Qurïqan

Qurïqan B air Z. N anzatov & V ladim ir V. Tishin Институт монголоведения, буддологии и тибетологии Сибирского отделения Российской академии наук / Institute for M ongolian, B uddhist and Tibetan Studies o f the Siberian Branch o f the Russian Academy o f Sciences (Улан-Удэ / U lan-U de)1 Introduction Many researchers agree that the problem o f Buryat ethnogenesis alongside other is­ sues in the ethnic history o f Siberia remains understudied due to a lack o f fundamental factual data. It is this latter circumstance that significantly limits capabilities o f such studies in the period know n as the “Ancient Turkic period”2 and earlier. Fragmentary knowledge about different peoples o f the region, who did not come to lead large po­ litical entities, but still left some written heritage or, in most cases, detailed testimony o f their neighbours, is often represented in the sources by mere references or, at best, by a concise description o f the way the bearers o f these ethnonyms lived. The Qurïqans are one o f the fundamental themes in the study o f Buryat ethnic history. Information about them came from the works o f Chinese and Muslim authors. Some researchers hypothetically connect them with the territory o f Cisbaikalia. Con­ temporary hypotheses about their origin, ethnolinguistic affiliation, and settlement are highly debatable. This circumstance, despite an insufficient pool o f sources, defines a necessity to continue studying the Qurïqans. Scholars assume that their role in the ethnic history o f Inner Asia, South Siberia, and adjacent areas, as well as a contribu­ tion to the ethnogenesis o f Buryats, Yakuts, and their neighbours, were very signifi­ cant. This paper is an attem pt o f in-depth study and reconstruction o f different stages in the history o f the Qurïqans, primarily in connection with the issues o f Buryat ethno­ genesis. A broad context o f the sources used in this study enables us to clarify some aspects o f this entity’s settlement geography, trace the transformation o f its political 1 This study was supported by the Ministry of Education and Science o f the Russian Federation (# 14.W03.31.0016). 2 The definition Turkic is used in the paper to denote the peoples o f the corresponding linguistic group, while the Türk / Tiirkic one marks only the certain tribal union, which had dominated in the Inner Asian Steppes from the second half o f 6th to the first half o f 8th centuries A.D. The expression Ancient Turkic used in archeology is adequate to the Old Turkic used in linguistics to denote the period from the 6th to the 10th centuries A.D. In the article they are used in similar contexts. 170 Bair Z. Nanzatov & V ladim ir V. Tishin status in the historical dynamics o f Inner Asia, and determine the degree to which the Qur'iqans contributed to Buryat ethnogenesis. As was already pointed out, the issue o f the ethnolinguistic affiliation o f the Qur'iqans itself is far from resolved. However, traditionally the attempts to settle this issue did not go beyond a search for etymology o f the ethnonym itself, which, in one way or another, the works o f V. V. Barthold, G. V. Ksenofontov, V. Minorsky, P. Pelliot, O. Pritsak, H. W. Haussig, Yu. A. Zuev, G. D. Sanzheev, V. V. Svinin, G. N. Rumyantsev, T. A. Bertagaev, Ts. B. Tsydendambaev and others demonstrate. The scholars’ views on the origin and development o f the ethnonym are o f great in­ terest and deserve particular attention. Therefore, we will review them in detail in the central part o f this paper within the context o f m odem linguistic data. By generalizing the available information from the written sources and utilizing linguistic and ethnographical data, this essay aims to trace the stages o f the history o f an entity, associated with the ethnonym Qur'iqan, which had first been encountered in the Ancient Turkic period and later appeared in various phonetic variants among Bur­ yats and Daurs. Mentions in the Sources References to the Qur'iqans in the historical sources are incidental and sketchy. Hence, they can only provide very general glimpses o f the history o f this entity. In essence, written sources can be conditionally subdivided into three groups according to the ethnopolitical affiliation o f their authors: Old Turkic runic writing monuments, rec­ ords o f the Chinese chroniclers and works o f the M uslim authors. Chronologically, the earliest actual source, which mentions the ethnonym Qur'iqan is the text w ritten in the Old Turkic runic script on the memorial steles in honour o f Kiil Tegin and his brother Bilgä Qayan. There are references to the Qur'iqans in those fragments where both inscriptions textually overlap. The ethnonym Qur'iqan in the form )HMH· is m entioned twice in the text. In the first case it is referred to in the list o f the “mourning and lamenting’’, whose representatives at the fimerals o f the first Tiirkic qaghans: yoyc'i: s'iyitci: öijrä: kün: toysïqta: biikli: cöl(l)üg el: tabyac: töpöt: apar: purum: qïrqïz: üc qur'iqan: otuz tatar: q'itan: tatabi: bunca: bodun: kälipän: sïytamïs: yoylamïs (KT E, line 4; BQ E, line 5; Tekin 1968: 232, 264; Çirin User 2009: 159, 446, 455): “As mourners and lamenters there came from the east, from where sun rises, the rep­ resentatives o f the people o f the Bökli plain, the Chinese, the Tibetan, the Avar, the Byzantium, the Kirghiz, the Üc Qur'iqan, the Otuz-Tatar, the Qitan and the Tatabi ...” (Tekin 1968: 264). At the same time, we cannot be sure whether this information is indeed related to the second h alf o f the 6th century A.D., or here we encounter a mere extrapolation o f the ethnopolitical m ap relevant to the first h alf o f the 8th century A.D. when this text appeared. In the second case the Qur'iqans were mentioned in connection with the past opposition with the Turks sometime in the 790s A.D.: Q urîqan 171 qïrqïz: qurîqan: otuz tatar: qïtan: tatabï: qop: yayï: ärmis (KT E, line 14; BQ E, line 12; Tekin 1968: 233; Çirin User 2009: 159, 447, 456): ‘the Kirghiz, Qurîqan, Otuz-Tatar, Q ïtan and T a ta b ï... they all were hostile (to us)” (Tekin 1968: 264). Based on the context o f the monuments it is possible to assume that at least in the time o f Kül Tegin (d. in 732) and Bilgä Qayan (d. in 734), i.e. in the late 7lh - early 8th centuries A. D. in the perceptions o f the Tiirks them selves (Üc) Qurîqan appeared as a whole political unit equal to the Bökli (Goguryeo), Tabyac (Chinese), Tibetans, Avar, Romans (Byzantines), Qïrqïz, Otuz Tatar, Khitans (Qïtan) and Tatabï. More than once scholars pointed out that the peoples in the list o f the “m ourning and lamenting” in the Khöshöö Tsaidam inscriptions appear in order o f the visible solar rotation (Ögel 1978: 427; Menges 1979: 69 (note 13)). As a result, the Quriqans wind up in the N orth (Cf. a scheme in: Haussig 1953: 330 (Anm. 180)). Probably this is why already W. Radloff, who made an entry on the Quriqans in his dictionary, put it, “ein Volk, das im VIII. Jahrhundert nördlich von den Türken zwischen den Kir­ gisen und Tataren (Mongolen?) gewohnt hat” (R adloff 1899: 925). The context in which the ethnonym itself is used in the source allows us to presume that by the period the inscription was made the Quriqans had already become a wellestablished entity perceived by the closest neighbours as a political body. In his day V. Ya. Butanaev also attempted to read an ethnonym in the old Turkic runic inscription from the Uibat River (Ye 96, Uibat VI, line 3; Butanaev 1972: 150, 151). However, D. D. V asil’ev provides transliteration on n r'q n 1 (Vasil’ev 1983: 27), followed by E. A ydin reading it as orq(u)n (Aydm 2012: 167; Yildmm, Aydm, Ali­ mov 2013: 187, 188). I.V. Kormushin corrected this as follows uyy(u)r q(a)n (Kormushin 1997, p. 119, 121, 122; Kormushin 2008: 158). One way or another, this does not sufficiently change the fact that the ethnonym Qurîqan is missing from the source since graphical notation o f a vowel in the second syllable would be expected even for its hypothetical reading. The Chinese sources o f the Tâng Mi dynasty frequently mention the ethnonym Gidïgàn 'H'M'J-'Mf. However, from the first mention, these data hardly differed from each other. V. Thomsen was the first to propose a comparison o f the ethnonym Qurîqan from the Old Turkic (Orkhon) inscriptions w ith Gülîgàn o f the Chi­ nese texts (Thom sen 1896: 98, 140 (note 8). At the same time G. Schlegel, who did 3 In this article we use the orthographic form qurîqan traditionally, but would argue the pronunci­ ation qor'iqan (with a rounded low vowel /о/ in the first syllable, which corresponds to the Middle Chinese pronunciation. Cf.: pinyin giî II gàn <K *kuat Iji kân (Karlgren 1964: 134 [No 486a], 141 [No 519a], 57 [No 1401]), EMC *kwat lih kanh, LMC kut IV kan' (Pulleyblank 1991: 111, 188, 103), MC *kot II kân (Starostin 1989), EMC *kwat I f k â r f (Schuessler 2009: 311 [31-1 / K. 486], 280 [6 -2 4 /К . 