hardly be admitted that this interpretation (contemplated before by S. Levi, rejected by Pelliot) is the only one possible. Kumarajiva in explaining Tou-k'u-lo should have written (Great) Ue-tsi; instead, he wrote " Little Ue-tsi ", thus misinterpreting the text he was commenting upon in a singular and ridiculous fashion. It is as well to assume that Knmarajiva, bearing in mind the usual equation Tukhara = (Great) t)«-tsi, contemplated at first writing simply " Ue-tsi", but substituted " Little Ue-tsi" because those were the only Ue-tsJ that he knew of by his own experience and expected his readers to have heard of. On the Phod-kar (Thod-kar, Thod-gnr), living in north-eastern Tibet, and mentioned many centuries after the last occurrence of the " Little Ue-tsi", see F. W. Thomas, JRAS., 1931, 834 sq. Their habitat is perhaps not yet sufficiently well denned to render their identification with the Little Ue-tsii an incontestable certainty. If Tib. Drv-gu is = Tuyr, the Drug-cun in Western Kan-su, "Little Pru-gu " according to Professor Thomas (pp. 814 sqq.), might be = " Little Tuyr " = " Little tje-tsl ".
"Tokharians " even though it might prove necessary to modify his proposals in minor points.
It is not admissible to compare with Ue-tsi a developed form such as to%dr, just as it would be impossible to use the modern Mandarin pronunciation of ^j J£ for comparative purposes. The only comparable form is that which was employed by the Uc-tsi themselves at the date when the Chinese transcription was created. The contemporary form has, of course, to be reconstructed. It has been surmised above that the attested forms may derive from *t'yur or a similar form, e.g. *6yur, *t'yudr, *6yu&r, etc. Chinese ^j, in contemporary pronunciation **zngiwa&,1 could be a rendering of such a form, as perfect as can be expected in a name containing a group of initial consonants foreign to Chinese speech.2 The second sign, *t'iat might be regarded as representative of an indigenous plural ending.3
It would be well in accord with Professor Halouu's theories to find the Tuyr-Ue-tsi in and near Qarasahr. When the main body of the Ue-tsi', pressed hard by the U-sun, was compelled to leave the T'ien-san region, some tribes may have stayed, as subjects of the U-sun (see Haloun, p. 246). According to Professor Haloun, the U-sun were " das urspriingliche ethnische Substrat der die beiden ' tocharischen ' Dialekte sprechenden Bevolkerung Ostturkestans " (p. 254). It may be permitted to say that the population of the region between Kasyar and Bisbali'q, at the beginning of our era, consisted mainly of U-sun and a few De-tsi and Saka tribes (the latter, e.g., in Barcuq). During the following centuries the remaining Ue-tsi tribes have been absorbed by the more powerful U-sun; the process of amalgamation probably was completed at the beginning of the T'ang reign. At that date, nothing remains of the Ue-tsi but their name, which, as Tuyr, is used indiscriminately for the same country, population, and language as the name of the U-sun (Arsi-ti,
1 The initial z- appears to be anything but certain. For the T'ang pronunciation, Saka kamnuri, name of a tribe (in unpublished Saka documents; Professor Bailey kindly communicated this name to me), is interesting: apparently = F=j j^ LUIKJ-UC, kungur (thereby containing ^ = gur).
a It would be interesting to learn from Sinologists how in their opinion the Chinese could have rendered a word *Qyttr (or the like) in a less ambiguous way.
s One might even go one step farther and assume an internal Ue-tsi sound change: postaonantic 8 7> r (attested in numerous languages); therefore, *t'yur < older *6yitSi-, the latter being "attested " by Chinese *zngotia, *zn/jiwat-t'ia.