519], 252 [2 4 -2 /К . 140]), MC *kwot UjHkanH (Baxter - Sagart 2014). Cf.: Kasai 2012: 93; Kasai 2014: 129. Yukiyo Kasai, in her cited papers, based on the works of B. Karlgren and E.G. Pulleyblank, systematized patterns o f Middle Chinese phonetic transcrip­ tions o f Old Turkic words, that reflected the results o f the Turkic-Chinese contacts in Inner Asia in 6Л-9 Йcenturies A.D. This is why we make use of these results below and primarily rely on E. G. Pulleyblank’s work. 172 B air Z. Nanzatov & V ladim ir V. Tishin not use the Turkic sources, restored the sounding form o f the ethnonym in the Chinese texts as *kurikan (Schlegel 1896: 2). Later F. Flirth and É. Chavannes accepted this matching (Hirth 1899: 133; Chavannes 1903: 87 (note 3), 91). In general, the Chinese sources harmonically supplement and concretize that ele­ mentary information provided by the Old Turkic runic writing monuments. The encyclopedic Töng diän j(Jj Й- compiled in 801 A.D. provides the following information about the whereabouts o f the Güligàn В Л Ш güligàn guô xiàn mä shï yun ql guô zài jïngshî xlbëi èr wàn yü lï yè duàn zhôu zhâng công tiânsè ming shi zhü yâng jiâ câi shu ér dôngfang yï shü gài jin yù ri rù chù (Töng diän: juän 185: la; Cén Zhôngmiân 1958: 747): “In the land o f the Güligàn # ^ 0 # they breed horses. Their country lies 20.000 11 to the northwest from the capital. The night is short and the day is long. The nights are so short that if one cooks a mutton chuck, it will get cooked the sunrise will begin, it is close to the sunrise” . In another section o f the same oeuvre, there is a mention o f their whereabouts, the size o f the population, and rulers. A closely similar oeuvre Tâng hul yào Ш ί Ι Ί ? con­ sistently created throughout the period from 804 to 961 A.D. contains the same pas­ sage (Cén Zhôngm iân 1958: 747): 'и ЗЬШШШШ-Щ:#%3. güligàn guô güligàn chù bëifang hànhai zhï bëi èr qijïn tôngjû shèng blng siqiân wübài kou wàn yù rén câo duo bâihé di chu mingmä qi guô bëi jië blng hai zhôu zhâng xï duän (Töng diän: juän 200: 11 a; Tâng hui yào: juän 100: 2a-2b): “The state o f Güligàn # ^ 0 # . The Güligàn live to the north o f the North­ ern Sea (Hànhâi Ш'Ш)·4 Two sijlns rule them (Ш/т [<EMC *zj’/zj’ kin, LMC *gfir' kin (Pulleyblank 1991: 293, 156)]). [They have] four thousand five hundred soldiers. [Their] number is higher than 10.000. [In their country] there are lots o f lilies. They breed horses. Their country borders on an icy sea in the North. The days are short and the nights are long” (cf.: Tagagtl 2003: 137). There are similar descriptions in the Tàiping huânyü ji J \ Ψ Ш Ψ ВЙ (Tàiping huânyü ji: juän 200: la), Xïn Tâng shü ifrÜfllF (Xïn Tâng shu: juän 43b: 32a; juän 217b: 19a-19b; Taçagtl 2003: 154; cf.: Rachewiltz 1962: 23, 62, 63 (note 132)) and W énxiàn Töngkäo % (Wénxiàn Töngkäo 348/2724a: 17-24; cited in Tagagtl 2003: 147-148 (Turkish translation), [belgeler] 26 (Chinese text)), with the only difference that the Xïn Tâng shu H rH tH refers to 5000, but not 4500 warriors (Cén Zhôngm iân 1958: 749; cf. incorrect translation in Tagagtl 2003: 137, 147, 154). Regarding the whereabouts o f the Güligàn in Jiù Tâng shü Ц /Й Ц , there is also information that they live to the North o f the sea: (Jiù Tâng shü: juän 199b: 9b): “Those Güligàn live to the North o f the sea.” In fact the same 4 The name o f the Mongolian desert, particularly of the territories to the north o f it, traditional for the Chinese historiography (Bretschneider 1910: 15 (note 9)). Qur'iqan 173 wording is provided in the Tàiping huânyù jl (Tàiping huânyü ji: juän 200: la, where jù 11: is a lapse instead o f the character has the same sounding: Cén Zhöngmiän 1958: 748); in the Xîn Tâng shü S i/iflS : (Xîn Tâng shû: juän 217b: 19a); in the Wénxiàn Töngkäo Ü tf tîË 5!?: Ж Ш Ж Ш М qi di bëi jù hâi (Wénxiàn Töngkäo 348/2724a: 19; cited in Taçagil 2003: [belgeler] 26 (Chinese text)). Yet, already in a different section o f XTn Tâng shû |J| (3 (Xîn Tâng shü: juän 43b: 32a) it is pointed out that the information about the short nights is relevant for the territories beyond the sea, to the North o f the Güligàn and Dübö :ШЩ [<EMC *tD pat, LMC *tuäpuat (Pulleyblank 1991: 108, 40)] (Kyuner 1961: 283). In another context the Güligàn are m entioned by the Jiù Tâng shû ШШШ in the chapter about the Tiëlè ШШ [<EMC *thft 1эк, LMC *thiat 1ээк (Pulleyblank 1991: 308, 184)] tribes: tiëlè bën xiôngnù biézhông zi tüjué qiângshèng tiëlè zhû jùn fensàn zhông jiàn guà ruô zhi wùdéchû you xuêyântuô qibi huihé dôubô güligàn duôlangé pùgù bâyëgü tôngluô hùn bù sljié hùxuê xîjié âdiê bâixi dëng sànzài qi bëi (Jiù Tâng shû: juän 199b: lb; Cén Zhong-m iän 1958: 748): “The Tiëlè Щ people were the kind o f the Xiôngnù [<EMC *xuawq na, LMC *xywq nuä (Pulleyblank, 1991, p. 346, 227)]. Since the Tiirks (Tüjué Л fj; [<EMC *dwot kuat LMC *thut kyat (Pulleyblank, 1991, p. 311, 168)]) were strong, all the Tiëlè hordes dispersed. Gradually the weak people reached military prowess. [There were] first among them are the Xuêyântuô [<EMC *siat jian da, LMC *siat jian tha (Pulleyblank 1991: 351, 356, 314)], Qibi [<EMC *khjs jh pjit, LMC *khjia j' pjit (Pulleyblank, 1991, p. 248, 34)], Huihé [<EMC *ywcj yot, LMC *xhuaj xhat (Pulleyblank, 1991, p. 133,122)], Dübö ШШ, Güligàn Duôlângé [<EMC *ta lam ’ kat, LMC *talanT kat (Pulleyblank 1991: 85,182,106)], Pùgù Ш'Щ’ [<EMC *ph3wkkwot, LMC *phowk kut (Pulleyblank 1991: 242, 111)], Bâyëgü ШШ15 [<EMC *bait/ba:t jia ’ ko’, LMC * p h a :tjia ' kuâ (Pulleyblank 1991: 27, 363, 11)], Tôngluô р7)Ш [<EMC *dowq la, LMC *tfiowq la (Pulleyblank, 1991, p. 310, 203)], Hùn Щ [<EMC *ywon, LMC *xfiun (Pulleyblank, 1991, p. 135)] tribes (bù и|3), [and] the Sljié S& a [<EMC * si/ si ket, LMC *sz kiat (Pulleyblank, 1991, p. 291, 154)], Hùxuê М Й [<EMC *yowk siat, LMC *xhowk siat (Pulleyblank, 1991, p. 123, 351)], Xîjié Л&и [<EMC *yej kct, LMC *xhjiaj kiat (Pulleyblank, 1991, p. 329, 154)], Âdiê Ш]Цк [<EMC *?a drt, LMC *?a thiat (Pulleyblank, 1991, p. 23, 79)], Bâixi É1 Щ [<EMC *baijk/bc:jk zip, LMC *pha:jk ship (Pulleyblank, 1991, p. 41, 331)] are dispersed in the North”. In a relevant fragment o f the Xîn Tâng shü Wi iH ë i (chapter 217a) about the Huihé 0 ! ^ tribe the Güligàn are listed among the Uyghur (Old Turkic: Uyyur, Chi­ nese: Huihé 0 É è ) tribes (textually, xing t t ‘surnam es’): “On les appelle aussi T ch’ele, (dénomination) qui est devenue par corruption T ’ie-le. Leurs tribus sont appelées: les Yuen-ho (Ouigours), les Sie-yen-t’o (Syr-Tardouch), les K ’i-pi-yu, les T ’ou-po, les Kou-li-kan (Kourikan), les To-lan-ko (Telangout), les Pou-kou, les Pa-ye-kou (Bayirkou), les T ’ong-lo (Tongra), les Hoen, les Se-kie, les Hou-sie, les Hi-kie, les A- 174 B air Z. Nanzatov & V ladim ir V. Tishin tie, les Ре-si, soit en tout quinze tribus. Les Yuen-ho (Ouigours) sont aussi appelés Ou-hou ou Ou-ho; sous les Soei, on les appela W ei-ho” (Chavannes 1903: 87 (note 3); cf.: Bichurin 1950: 301). However, as has by now become clear, it was a mistake o f the later compilers, who had placed 15 tribes o f Tiëlè ISDj in a section about the Uyghurs. It might happen because o f the use o f background information from the period o f Uyghur political domination in the steppes (M alyavkin 1981: 28, 83-84 (commentary 29)). As an ex­ ample it should be pointed out that a similar list appears in the Tâng hui yào but here these tribes are related to the Tiëlè ü f t l (ch. 96, p. 12b) (Kyuner 1961: 36). According to Xln Tâng shü ffrMflS in 647 A.D. the Güligàn alongside with the Dübö ШШ sent ambassadors to the Tâng Ml court (Bichurin 1950: 348; Taçagil 2003: 88, 117, 160). The date o f the first arrival o f the Güligàn em­ bassy proper is specified in the Chinese sources beginning from the Tong diän Ш (Cén Zhong-miän 1958: 748). Possibly, the Xln Tâng shü Ш\ШШ narrates about the same embassy. According to the Jiù Tâng shü I f MfIS· and Xln Tâng shü ШШШ, in 647 A.D., the period when the Tâng Ml administrative system in the Steppe was in the making, the district o f Xuânquè έ. Щ (Xuânquè zhôu ft, Ш\(H ) formed in the lands o f the Güligàn 'ft'ÎÜ # (XTn Tâng shü: juän 217b: 7a). In the meantime, the Jiù Tâng shü ШШШ and XTn Tâng shü SiM îftt locate them as follows: to the Northwest o f the Huihé filffe, i.e. the Uyghurs lived the Jiégü &рЦ· [<EMC *ket kwat, LMC *kiat kut (Pulleyblank, 1991, p. 154,111)], i.e. the Qïrqïz, while the Güligàn were further to the north (Jiù Tâng shü: juän 195b: 2b; X ïnT âng shü: juän 217a: lb; cf.: Chavannes 1903: 91; Malyavkin 1989: 26). In the period from 661 to 663 A.D., the district was renamed Yùwü zhôu (Taçagil 2003: 89, 137, 154; M alyavkin 1989: 24-25). According to the Töng diän )Щ-Й- the next and last embassy from the Güligàn "ft dates from 694 A.D. (Tông diän: juän 199: 1081b; Xln Tâng shü: juän 217b: 196; Wénxiàn Töngkäo 348/2724a; Taçagil 2003: 89,137, 148,155, [belgeler] 8 (Chi­ nese text o f Töng diän Й Л ) , 26 (Chinese text o f W énxiàn Töngkäo ЗМШШ^')). It was possibly a result o f the restoration o f Türkic sovereignty and their growing polit­ ical dominance in Inner Asian steppes, which brought to an end any possibilities o f contacts between the tribes o f the Steppe’s northern periphery with the Tâng Mi court. The fragments o f the O rkhon Inscriptions mentioned above provide evidence that pre­ cisely in that period the Türks fought against the Quriqans. However, based on the position in the list o f Turkic tribes, it is likely that the data from the Tâng hui yào МП!"l e about the delivery o f horses to the Tâng Ml court by the steppe nomads can be precisely related to the period between 647 and 694 A.D. It is also characteristic that the Tâng hui yào Ml fT 'S tells about the fact that the Güligàn 'ft1'M !Mi did not have the custom to brand their horses (ben su wüyin ММ(г)!?; L[J), but “merely indent ears and noses for recognition” (wéi gë ër bi wèi ji 'fff Mf1]1]-#-М)йЙ) Q urîqan 175 (Tâng hui yào: ju än 72: 1305: 2-3; Zuev 1960: 98).5 Possibly in this context, the lack o f mentions about the Qurîqan brand irons is connected not merely with their absence as such, but with the fact that the Qurîqan entity was a motley political union o f a confederative type with the respectively equal political status o f its constituent ele­ ments. The reference from the Xïn Tâng shü ШШШ (Xïn Tâng shü: juän 43b: 31b-32a) describing the routes from Qarabalyasun is related to a slightly later period when it was already the Uyghurs who dominated the steppes. It allows to pinpoint the locali­ zation: - I t/N 't В M M is ρ β ί& ίίM i llHJzK dông you pingyë x ïjù wûdéjiânshân nân yï wàkûn shuï bëi liùqïbâi 11 zhi xiân é hé hébëi àn yôu fùgui chéng you zhèng bëi rù dôngguè xuëshân sônghuà lin ji zhü quân pô qiän wübâi lt zhi güligàn yôu xï shisân ri xing zhi dôubô bùluô yôu bëi liùqï ri zhi jiânkûn bùluô yôu lâoshân jiàn shuï E. Chavannes translated this passage as follows, “A l’est (de ce campement) est une plaine unie; à l’ouest, (ce territoire) se repose sur la montagne Ou-té-kien (Qtuken); au sud, il s’appuie sur la rivière O u-koen (Orkhon). A 6 ou 700 li vers le nord, on arrive au fleuve Sien-ngo (Selenga); sur la rive septentrionale du fleuve est la ville de Fou-koei. Puis, droit au nord, en obliquant vers l’Est, on traverse des mon­ tagnes neigeuses, des forêts de pins et d ’ormeaux, et plusieurs sources et lacs; au bout de 1500 li, on arrive (dans le territoire des) Kou-li-kan (Kourikan) puis, après treize jours de marche vers l’ouest, on arrive à la tribu T ’ou-po; après avoir marché vers le nord pendant encore six ou sept jours, on arrive à la tribu des Kien-koen (kirgiz). Là se trouvent la montagne Lao et la rivière Kien (Kem, haut Iénisséi)” (Chavannes 1903: 98 (note 3)). However, reconstructing this route R. Giraud noted the mentions o f the Güligàn И М Ж in the Chinese sources alongside with the Q ïrqïz and DCibo ШШ, i.e. *Tuba (Schlegel 1896: 2; Hirth 1899: 40, 133; Giraud 1960: 175, 176). Having found no mentions o f either the Toubas, or the Kourikan in the descriptions o f the Turkic cam ­ paign against the Qïrqïz in the Khöshöö Tsaidam Inscriptions, he placed the latter in the western part o f Tuva (Giraud 1960: 193). Meanwhile, w ithout getting into specifics o f localization o f the ethnonyms above, it should be pointed out that the text contains an vital continuation: п Р ^ Й Ж Ж Ж 0 Î'fW 'É rÿ f yôu zi yâ zhàng dôngbëi dù xiân-é hé èrqiân lï zhi shiwéi güligàn zhï dông shiwéi zhï xï yôu jü bùluô yi yuë gâi bùluô ql dông shiwü ri xing yôu yùzhé guô yi shiwéi bùluô ‘And from the headquarters (yàzhàng ίαίΨΙ) it runs in the northeasterly direction, crosses the river Xiân-é filial, i.e. the Selenga, and further two thousand It until the 5 Yu. A. Zuev provides a different translation, "Horses [of the tribe] Gu-li-gan traditionally have no brands, and instead of a brand iron they differ by their ears and noses” (cf.: Schafer 1963: 69). 176 Bair Z. N anzatov & V ladim ir V. Tishin Shiwéi [<EMC *eit wuj, LMC *git yj (Pulleyblank, 1991, p. 285, 320)]. From the Güligàn ’Η’Μ Ψ ί eastwards, from the Shiwéi Ш Щ westwards there is a tribe named (bùluô pß?Ür) Jü i t [<EMC *kuwk, LMC *kiwk (Pulleyblank, 1991, p. 163)], also known as the Gäi Ш [<EMC *kaj, LMC *kaj (Pulleyblank, 1991, p. 102)]. In fifteen days to the East, there is a state (guô Й ) Yüzhé m Hi [<EMC *juä teiat, LMC * jyä tgiat (Pulleyblank, 1991, p. 381, 400)], which is also the (bùluô δβ-Ж) Shiwéi l è H tribe’. The only fact that matters here for us is that some population is located directly to the west o f the Güligàn during the period o f Uyghur political dominance. It is possible to see a more precise reference to the Güligàn territory in this testi­ mony. Located to the north o f the Selenga and the west o f the Dûbô ШШ, evidently associated with some group in the population o f Tuva, and the Qïrqïz, who primarily settled in the Khakas-Minusinsk Basin, it seems to be understood that this territory spilled over to both the southern and northwestern shores o f Baikal. As illustrated below, this corresponds to the archaeological materials. In the section o f the Xïn Tâng shü НОЙ!I f about the Xiâjiâsï ИяЗЕЙт [<EMC *γοίί/γε:ΐ koit/ke:t siâ/si, LMC *xfija:t kja:t sz (Pulleyblank, 1991, p. 333, 144, 291)], i.e. the Qïrqïz, it is mentioned in the description o f their domain that their territory stretched eastwards until the Güligàn Ц^УМ^ (Bichurin 1950: 354), and the Dübô Ш bordered on the Qïrqïz in the west and with the Uyghurs (Huihé l>'l (fc) in the south (Bichurin 1950: 348; Ta$agil2003: 159). One more valuable testimony is W énxiàn Töngkäo (Wénxiàn Töngkäo, juän 324), which, in a somewhat different aspect, attracted the attention o f G. Schlegel (Schlegel 1895: 163-164). It also informs about the arrival o f an ambassador from the Güligàn to the Tâng Ml court in 627-649 A.D. As the Dutch Sinologist pointed out, this distance o f 30.000 li Ж (see above: 20.000 /7 M ) from the capital definitely m eans not the distance itself, but actual travel time and this number only highlights that the Güligàn territory was view ed as one o f the most distant lands (Schle­ gel 1895: 164—165). Besides, in the same section o f W énxiàn Töngkäo a passage from Töng Diän ifÜÜ: (Töng diän: juän 185: la) about the nights, which are so short that if one boils a mutton leg, it will have been cooked already by sunrise is repeated almost verbatim. N. V. Kyuner cited the same fragm ent based on Yù pî lidài töng jiàn ji län However, this source also indicates the date o f the embassy 647 A.D. The superscripted commentary for this section questions both the veracity o f the information about the mutton leg and o f the statement (which, according to the commenter, came from the Güligàn 'мМУУМ themselves) that they live “by the sunrise” (K yuner 1961: 35-36). Hence, it becomes clear that the Chinese had actually never visited those lands and all information was obtained exclusively from some local in­ formers. In the D à qïng yïtong zhi 'Ш М the latter misconception about the localization o f the Güligàn # ^ J I t by the sunrise is already corrected (Kyuner 1961 : 282-283). Qurîqan 177 Thus, we should add an indisputable fact to the words m entioned above about the localization o f the Güligàn H’i l l l ü Since the Güligàn inhabited the northern territo­ ries separated from the Chinese, by positioning them in the north on the border o f the “icy sea” (Blnghài the Chinese authors actually implied that they had neither inform