4 It 13 taken for granted that drsi, aryiti., and u-stm represent the same name; the Chinese had some difficulty in rendering -r at the end of a syllable (on Jjj aee Haloun, pp. 252, 314); if necessary, -r could be explained as in Arg.
at least in Qarasahr and tlie adjacent districts. At the beginning of the ninth century, it was still known in Kuca that the population was composed of Ue-tsi and U-sun,1 though the use of the terms Tuyr and Arsin/arsi is on the whole confined to Qarasahr (etc.). Possibly the percentage of Ue-tsi was higher in Qarasahr than elsewhere. As to the so-called "Tokharian " languages, the odds are heavily on that they are U-sun dialects and not forms of Ue-tsi (Tuyr) speech; this is apparent as well from the historical development as from the phonetic features shown by the two Ue-tsi words we know (see Bailey, Ttauyam, p. 916). As alternative name for the mixed population of Qarasahr (etc.), tuyr(v) was admissible; it is true that it has been applied to the language, too: from a linguistical point of view, this, however, was decidedly a misnomer; a misnomer, also, is " tocharisch ", which, in any case, should be replaced by " tuyrisch ".
2. 'rkcyk
As stated above, in the Sogdian " List of nations " 2 'rkcyk follows the nations of Kasyar, Khotan, and Kuci (Kuca). From the relative importance of those districts it is at once apparent that the fourth partner in a series like this refers to Qarasahr.3
'rkcyk, i.e. arkcik, is an adjective derived from V&, i.e. Ark (suffix elk, see Gauthiot-Benveniste, Gram-tit,., ii, p. 96). Ark (or Arg) occurs as the name of a country: in a Middle Persian Manichffian hymn 4 homage is paid to the religious leadr -5 'y n'mwrny frwx' [&]w'b'd shr 'y 'rq i: of the famous, blissful, and prosperous country of Ark ".
Ark (Arg) is mentioned also by Persian geographers and historians. The Hudud al'Alam describe Jj! = Ark, a town in the Toquzoyuz (Uyγur) country, as "a small town near the river Khuiandyfm, possessing plenty of fruit, except grapes. To it belong seven villages, and Ark and its districts are said to turn out 20,000 men " (tr. Minorsky, p. 94). Professor Minorsky, commenting upon this passage (pp. 273 sq.), has found that Ark is embedded in a series of names that formed part of an itinerary leading from (Bars^an via) Kuca
1 Attested by Xuci-!m: " Kuca a ete appele aussi Ue-tsi et U-sun," see Pdliut, JA., 1934, i, p. 90, n. 1.
2 Written in Sogdian script.
a Tin: naiiK-H following 'rkcyk in the list, probably pointing to the Turf an region, art; not yet sufficiently clear to offer confirmation.
4 Not yet published (M 297); in Manichsean writing.
5 Name and title missing.
to Qoco ((Hnanckand). This itinerary, given in full by GardezI, mentioned no more than three names between Kuca arid Qoco (roughly
300 miles), the first being Ark, the second ^A~-i sekad " Three Towns "/ whilst the third' name remains rather mysterious. It is true that it is rather strange to find Qarasahr as the first stage of a journey from Kuca to Qoco; on the other hand, the itinerary appears to be rather sketchy in any case, and it would be still more curious if Qarasahr were left out altogether. All the passages in Muslim authors, brought together by Professor Minorsky, stress the importance of the district Ark; it is, therefore, preferable, I think, to identify it with Qarasahr instead of Biiglir (as contemplated by Professor Minorsky, mainly on account of several spellings that rendered it possible to take <Jji, Jj^, etc. for misspellings of *^X> = jjX*). In any case, the Muslim authors do not contradict the evidence which can be gained from Central Asian documents; the river Khulandyun on whose banks Ark is situated can easily be the Khaidu-gol.2
Amongst the towns of Si-tsou, enumerated in the Stael Holstein scroll, Argmvd bisd 3 kantiha " the town amongst the Argma " (22) bears some resemblance to Ark. It is mentioned after Camilbau'q (see Minorsky, Hudud, p. 272, n. 3), which lies in the extreme northwest, and before several places near Turfan; the enumeration of the western towns possibly broke off after Camilbaliq, whereupon the list restarted with a description of the south-western district; accordingly ? the succession of places permits one to locate " the town amongst the Argma " in the Qarasahr region. On the other hand, it would be rather surprising to find Qarasahr regarded as part of Si-tsou. With Argma Bailey has compared Argtya in the Niya documents (Ttaugara, p. 917, n, 1).