ation about how far north this country actually extended, nor data on any in­ habited territories beyond its borders (Cén Zhongmiän 1958: 749). Chronologically, next come the Muslim sources. In particular, the anonymous Per­ sian geographical treatise Hudüd al-‘älam min al-Mashriq ilä al-M aghrib (“The Limits o f The World from The East to The W est”) dating from 982-983 A. D. practically repeats the data o f the Chinese sources6, mentioning one o f the provinces (nühiyät) on the shore o f the Eastern Ocean, nam ed csjjt-* [fwry] (Hudüd al-‘Älam/M inorsky 1970: 84). On the following pages, it describes that the latter is “name o f a tribe which also belongs to the Khirkhiz but lives east o f them and does not mix with the other groups o f the Khirkhiz. They are man-eaters (mardum-khwär) and merciless. The other Khirkhiz do not know their language (zafan-i Ishän dlgar Kh. nadänand), and they are like savages (va chun w ahshlyand)”, a “This side o f the Fûrï (az zlr-i vay) there is a town K.M.JKATH where the Khirkhiz-khäqän lives” (Hudüd al-‘Älam/ M inorsky 1970: 97). The problem is that the oeuvre by the Persian author Abü Sa‘ïd ‘Abd äl-Hay ibn Zahhäk ibn Mahmüd Gardîzî Zayn al-ahbär (“Adornment o f Information”), compiled in the 1060s and introduced into the scientific circulation somewhat earlier than the previously cited source, also mentions some people called i s [fwry] neighboring the Qïrqïz, settled in three months from the headquarters o f the Qïrqïz qaghan that was then situated in Tuva. The people were characterized as a “large tribe” (textually, casai ba-qabïleyeh buzurg 'З А [(b)qbyleyeh bzrg]) (Barthold 1973: 29 (Persian text), 47 (Russian translation); M artinez 1982: 127-128). The specialists note the sim­ ilarity o f some data by G ardîzî with “Hudüd al-‘älam” (Barthold 1963b: 58). It was already V. V. Barthold who proposed a correction fürî <_sj ß > *qürï lsj ß * and compared this name with the Qur'iqan o f the Orkhon Inscriptions and the Qürï peoples o f Rashîd al-Dïn (Barthold 1963a: 497), considered below. V. Minorsky ac­ cepted these comparisons and pointed at a possible connection o f the ethnonym with the w ord *qunqan or *qonghan denoting ‘tent’ found in the Uyghur version o f the Oguz Qagan Destani. It was also him who pointed out that the form *Qürï may have evolved from this ethnonym (<Quriqan), which occurred around the creation time o f the source (Hudüd al-‘Älam/M inorsky 1970: 284 (note 3)).7 We must note here that V. V. Barthold, V. Minorsky, and later Yu. A. Zuev (see below) used one more comparison, w riting that Yuan shl ; t 3 calls that peoples kuri 6 7 For instance, the similarity in the descriptions o f Central Asia with the Chinese sources is amazing (Lurje 2007). It is likely that the comparison o f *furi tsjß > *qüri tijjä*with another ethnonym qün oß, not discussed in this paper, was totally in vain (Histoire des campagnes 1951: 63; Menges 1979: 6 970 (note 13)). 178 B air Z. Nanzatov & V ladim ir V. Tishin <guli, though in reality there was nothing similar in the source, but, according to P. Pelliot and L. Hambis (Histoire des campagnes 1951: 64), this reading is a conse­ quence o f a translation mistake made by W. Schott (Schott 1865: 436, 455). In all these testimonies a critical fact also appears to be that at least by the 10th century A.D. the Qur'iqans were considered a less significant political unit than the Qi'rqi'zs. That said, even though they lived close to the Qïrqïz and other Turkic groups, their languages had already differed from each other. Concerning sources from the Mongolian period, the Persian-language oeuvre Jäm i‘ al-Tawârïkh authored by Rashïd al-Dïn al-Tabïb (early 14th century), whose in­ formation ascends to the earlier sources, including the lost Mongolian ones, mentions the peoples named c ß j ß [qwrqän], that is, *quruqan judging by the restorable qäf above the first q ä f and пГ, and the diacritical (long) ’alif over the second qäf equally with t s j ß [qwry] (Rashïd al-Dïn D "vr: f r , Ы ) . L.A. Khetagurov reads it here as kurkan (Cyrillic: куркан) (Rashïd al-Dïn 1952a: 77, 125). Meanwhile, in the note it is indicated that the Parisian manuscript has it as qûqân (Cyrillic: кукан) (Rashïd alDïn 1952a: 125 (note 9)). In the reading by W. M. Thackston, here it is Quriqat (Rashïd al-Dïn 1998: 25, 60) (closing nun <j and ta’ cj essentially differ in their writing by a single dot). M ohammad Rôshan and Mostafa M ôsavï here admit the reconstruc­ tion qoriqan= qoruqan? (Rashïd al-Dïn ' r v r : ï *Vi). It should be noted that these *Quruqan are specified in the list o f tribes called the Mongols (Rashïd al-Dïn 1r v 'r : f f ; Rashïd al-Dïn 1952a: 77; Rashïd al-Dïn 1998: 25), i.e. they were included into a new group under a common politonym. In the second case, according to Rashïd alDïn, they joined to Genghis Khan during his campaign against the Taici’ut (Rashïd al-Dïn 1fVV : Ы ; Rashïd al-Dïn 1952a: 125; Rashïd al-Dïn 1998: 60), i.e. around the year 1200 A.D. However, P. Pelliot and L. Hambis were cautious speaking about a possibility to compare the tribes mentioned in the Orkhon Inscriptions and by Rashïd al-Dïn respectively (Histoire des campagnes 1951: 74). In a slightly earlier Chinese source Xïyôu lu compiled by Yélu Chücäi Jjß Ш Ш Ы based on his participation in Genghis K han’s Central Asian campaign in 1219-1224 A.D. it is stated that the Këfïichâ т Г (i.e. Qipcaqs) (Rachewiltz 1962: 23, 62 (note 129)) settled in the lands north o f India are the same state as the Güligàn I f 31^3 described in the Xîn Tâng shü S iJ f lS with the caveat that the name changed over time. E. Bretschneider considered that comparison a misapprehension, but was unable to explain its nature, referring to a general lack o f knowledge about the history o f South Siberia (Bretschneider 1910: 23-24 (note 42)). I. de Rachewiltz also high­ lights it as a clear mistake (Rachewiltz 1962: 23, 63 (note 133)). It is hard to say, what can actually explain it. Another Chinese oeuvre Shèng wü qïnzhêng lù mentions the names Niëgüsï ίΜ ϊίί® and Huölühän ' A l r f among Genghis K han’s 13 küriyens in one of the phases o f the Battle o f Dalan-Baljut (1187) (Histoire des campagnes 1951: 35, 36). However, the first word here is *Nägüs (Stein 1941: 417-418; Histoire des cam­ pagnes 1951: 27, 70-71; Rashïd al-Dïn 1f v r : 7 *VA). Hân Rulin reconstructed the second word as Qûrqân pointing at both words as not proper names, but the names Qurîqan 179 o f the tribes (Stein 1941: 417, 418, 419). According to a remark by P. Pelliot and L. Hambis, this com bination is in parallel with Rashid al-DTn, who mentioned ß jßj [nkwzqrg’n], interpreted by O.I. Smirnova as a single “nukuz-kurgan” (Cyrillic: “нукуз-курган”) [nkuz-qrg’n] (Cyrillic: нкуз-крган) (Rashid al-DIn 1952b: 87 (note 13)) and by W.M. Thackston as “ ...N üküz, Q uriqan...” (Rashid al-DIn 1998: 161). Meanwhile, in the edition by M ohammad Röshan and Mostafa MösavT the sec­ ond word is also corrected into J ß [qwrq’n] (Rashid al-DIn ' l'Vf : f V, >3ΛΔ). Ac­ cording to P. Pelliot, Ding qiän Т Ш in the Yuan mishl dill kâozhèng ilE and TÛ Ji Д1 nf in the Méng wù er shlji Щ7П Й Ж б Ё give a complete combination Nägüs Qoruqan (Histoire des campagnes 1951: 70-71). However, based on the form provided in a m ajority o f copies o f the Persian author it should be reconstructed as *qoryan / *qoryan. Yet the Chinese sources allow seeing the transcription *qoruqan ~ *qorqan.8 The Yuan shï vü 'ii (ch. 63) mentioned the Quriqans in the following context, “As for the A ng-k’o-la (Angara) {ß n jМУ <*Й5 ЁГ$У}, they get their name from the River. They are subject (ЙМШ) to the Chih-li-chi-ssu { pf^lJ p (® } (Girgis). They were more than 25,000 li aw ay from Та-tu {Μνΐίβ} (Daidu). Their language is very different from [that of] the Chi-li-chi-ssu (Girgis). The days are long and the nights are short. When the sun sets, they broil sheep ribs. W hen they finish, it is already light in the east. They are the K u-li-kan {in the text o f the source: Güliwo country which the T ’ang shiu Hf lfe records” (Cleaves 1956: 400 (note 76); cf.: Kyuner 1961: 283).9 In other words, the compilers o f the Yuân shî /elfe possessed entirely no credible, not to mention original data. Besides, they characterized the Quriqans as subject to the Qïrqïz. Indeed, the information that concerns them copies the information from the Tâng Ш sources. However, taking into account the abundance o f information about other peoples o f the region, even those earlier unknown, the very fact o f information transfer from the X ln Tâng shü ЗИтШШ, as well as the misspelled name, suggest that the ethnonym itself o f an entity relatively localized in the same area, was already an anachronism during the Yuân 7Π period. Even though the oeuvre was written during the Ming Щ period, the fact that Yélü Chücâi had known nothing about the Quriqans confirm s the assumption made above. It is the information harmony between the Chinese sources and Persian accounts that allow firstly to compare the ethnonym furl *ffiri ls j ß > *qüri ls jß'*, reflected in the latter precisely with the Quriqans, and not the Qori, contrary to V. Minorsky. In our view, a connection between the Qori and the Quriqans is possible as a second subsidiary branch, though it requires that linguistic substantiation which we are unable 8 9 Based on the available examples the character 1й H in Early Mandarin Chinese could render both the syllabic combination /rU /~ /1U/ (Histoire des campagnes 1951: 34, 59, 91, 145, 206, 207, 216, 251, 341), and a single sound /г/ —/1/ (Histoire des campagnes 1951: 185, 297, 373, 379, 400). Translation by F. Cleaves, additions by the authors o f this paper in curly brackets. 180 Bair Z. N anzatov & V ladim ir V. Tishin to find taking into account the etymology o f the word *quriqan itself, which we will consider below .10 Trying to find a correlation between the Üc Qurîqan o f Old Turkic monuments on the one hand, and the mention o f two erkins / irkins (Chinese sijln Ш I f ) among the Güligàn # * ! j # in the Chinese sources on the other hand, Yu.A. Zuev supposed to “find the third erkin o f the Qurïqans noted on the text o f a monument in honor o f the Tiirkic nobleman Tonyuquq and Tost’ in Tanhuiyao” . According to the researcher, “It could be the ke-li (qori) clan, which subsequently amalgamated with the Khitans” (Zuev 1960: 68, 104 (commentary 1)). It deals with the oeuvre o f the Ming Щ epoch authored by Gù Züyü U f f lU the Du shï fang yù jiyào (ch. 45), which, however, repeats the most simple data o f the previous epochs, though using a con­ tracted form G ü liitM J (Gù Züyü 2005: 96). That said, here, referring to the [Xïn] Tâng shü [ § ) т ] в ||, the source provides a list o f fifteen tribes (bù йР) o f Chilè ШШ) group. Among them, it mentions: yuë güliwô ql de zài huàn häibei ’[They] are called Güliwô ‘ШМШ, their land is by the northern sea,’ i.e. essen­ tially it is repeated data from the previous sources, and the ethnonym is again incor­ rectly transcribed. No information is available about the settlement o f the people called *Quruqan in the text by Rashid al-Drn. Yet, because the chapter about the *Quruqans is in proxim­ ity to the chapters about the group of tribes settled in Barqujin-Töküm, which, as should be noted without further discussion, and as can be inferred from certain pas­ sages o f the oeuvre by the Persian historian, encompassed the Angara region (cf.: Ksenofontov 1992: 130-135). In our opinion, there is a possible association with the ethnonym Quriqan, also encountered in this region, albeit somewhat earlier. It is ex­ actly this that the Yuan shï JL l i data confirm, which, in their turn, are authentic with the information o f the Persian author. At the same time, data from other sources men­ tioning the Huölühän tribe (pïnyïn huö-lü-hän, EMand *xwo'-lo''-xan“ (Pulleyblank 1991: 135, 200, 119) provide grounds to say that already by the last quarter o f the 12,h century there was a small group o f tribes called *Qoruqan ~ *Qorqan, or even in the M ongolian m anner *Xoruxan ~ *Xorxan. However, we cannot judge the latter with certainty since such form could exist on the tongues o f Mongolian-speaking informers o f Chinese authors. Thus, the Chinese, Old Turkic and Muslim sources reveal the following picture. The Chinese sources recorded the ethnonym Güligàn H'MI-fi since the Tang epoch (from the 7th century A.D.). They also allow localizing the Güligàn to the north o f the main body o f the Tiëlè Щ W) tribes, further to the east from the Qïrqïz (Jiégü & p # , Xiâjiâsï In Л Й т) and the *Tuba (Dübô ШШ). This arrangement produces a rough outline o f the settlement area o f the Güligàn 'PiM JIt in the Eastern Sayans 10 It may be assumed that the penetration o f the ethnonym into the Mongolic-speaking milieu led to reconsideration on the Mongolie ground o f its ending, represented by the original suffix +KAn homonymous to a Mongolie diminutive marker (Poppe 1954: 42), for which reason it was dis­ carded. Qurïqan 181 close to Lake Baikal. The Old Turkic inscriptions indirectly confirm this localization and denote carriers o f the ethnonym Qur'iqan as a distinct and, seemingly, rather big ethnopolitical unit. The Muslim sources later mentioned a large furl lsj ß > *qürï t j j ß * tribe as the neighbors o f the Qïrqïz. Supposedly the fun lsj ß > *qûrï ts jß * could be sim ilar to the Güligàn 11’M / Qur'iqan o f the Chinese and Old Turkic sources. Later on, up until the period o f the Mongol Empire, the mentions o f the Qur'iqan in w ritten sources were missing. The Yuan shï тЬ “id supplements and con­ cretizes the data o f the earlier Chinese sources locating the carriers o f the ethnonym Güligàn # f l l # in the Angara river valley. At the same time, Shèng wü qïnzhêng lù llÄ S liiE ! ^ and Rashïd al-Dïn occasionally mention ethnonyms, whose spelling sup­ posedly renders the sounding *Qoruqan ~ *Qorqan. Therefore, it is possible to trace the existence and development o f the ethnonym from the ancient Turkic times to the epoch o f the M ongol Empire. The Etym ology o f the Ethnonym The problem o f the Qur'iqans ’belonging to this or that linguistic community was often resolved through the exposure o f etymology o f their ethnonym. In a pretentious study, L. Cahun com pared the Mongolian word Keurékène (resp. küregen) ‘son-in-law ,’ which, being the title o f Timur, later, as the author believed, became the clan name meaning ‘le B el’ (Cahun 1896: 444). However, V. V. Barthold doubtlessly noted this moment as a misinterpretation (Barthold 1968: 240). Barthold himself, as well as P. M. M elioransky, Yu. D. Talko-Hryncewicz and later possibly R. Giraud, consid­ ered that this ethnonym ascended to the M ongolian word xuriyan denoting ‘lamb, sheep’ (Barthold 1897: 19-20; Melioransky 1899: 100; Talko-Hryncewicz 1900: 67; Giraud 1960: 193). G. V. Kscnofontov believed that the derivation from Buryat xiirgen ~ kürgen (Cyrillic: хюргэн ~ кюргэн), and Tungusic kurokan ~ kurakan ~ kureken (Cyrillic: курокан ~ куракан ~ курэкэн) denoting son-in-law, could explain the eth­ nonym. He thought that the Turks, Mongols, and Tungus were, in fact, these sons-inlaw (Ksenofontov 1992: 195). P. Pelliot and L. Hambis, accepting the comparison o f the ethnonym with Qori Te Vingt’, and based on the geography data from the Chinese and Persian sources, assumed that the suffix -qan in this particular case was not a problem since it was non-essential (‘non-essentiel’). They cited as an example per­ sonal names: C ila ’un in “The Secret History o f the Mongols” alias C ila ’uqan in Rashïd al-D ïn’s oeuvres. Here there is also a w om an’s proper name Câlûqân [cl’w q ’n], which, in another context appears as Câlun (Histoire des campagnes 1951 : 63-64). However, generally, they left the issue o f this form ’s origin unanswered (His­ toire des campagnes, 1951: 70-71). О. Pritsak here considered -qan as the “A ltaic” ethnonym -form ing suffix, resulting in the derivate from Qur'i (Pritsak 1952: 75). W. Haussig took a path o f stem-composition and interpreted the ethnonym by a transla­ tion o f Quri as the Old Turkic «W esten» and qan «Fürst» (Haussig 1953: 337 (Anm. 196)). Before that, G. D. Sanzhcev proposed to compare the ethnonym Qur'iqan with Rashïd al-Dïn’s Qurqan/Quriqat and the Buryat tribe Xurxad. N. N. Poppe, unconvinced in the existence o f the ethnonym among the Buryats, but sure 182 B air Z. Nanzatov & V ladim ir V. Tishin about the existence o f the village Khurkhat, Sanzheev’s birthplace, highlighted this fact (Poppe 1952: 298). G. N. Rumyantsev compared the Quriqans and the Qori con­ sidering them the same ethnos (Rumyantsev 1962: 128). In another work, Sanzheev fully denied a possibility o f phonetic parallels between the ethnonyms Quriqans and Qori, proposed by Rumyantsev. At the same time, he supported Rumyantsev in that the Turkic-language term Qurîqan is not explained (Sanzheev 1983: 88, 