In Manichjean Middle Persian Ark (Ary) as well as arkclk was
1 In Sogdian (s. Minorsky, p. 273); also attested in a Manichtean fragment, where 'Sn/y knS- = xe kand (< ndre) is written, s. Beiehtbnch, p. 12 (but drraya seems to be different). One might think of fjj| ^ ffi tmntj-san-ts'wig (better
than ^ mie), " t?ang-(Aree-ci(tes," between len-k'i (Qaraaahr) and Qoco,
see Chavannes, Doc., p. 6.
3 Khulandyun. looks distinctly Sogdian (cf. Minorsky, p. 206 and n. 4); -yun " kind " ia rather obvious, but no word *ywS'ni (might be " ""covering ") or *yw(')k'ut is attested; yw'r'rai (" right ", ace. to Rosenberg, Izv., 1918, 831, originally " brilliant glorious, good ") ia not satisfactory either; the word might have the same meaning as $J tan (" insipid, tasteless, watery "), in the T'ang-su name of the Khaidu-gol, Chavannea, Doc-., p. 6.
s See Bailey, BS03., viii, p. 120.
already attested, viz. in the Mahrnaniag 1 (ed. F. W. K. Muller, Abh.P.A.W., 1912). In line 187 it is stated that the Mahrnamag before its completion was left pa$ mdnistdn i Ark " in the monastery of Ark ", for many years. Much more important is the other passage* line 88, 'rkcyq ( = arkclk) xwataw " the Ark-ian king ", i.e. " the king of Ark". The text enumerates a large number of personalities who were or were supposed to be friendly towards the Manichiean church, beginning with the Uyγur king (Ai tangrida qut bulmls alp bilgii Ui'yur qayan, 825-832, according to Muller 2), his princes and officers, who are joined by the rulers (and other influential personalities) of the small states in the T'ien-san region, which, at the date of the text, may have been more or less dependent upon the Uyγur empire;
on the whole, the text gives a fairly accurate idea of the extent of the Manichsean patriarchate " East ". Amongst those smaller kingdoms, five divisions can be recognized:—
(1) panzkanBe ^wa^dy (45)
(2) clndnckande xwaSdy (55)
(3) 'kwcyk sirjusi (72), under him:—
(a) kase xse§ (75)
(ft) parwanc gafi-yu (77)
(4) ark&ik xwataw (88)
(5) 'wcwrcyk xwataw (110). 3
It has long been known that (1) and (2) refer to Bisbali'q and Qoco respectively. Muller's tentative proposal to find in (3) the name of Kuca can now be supported by the Sogdian ndfndmak, wherein 'kwcyk precedes 'rkcyk. Despite its peculiar form,, 'kwcyk corresponds to Skt. kaucya "'Kuchean "; 'kwcyk = dkucik presupposes, as the name of the country, *dkuci (more likely than *dkuc) 4 = Skt. Kuci.
1 It gives me pleasure to state that years ago Professor behaeder, in the course of » conversation, proposed to regard V/j ('rk-cyg) as a geographical name, not as an appellative "castle" (as Muller thought).
2 It is, however, at least equally possible, if not more probable, that his much more powerful namesake (808-821) is meant.
3 Grammatically, the geographical terms are, all of them, adjectives , the Persian (^w«5ay) and Sogdian (-^ivataw) titles cannot, naturally, be regarded as official designations of the rulers in question; only under (3) are genuine titles given.
* It is hard to explain the prothetic vowel which if not articulated would not be written in Manichasan script though possibly it would in Sogdian script; cf., e.g., Buddh. S. 'kwty as against Man. S. k-wty (kuti), " dog "; *kwty suggests a development: kuti > kvti > kti > akti (rather dubious). Derivation of 'kwcyk from *'kw — Turkish Oqu (kHsan), see above, p. 560, is very unlikely.
(3 a) is the " ias-ian king " (not " the king of *KasI "), i.e. " the king of A'oi1 = Kasyar ", Chin. ££ ^ fcia-?a. (3 ^) refers to Aqsu, and 5) to Uc (see below). All the important principalities between Kasyar and Bisbaliq are mentioned, only Qarasahr appears to be missing: it is, in fact, clear from this passage alone that Ark (Arg) is Qarasalm Accordingly, the enumeration comprises:—
(1) Bisbaliq
(2) Qoco
(3) Kuca
(J8) Aqsu
(4) Qarasahr
(5) Uc.