93). V. V. Svinin developed the “sons-in-law” version. He felt that Üc Qurîqan indeed meant “three sons-in-law”, meaning the three clans o f the Turks, Mongols and Tungus inter­ connected by kinship (Svinin 1974: 20). T. A. Bertagaev offered a version that the ethnonym Bury’a t originated from the ethnonym Qurîqan (Bertagaev 1970). Subse­ quently, Ts. B. Tsydendambaev heavily criticized this hypothesis (Tsydendambaev 1972: 272-274). Later Rumyantsev put forward the hypothesis that the ethnonym Urianxan ~ Urianxai was a belated version o f the ethnonym Qurîqan (Rumyantsev 1951 : 80). D. B. Tsybikdorzhiev attempted to develop the hypothesis further (Tsybikdorzhiev 1996). D. D. N imaev criticized the version about the connections between the ethnonyms Urianxai and Qurîqan (Nimaev 2000: 66). The scholars practically never put forward hypotheses about a Turkic origin o f the ethnonym. Its Turkic origin was even considered impossible. However, the “Old Tur­ kic vocabulary”, compiled by Soviet scholars, does contain a word qorïyan ~ *qurîqan, which, in its formal characteristics, can be com pared with the ethnonym qurîqan (Nadeliaev et al. 1969: 4 6 8 ).11 The word qorïyan denotes ‘headquarters, military cam p’ and has parallels with χοήγα (η) ~ yoruya(n) known from the written Mongo­ lian monuments (see: Nanzatov 2005: 17-20). Here we should pay attention to the fact that in the Uyghur script system, in which the Oguz Qagan Destani manuscript containing this word is written, has no graphical difference between the unvoiced uvular stop and voiced velar fricatives /q/ and /у/, as well as between back rounded high and low vowels /и/ and /о/. As was already said, V. Minorsky paid attention to the word *qurïqan, or *qorïghan denoting ‘tent’ in the Uyghur version o f the Oguz Qagan Destani. It was also he who pointed out that the form *Qurï may represent a development o f this ethnonym (<Qurïqan) that occurred by the time the source was written (Hudüd al‘Alam/Minorsky 1970: 284 (note 3)). Already P. Pelliot, whom V. Minorsky referred to, reading the form qorïyan in the Oguz Qagan D estani, clearly pointed at the Mon­ golian qoriya or qoriyan “cam p” <qori- “enfermer,” known in some Turkic dialects12. However, he also decided not to deal with the issue o f this form ’s ancient age or its borrowing from Turkic, having also left aside the issue o f a possible connection of this word with qoryan <*qorïyan. Vacillating between the translations “camp” and 11 The authors of the Drevnetiurkskii slovar' made use o f the Uyghur version of Oguz Qagan De­ stani and many other texts, which, in reality, should be related to the Middle Turkic period, which undoubtedly should be considered a certain methodological misconception of this edition. (Erdal 2004: 9). 12 B. Ögel is not accurate when positing that the French Orientalist associated the word with the verb kari- ‘kurnrak’ (Ögel 1991: 164). Qurîqan 183 “tent,” he adm itted that semantically it should be the second, but only based on the context o f the source he firmly chose the second one (Pelliot 1930: 289-292). A. M. Scherbak preferred the reading qurîqan (in Russian Academic Script: kypïkau) and the translation ‘marquee’ (‘shater’) (Scherbak 1959: 33, 37, 38) tracing it to the verb q u r ï(~kypi-) ‘to build’ (‘stroit’) (Scherbak 1959: 73-74); cf. qorïyan ‘campingground, m ilitary cam p’ (‘stan, voennyi lager’) (Nadeliaev et al. 1969: 458). G. Doerfer considered both readings possible, i.e., either with the voiceless stem spirant or the voiceless consonant. Nevertheless, he explained this word as a reverse borrowing from Mongolian. He substantiated the stem as qor- ‘schützen’: qor-γ+α-η, also giving the variant qorï-y ‘geschützter O rt’ (Doerfer 1967: 542-544). Nowadays this etym ol­ ogy may be considered commonly accepted (Tenishev 1997/2001: 486 487). Con­ trary to B. Ögel this pertains only to blending with the stem qur- (Ögel 1991: 162— 164). As Sir Gerard Clauson pointed out (Clauson 1972: 652, 43, 158), the term qorïy (<qorï- 'to guard’) might already be encountered in the Ongin inscription (case qor'fyϊηϊη 1)V4>4) (O S, line 4; Ösawa 2011: 170) (H. Çirin User reads qoray-ϊηϊη ‘cenaze töreni’ (Çirin User 2009, s. 300, 468]), but not in the Khöshöö Tsaidam Inscriptions where (a )m yïqory(a)n (BQ E, line 31; KT N, line 7; $irin User 2009: 62, 150; Aydm 2009). The inscription dedicated to Bilgä Qayan contains the term qor(ï)yu ‘muhafiz, kale m uhafizi’ (BQ E, line 41; Çirin User 2009: 281). On the Tes Inscription there is a name o f the area q(a)s(a)r qor(u)y, where the Uyghur qaghan placed his headquarters (Tes S, line 2) (Klyashtomy 2010: 87, 89). It appears that q(a)s(a)r q(u)rd(a)n in the M ogoin Sine Usu monument (MSU S, line 8) corresponds to it (Klyashtom y 2010: 56, 63), which is associated with the Por-Bazhyn fortress in Tuva (Klyashtom y 2010: 254-257). However, in a different place the same Sir Gerard Clau­ son provided a possible reading o f the phrase in the Mogoin Sine Usu monument, which had been read by Ramstedt and the first researchers as qs1r 1qvr1 A i.e. (a)qs('i)r(a)q or chi, as q s'r'qnr'd'n / )84>HHYHin the context kasar кип: din ‘to the west o f K asar’ (Clauson 1972: 95, 645). In the same manner this place was read by T. Moriyasu (qasar qurïdïn ‘the west o f Q asar’) (M oriyasu 1999: 179, 184), and later N. Bazylkhan, who read Qasar qurïdïn ‘ Karnap Kepi ж актан’ (Bazylkhan 2005: 124), and still later by E. Aydm (kasar kurtdtn), who, nonetheless, interpreted the first lex­ eme as ‘Kasar(larm ) (Kasar’in?)’ (Aydtn 2007: 42, 59), which he correlated with the Hazar tribe following L. Bazin, B. Ârpâd and A. Rona-Tas (Aydm 2007: 8 4 -8 5 ).13 13 On the word qur'd'n' in this meaning, where qurï ‘west’, see: Rybatzki 1997: 51, (Anm. 132), 95-96, (Anm. 250); Çirin User 2009: 84—86,230); on the suffix +dAn / +dln see: Tenishev 2002: 642-647; Erdal 2004:174—175. Meanwhile, Li Yong-Sönghas recently put forward a hypothesis, according to which qvr'd'NTA of the Tonyuquq inscription should be viewed as a form with a locative o f the ethnonym ‘im Westen von den Qorï’, which can be correlated with fîirï LSjß> *qûrî lSjA* o f the Hudüd al- ‘Älam and Gardîzî. At the same time, he correlated qurï-dïn with qurîqan (Li Yong-Söng 2003). However, it should be discarded not only because the location of the assumed tribe would not contextually match historical geography, but rather because the vowel o f the second syllable is not marked here, though, in this case, be necessary. 184 Rair Z. Xanzatov & Vladim ir V. Tishin Recently I.V. Kormushin, having also proposed the reading q°sar qord'n, has pointed at a correlation in the 1'es inscription where there is a toponym qasar qoruy (Tes S, line 2), the writing o f which is, however, a ease form o f the initial qasar qorfqur ( Kor­ mushin 2004: 166). To a certain degree advancing into these issues touches upon the very etvmologization o f the name Qurïqan. In his “Etymological Dictionary...” Sir Gerard Clauson singled out the kori stem: - “ lto fence in. or protect (a piece o f ground),’ and the like.” also highlighting the most widespread phonetic variant koru- “with the same and ex­ tended meanings” (Clauson 1972: 645 646). Formally, we should propose here a der­ ivation with the addition o f déverbal suffixes -(X)k- -Xn o f the formation of intran­ sitive verbs and primary name. The formation of the verb qorq- from the form qoriq- is explained by the dropping o f a narrow vowel between the sonorant and the ob­ struent in the middle o f the three-syllable stem (see: Tekin 1968: 74; Tekin 2003: 61). For the cases with the suffix -(X)k-, besides qorq- < qor'i-q-, M. F.rdal also registers tarq- < tar-ïq-, halq- < hal'iq- (Hrdal 2004: 97, 132-133). Meanw hile, as this scholar notes, the attested verb qorq- (< qorï-q-) has a meaning ‘to be afraid,’ though another meaning - ‘to protect oneself - should be expected instead (F.rdal 1991: 646 647). Forms dcrivatcd by the suffix -(X/k- are characterized by M. lirdal as relatively late (Iirdal 1991: 650-651). Forms created by the suffix -Xn should act as object nominals for transitive verbal stems and subject nominals from intransitive ones, but they never denote the agent o f action, only the object or result (lirdal 1991: 300. 304). In. any ease keeping in mind 1'urkic phonetic and stress accentuation rules, this etymologization would at the end presuppose the form *qorqin ~ *qorqun, allowed by neither Chinese transcription, nor the form given by Rashid al-DIn. Another variant may be particularly explained with the help o f the denominal suf­ fix t kAn marking “divine beings, honorifics and the like” (iütjrikün, ötükän, qadïrqan. bur/an), and also, as far as one can see. members of social and professional groups yetikdn. baSyan (<*basqanl) (F.rdal 19 9 1: 7 6 ,7 7 ).u In our case the basing stem should be the qorïy ~ qoruy, + -rkAn > *qoriy-qan - *qonr/-qan, which, as a result o f regres­ sive assimilation o f the consonant would produce *qorïqan - *q ont qan. In this case the graphic designation o f the vowel in the second syllable in the Old Turkic runic writing points precisely at the (dialectal?) form o f the initial *qorïy, but not *qonty (> *quruy). It is typically in this form that the term found a way into Mongolie languages. B. Ya. Vladimirisov wrote, “le seigneur nomade pouvait de son plein gré «interdire» certains emplacements de son nutuq, en faire des «lieux interdits» (qoriq) réserves â la sépulture des membres du clan royal, ou aux chasses seigneuriales” (Vladimirtsov 1948: 146; Rashïd al-Dîn, 1952a: 125 (note 1)). Rashïd al-Dïn repeatedly mentions the quntqs, protected .raw’s lands where members o f the ruling clan laid buried. In the years since for representatives o f Turkic and Mongol dynasties the xoriy ~ qontq also meant a burial ground, but in the pre-Mongolian period, it sometimes denoted places 14 Concerning the latter exam ple otherw ise see: F.rdal 2004: 76. Qurîqan 185 reserved solely forxa/i’s household (Barthold 1966: 383). The dala from ihe compen­ dium by Mahmud al-Kasyan where the word qor'iy iqrgl denoted “the private property o f chiefs” (Ί -himä ΗΊ-umarä) or “any enclosed ( rnahüz) place” (MK I: 375; Mahmud al-Kâsyarl 1982: 288; Mahnuid al-Käsyari 2005: 356; Mahmud al-Käsyari 2010: 312; Nadeliaev et al. 1969: 458; Clauson 1972: 652) confirm this. B. Ögel ex­ trapolates these data to the Ancient Turkic period (Ögel 1971: 134). They arc able to be noticed here the two paradigm eases. Namely, the biography of Xuan Zàng & contains a description o f the summer headquarters o f the Western Turkic qaghan, “C'e pays a environ cent li en carré; on y voit une multitude de lacs et d’étangs, et des arbres aussi remarquables par leur hauteur que par la richesse de leur feuillage. L'hu­ midité qui y régne répand partout une douce fraîcheur: c ’est là que le Khan vient se retirer (chaque année) pour échapper aux chaleurs de l’été” (Julien 1857: 58 59; Ju­ lien 1858: 268: Zuev 2002: 269). These data correlate with the information o f alTabari who wrote about the Ttirgis people, “The Khäqän possessed a meadow and a mountain, a protected area which no one drew near to or hunted in. The two were left as a space for (practice) warfare: what was in the meadow for three days and what was in the mountain for three days” (al-Tabari 1989: 132; cf.: Barthold 1963: 34). Therefore, rather than going into details o f the particular messages, we acquire both information about the existing notions o f some restricted territories during the Ancient Turkic period and documentation o f the word qor'iy. Consequently, the term qor'iqan etymologized relevantly, is, in our view, not initially an ethnonym, but an appellative o f a territorial entity, at least at an early stage, llence, we may understand the term Uc Qor'iqan as a name o f a specific territorial group, literally ‘keepers o f the three protected places’ or ‘three [groups? tribes? J o f keepers o f the protected places’. Phonetically, this etymology does not contradict the Middle Chinese pronuncia­ tion (sec note 2 below). So, according to Yukiyo Kasai, the final o f the character £/} r i, belonging to the rhyme group môyùn &вЯ, that is LMC -wat, LMC -ut, reflected Old Turkic back rounded both high vowel /и/ and low one /of (Kasai 2012: 106. 139 (Tab. 111.13); Kasai 2014: 92 (Tab. 111.9), 95). O f course, based on the fact that the term first appeared in the epoch o f political domination o f the Turks <Tûjué %Ш) in Inner Asia, and that it has a Turkic etymol­ ogy. it is possible to assume that its bearers themselves spoke the Old Turkie language. However, such assumption limits the resolution o f this issue resulting in a misunder­ standing o f the entire problem. It is beyond any doubt that the “keepers o f the three protected places” were related to one o f the Inner Asian nomadic empires. In the meantime, in our view, there arc reasons to suppose that both the emergence o f the ethnonym and the shaping o f the entity· itself are related to the period o f the First Turkic Qaghanatc. The archaeologist В. B. Dashibalov, a student o f the Kurumchi culture, argued that the Qur'iqam collected tribute from the taiga dwellers o f the Baikal Siberia and gave a share o f their booty to qaghans o f the Orkhon Tiirks (Dashibalov 1995: 146). In our opinion, to trade Airs with the sedentary neighbours, the Tiirks organized a peculiar three-garrison strong military district in the taiga zone o f Cisbaikalia, namely in the 186 Bair Z. Nanzatov & Vladimir V. Tishin upper reaches o f the A ngara and Lena rivers. The purpose o f these garrisons was the procurement o f furs for the qaghan’s court to bathe the further used in the foreign trade or elsewhere. The only way by which they could procure enough furs was to lay the local tribes, possibly the Tungus, or peoples o f the Samoyed or Ket origin, under tribute. These garrisons could enlist various ethnic groups, both Turkic and Mongolie speaking15, which was entirely characteristic o f Inner Asia at every historical period. As is usually the case, the garrisons possibly had an economic unit including all those carrying the task o f keeping the military-administrative outpost in Cisbaikalia operational. It consisted o f people with the skills that the local tribes lacked: farmers, cattle herders, masons, blacksmiths, and the like. One cannot claim that all o f them belonged to some closely related tribes. It is more likely that their composition re­ flected the ethnic diversity w ithin the boundaries o f the Ttirkic Qaghanate. For exam­ ple, construction workers and masons could well be the inhabitants o f Sogdiana, the Sogdians (soydaq), while blacksmiths could come from the neighbouring Turkic or Mongolie tribes and so on. Besides, later these garrisons could also recruit local East Sayan Turkic tribes. In the following years, diverse processes o f ethnic consolidation led to the shaping o f common self-awareness and a transformation o f a politonym into an ethnonym. Thus, the people o f Qurîqan or Üc Qurîqan did appear on the historical scene o f the 7th- 8 th centuries A.D. During the Mongolian period o f Inner Asian history, the Qurîqan tribal union lost its form er significance in this region. It was replaced on the stage o f history by various other tribes that played different roles in the former Qurîqan entity. In our view, the bearers o f the ethnonym X urxad among the Buryats and Kurkan among the Daurs may be the scattered remnants o f this ancient entity. Based on archaeological materials, the ancient Turkic period settlement area o f the Qurïqans, traditionally correlated with the Kurumchi (from one o f the Buryat tribal ethnonym Qurumci) archaeological culture, can be visualized as a conditional trian­ gle. Its northwestern vertex lies in the Barguzin Valley, w hile in the southeast it em­ braces the upper reaches o f the Selenga. The western com er is located in the middle course o f the Angara near its confluence with the Unga (Dashibalov 1995: 40). Inside and around this triangle active assimilation o f the local tribes and the foreign popula­ tion had been underway, subsequently resulting in the shaping o f a future conglomer­ 15 Here we will not raise a debatable issue o f when the Mongolian tribes emerged in Inner Asia. We will only point at the fact that at present this issue cannot be unequivocally resolved, at least in view of an attempt made at the 61st meeting of the Permanent International Altaistic Conference (PIAC) on August 31, 2017 by a research group consisting o f M. Ölmez, D. Maue, A. Vovin and E. de la Vaissière to read one of the steles o f the Hiiis Tolgoi Inscription in Brâhmî script. The researchers characterized the language o f the inscription as Para-Mongolic. Despite scepticism o f many researchers and the debatable interpretation of the inscription, as V. V. Ponaryadov con­ vincingly showed in his report at the international scientific