The principalities are not arranged in a purely geographical order, but perhaps according to their relative political importance; yet it would be rash to come to the conclusion that, at the date of the text, Kasyar and Aqsu were politically dependent on Kuea whilst Uc had retained its independence; it is quite likely that more attention was paid to ecclesiastical than to political divisions.
It seems desirable to study more closely the names of Aqsu and Uc attested in the Malirnamag. The identity of prw'nc with Aqsu, proposed by Professor Minorsky (Hudud, p. 482), will hardly be contested. The feminine ending of prw'nc suggests a fuller form *prw'nc kanQ, of which prw'nc is an abbreviation; the masculine form corresponding to prw'nc is either *parwdnak or *parwak (to be pronounced: *parwdne and *parwe); for the latter cf. kdse < kasak " kachyarien " beside kasdnc " kachgaricnne " (q's'nc, Mahrnaniag, line 146, as part of a name); again, *parwdnak derives from *parwan or *paru, whilst *parwak admits only *paru as name of the country; the initial p~ possibly expresses b- if the scribe of the Mahrnamag (who changed his orthographical principles every other line) followed Sogdian orthography when writing this word. No certainty can be gained either way; Parudn/Barudn and Pant/Bant are equally likely.
The various names of Aqsu have been studied by Pelliot, T'oung Pao, xxii, pp. 128-130, and by Minorsky, Hudud, pp. 294 sqq. Paru/Baru could be supported by Skt. Bharuka, Hiian-tsang's Po-lu-kia (see Ltiders, Sb.P.A.W., 1922, p. 258); Pelliot (p. 129) has adduced; fc jj$£ mo-lu, *mudt-luk (Karlgren 636 + 574). Final -&(a) is due to sanskritization.
U . iS.
ParuanjBaruan is supported by the Chinese form ordinarily ' po-xuan, *pudt- arployed by T'ang historiographers, or , - udn (Karlgren 17 .+ 99 or 1294), a perfect rendering of parudn >ar/.ian); on " gha'in parayoyique", see Chavannes-Pelliot, Traite; anicheen, pp. 190, n. 5, 191, n. "2; particularly |g xuan> *yudn Carlgren 1343), rendering foreign itan (in ke-uan), should be com-ired. The same name occurs in Tibetan documents, Par-ban, often-nipled with Gyu-mo (which again, as Professor Thomas has stated, movingly resembles the ancient name of Acjsu, Ku-mo, *kuo-tndk), lough these places are to be looked for near Cercen (F. W. Thomas, RAS., 1930, pp. 85, 271, 274 sqq., 281).
With Po-xuan, Pelliot has ingeniously compared Idrisi's jUi-a 3axudn), T'oung Pao, 1906, pp. 553 sqq.; the identity of the places in hardly be doubted, though it seems to be impossible to reconcile honetically *baxudn with po-yuan (maintained by Pelliot, T'oung ao, xxii, pp. 128 sqq.) notwithstanding their apparent likeness if Lodern Chinese pronunciation is considered. Accordingly, j[^=-L lould be changed in Jijjt'.
Professor Minorsky was, I believe, right in distrusting Idrisi's ^.Jy b wli ich , for his part, he corrects in j U j I. Barman . urthermore he has proved that Barman also was another name of qsu, by referring to jUjl in Kasyarl, iii, p. 272, and in Beruni's anon. I should like to add jlv. Barman, the only place between c and Kuca on Kasyarf s map, and A M j£ Pa-li-mang — Barman \ the Chinese map of the early fourteenth century which has been -udied by Bretschneidcr, Medieval Researches, ii (Ba-li-tnang, p. 45; liinese: Journ. North China Branch R.A.S., x, 1876, opp. p. 75); 2re again, Barman is the only name between Uo-ts'i (Uc) and Kuca. i unpublished Sogdian documents p'rttin = barman is mentioned.
Hence, the medieval names of Aqsu were: Baru, B(h)aruka, aman, Barman, all of them containing the element Bar- (or Par-), hich possibly is to be recognized also in Barcuq, ancient name of .aralbasi.1
It has been proposed above to refer 'wcwr, contained in 'wcwrcyk, > Uc(-Turfan); Mtiller connected 'wcwrcyk, perhaps not quite con-incingly, with Sorcuq; it is, however, necessary to start comparisons •om 'wcwr, not from the enlarged form.
1 A different opinion on the origin of barcuq is expressed by Pelliot, JA., 1934, i, 60.
AKGl AiML) TilJi
On the different names employed for Uc, see Pelliot, T'o-wtg Pao, xxii, pp. 130-2; Minorsky, H'ud'tid., pp. 293 sqq. The present-day name occurs from the end of the tenth century (viz. in the Hudwl al-'Alam); it is frequently mentioned by Kasyarl; cf. also ^ ^ uo-ts('i on Bretschneider's map ( = Uc). This form may be due to turkicization; before the Turkish immigration the name was *0('u, Ocu, Ucu, or the like: some such name has yielded 'wcwr = Ocitr, Ocur, Vcur; for the final r cf. Marco Polo's Succiur (Succuir), i.e. Sukcur < $$ j^ siuk-t'sizu,1 or even modern Kucdr < Kuca. On the other hand, it is generally assumed that in the T'ang period the name of Uc ended in -k; Skt. h[e]cyuka (restored by Pelliot) as well as its Chinese transcription ^ J^J $5! hi-t.you-kia (*-yiei-t'si<)u-ka) render no proof in either direction, as the ending may be sanskritized. The assumption of filial -k depends wholly on the interpretation to be given to ^f- j$[ (T'ang historiographers), u-titou (tsu); the contemporary pronunciation, according to Karlgren (1317 + 163), was jiu-t'siuk or jiu-t'sigu,2 and therefore permits a sonantic final. Not decisive is the ancient name (Xan period) Uen-su (*'udn-siuk, AD GOO) even if it should be connected with the other forms; the objections that can be raised against Barthold's equation of Uan-su with *Jy>cI* (H'lidud and Gardezl] are numerous.3
It may be permitted to turn back once more to Ark. The present-day name, Qarasahr, seems to be of fairly recent origin. At the time of Timur, the region was called caMs* and this name was still employed at the beginning of the seventeenth century (Benedict Goes, Cialis, see Bretschneider, MeJ. Res., register s.v. Chalish). Ark (Arg] is attested for the time from about AD 800 to 1050 (Gardezi). There is a gap between GardezT's time and Timur's: it is hard to believe that for several centuries a district (and town) of the standing of Qarasahr should never have been mentioned; it is particularly incredible that Qarasahr should have been omitted by Kasyan;
1 On Su-t§ou, see Pelliot, JA., 1912, i, pp. 591 sqq.
2 j\u-)t'^u -. 'w\cwr = siuk-]i'tij,2U; s-uk]cur.
3 Not only the finals disagree (even *ijyt^, Minorsky, p. 294, would be dubious if the presence of a final -k can be disproved), but also the initials (that of the Chinese name being a sonant) as well as the middle consonants (-we- as against -n-s-; moreover a Chinese final -n in the Xan-period does not necessarily represent foreign -n • in the present case = r, according to Pelliot); furthermore, only contemporary Chinese names are comparable.
4 Turkish, ace. to Pelliot, T'oung Pao, xxxii, p. 265 (cf. calls " wrestling" [Kasyari] ?).
US reason alone, the identity of &«///*? 1 with Qarasahr (proposed e, p. 558) should be considered.2
he first mention of Ark coincides roughly with the end of the period licli len-k'i (Qarasahr) though continuously troubled by much powerful neighbours enjoyed a status of independence; the lame len-k'i, Skt. Agni, has been studied in full by Pelliot, tg Pao, xxxii, pp. 26t> sqq. It seems probable that Ark (Arg) rather unexpected form of the same name. Professor Sieg has tly discovered the indigenous name, Kuchean akene ypoy; ermore, he has assumed that akene, is an adjective derived from ean akc (A ak) " end ", so that akene ypoy would mean " the; ry situated towards the end", i.e., "the border country" '.A.W., 1937, pp. 130 sq.). If, therefore, aketie, which is at the of transcriptions such as A-k'i-ni, at/ni, etc., is to be regarded ^ase of ellipsis, the possibility that the substantive akjdke from i akene derives was also employed as the name of the country )t be discarded. This name *ak, otherwise unattested, could be rented by Ark.
here are two ways of explaining the medial; -. Either it is a later ion, or it belonged to the original form and has been dropped ichean (and in A). Both explanations would presuppose indistinct dation of a post-sonantic r up to complete disappearance (as, a southern English), particularly in ante-consonantic position; iguages with insufficient orthographical tradition, especially in of oral tradition, wrong forms inevitably follow. Some Central
cases of an unetymological r may be mentioned: Ucur, *Sukcur, r (see above); tawarxus: tainaxiiS (see p. 558, n. 1); Kuchean
:ske: (reconstructed) *yavaske, *bagazi: *burgayi (both recon-; ed) 3; Central Asian karpisaya: kapisa, ko-rttana ~ Khotan 4; an fiarxar: vthd-ra, skofO <skoQ, ^«?-M < ^««.5 These cases lot confined to Turkish languages (Pelliot, JA., 1934, i, --) sq.).
athing, in fact, conflicts with the proposal to regard Ark as an rect form of *Ak. On the whole, however, the alternative nation is more attractive; for, if Ark (or ^'^/indistinguishable urkish ? Cf. sundl-waq iL to gibber " (Kasyaii) ? •ut cf. Minorsky, Hud&d, pp. 276, 497, on c^3 ee Pelliot, JA., 1934, i, p. 91 n. 2.
i "Fan Yu Tta Ming ": Bagchi, Deux Le.xiyu.es, i, p. 295.
; e BeichtbucJi, pp. 8S sq.— Buddh. S. '/Js'ny, fis'ny (= 9/w>?X' fsaVX> not ; ), mentioned by Pelliot, JA., 1934, i, pp. 30 sq., is different (fra- >fa).
in Sogdian l and Persian) is the original form, the mysterious Chinese spelling; J| ^ which cannot be explained by akene could be accounted for. len-k'i, 'ilin-g'ji might transcribe Argi or Argi (Pelliot: *Ang$, Toung Pao, xxxii, p. 2GG; as to Chin, -n = foreign -/ in transcriptions of the X&n period, the best example is £ & Au-si = Ar-sak). Hence, akene could be a more developed form, instead of older *arkvne, attested by Saka argma; akene, of course, accounts for Ayni, Hiian-tsang's A-k'i-ni, Maralbasi Saka agnye, etc.
Though several points need further elucidation,2 it seems, on the whole, preferable to derive akene jarywa from the name of the country, Argi (not from ok Jake "end"). Finally, this name appears to be directly attested by Argiya in the Niya documents, i.e. a man from Argi.
[W. W. Tarn, The Greeks in Bactria and India, Cambridge, 1938, could not yet be used; the new forms of the Tokharian name as collected by Dr. Tarn, pp. 515 sqq., particularly tayorae, takwaioi, etc., prove that the group toxar, etc., was developed in Bactria under the influence of an Iranian tongue.]
1 Also in Manichaean Middle Persian if the scribe adhered to .Sogdian orthographical principles.
2 I have to apologize for several inconsistencies which will be found in the present article; they arose from hesitation to decide a question which has puzzled us long enough. I should like to state expressly that. I adhere wholeheartedly to the last proposal, i.e. len-k'i = Argi = Arg (Ark), akene from older "arkene = argiha.

In Russian
Contents Huns
Contents Tele
Besenyos, Ogur and Oguz
Alans and Ases
  Alan Dateline
Avar Dateline
Besenyo Dateline
Bulgar Dateline
Huns Dateline
Karluk Dateline
Khazar Dateline
Kimak Dateline
Kipchak Dateline
Kyrgyz Dateline
Sabir Dateline
Seyanto Dateline
θδğŋγşāáäēə ï öōüūû“” Türkic