conference “The Turco-Mongol World: History and Culture” (15 February 2018) at the Institute o f Oriental Manuscripts of the RAS (St. Petersburg), attempts to read the steles in any other, at least, Altaic languages, based on the classification o f signs by D. Maue, have not yielded any results. Qurîqan 187 ate that spawned some W estern Buryat tribes, the X ori and, perhaps, some groups o f Yakuts. Possibly, this can express similarities and differences between the inventory o f the Kurumchi-Qurïqans and the archaeological cultures o f Inner Asia and the Y e­ nisei valley. Similar items infiltrated from these areas or were produced by the people from the contact zones. Original differences emerged by way o f mixing styles. It is also possible to associate their material culture with the previous population o f this region, most likely, o f Tungusic descent. As the archaeologist A. V. Kharinsky ar­ gues, there was no single archaeological culture in Cisbaikalia in the second h alf of the l sl millennium A.D. Instead, there are several cultural areas with diverse origins (Kharinsky 2001: 105-119). Meanwhile, without getting into details, we should point out that overall the conclusions made by Kharinsky do not disagree with, but instead support the hypothesis about the multiethnic structure o f the original population o f the conditional Üc Qurîqan district. Therefore we assume that the ethnonym has found a reliable etymologization on the ancient Turkic base qorïy ‘protected place’ + -(X)k- + -Xn, i.e., precisely with a back rounded low vowel in the first syllable. Consequently, qorïqan literally means ‘keepers o f the protected places,’ which points at the descent from the social term. We should take into account that the Turkic etymology o f the ethnonym indirectly allows connecting the formation o f the bearing entity to the Ancient Turkic period. However, at the same time, it does not contradict the possibility that it had formed as a polyethnic entity (Turkic, M ongolie, Tungusic, Samoyedic, Yeniseic, etc.). Archaeological ma­ terials from the Baikal region connected with the Kurumchi culture may present ad­ ditional arguments in favour o f this assumption. Associations with Modern Ethnonyms In the ethnic composition o f modem peoples, the closest ethnonyms to the ethnonym Qurîqan are those o f Buryat and Daur tribes. One o f the oldest tribes in the genealog­ ical myths and legends o f Buryats is the X urxad tribe. For instance, within the Bulagat (Bulgad) tribal union that consists o f over twenty tribes the X urxad is the second old­ est. According to the genealogical tree o f the Bulagats, Tugalak (Buryat Toglog from Turkic Tuyluy) had seven sons, o f whom Xurxad was the second. Taking into account the fact that the Bulagat genealogical tree features seven tribes forming the kernel o f the Bulagat ethnic union, pivotal for the medieval consolidation processes o f the An­ gara region’s tribes, the Xurxad are essential wide its basis. The Buryat toponym y o f the region reflected the wide distribution o f bearers o f the ethnonym Xurxat. Nowadays, near the island o f Olkhon, there is the Kurkat Cove. There are a locality and a large settlement named X urxat / Khurkhat in the Alar district (see G.D. Sanzheev’s view above). Like other Buryats, in the 17th—19th centuries the Xurxats formed administrative, fiscal units for taxing purposes. In the Russian language o f officialdom such adminis­ trative clans were referred to as Kurkutskie (Cyrillic: куркут ские) while the Buryats o f this tribe were called the Kurkuts (Originally Russian: куркуты) In the late 17th century the Kurkuts settled in the lower reaches o f the Kuda river, in the valley o f 188 Bair Z. Nanzatov & V ladim ir V. Tishin Baley (Dolgikh 1960: 285, 287). Notably, one o f the legends recorded by S. P. Baldaev also m entioned the Murin (the Murin is a tributary o f the Kuda river) Xurxats being Bayarxan and Yanxa, who came from across the Angara. The tribal union o f the Ikinats included a Xurxat branch (for more see: Nanzatov 2005: 101). In our view, the Angara steppes in the lower parts o f the Kuda, Baley, Kitoy and Irkut river valleys were the central settlement area o f the Xurxats in the 17th century. It is from there that the Xurxats migrated in the 17th century to their 19lh-century set­ tlement area. It is also entirely possible that a part o f the Lower Kuda Xurxats migrated to W est M ongolia following the rebellion o f Petr Tayshin and Vasily Stepanov (see: Okladnikov 1937: 177-202). In the 19th century the Kurkut administrative clans belonged to the Tunkinskaya steppe duma (Originally Russian: степная дума), Zakamenskaya and Kitoyskaya non-Russian administrations. In the Tunkinskaya steppe duma, the Xurxats were set­ tled m ostly in the Torskaya non-Russian administration situated in the east, in the middle reaches o f the Irkut close to the southwestern shore o f Lake Baikal (see N anza­ tov, Sodnompilova 2017a). In the Zakamenskaya non-Russian administration they were settled in the upper reaches o f the Jida and its tributaries (see Nanzatov, Sod­ nompilova 2017b). One o f the Xurxat branches in the Kitoyskaya non-Russian ad­ ministration, namely the Saigut, was known as the Saigut administrative clan. By the 19th century representatives o f this clan surrendered most o f their lands to Russian peasants. They retained only the upper reaches o f the Baley river and the valley o f the Ket (Bur. Xed) river flowing into the Baley (see: Nanzatov 2014). In 1897 the Kurkut administrative units were subdivided into the first and second clans (Rus. pod). The first Kurkut clan o f the Tunka steppe duma numbered 888 persons. The second clan had 583 persons. The first Kurkut clan in the Zakam enskaya non-Russian administra­ tion had 1298 persons while the second clan num bered 253 persons. The Saigut ad­ ministrative clan was 748 people strong. Judging by the ethnographic data the first Kurkut administrative clan mainly con­ sisted o f the Xurxats proper, while the second Kurkut administrative clan was formed from the Xurxat branch known as Uliaba (Bur. Uliaba) with matrilineal Xurxhat an­ cestry (Dugarov 1983: 97). The ethnonym уляба appears to share the same stem with other M ongolian ethnonyms Ulis and Uliad widespread among the Amur Daurs (Ulis) and the Nerchinsk Xamnigans (Uliad) (Uvarova 2004: 22). In both cases, the M ongo­ lian plural suffixes +s and +ad are added to the word root uli-. It is likely that the word root uli ‘ow l’ (M ong.) forms the basis o f the ethnonym. It seems that in the Buryat variant Uliaba / Uliaba consists o f the two parts uli and aba. In our opinion, the second part -aba m ay be compared with the Turkic oba (~ opa), which is, in its turn, related to the Mongolian oboy ‘clan, tribe’ (Doerfer 1965: 132-134; Clauson 1972: 5-6; Sevortyan 1974: 400^401; Tenishev 1997/2001: 323, 492). So, according to some assumptions in the late 11th—12th centuries the forms o f this word opa ~ oba ~ *epa, with a possible denotation ‘dwelling’ and ‘encam pm ent’ were met in the proper names o f the Polovtsi (Qïpcaq) xans (Altunopa, Aepa, It-oba, Urusoba, Cenerepa and others, see: Golden 1995-1997: 108 ffi; cf., however: Doerfer 1965; 133). Qurîqan 189 Yet another fact confirms the possible connection between the ethnonyms Uliaba and Ulis. The Daurs of the Ulis tribe (Mong. Ulis\ Chin, ê f t l î Wülïsî) were divided into two parts, one of which was the Ulis proper, another being the Kurkan (Mong. K urkan; Chin. Kùërka) (Men Di Dun, Bayar 1989; Bo Lin 1998). Thus, one can find the ethnonym Kurkan among the Daurs settled in Dôngbëi Ж Ж in the Heilongjiang MËÈik province and Inner Mongolia, and, in the valley o f the Zeya until the end o f the 19th century. Concerning the ethnonym Ulad / Uliat, in our view, there is a possible connection with the Daurian ethnonym. Under the influence o f the Buryat language in which the Mongolie plural suffix +s disappeared, possibly replaced by another M ongolie plural formative +d / +(a)d.16 At the beginning o f the 20th century as a result o f mass resettlement o f Buryats to M ongolia, the Xurxats found themselves living in the Mongolian territory. According to the m ost recent statistical data published on the website o f the M ongolian State Statistical Committee, there are 199 Xurxats (see: Qurqad ovog 2018) in Mongolia. Thus the m odem area o f Xurxat settlement embraces not only Buryatia and Northeast China, but also northern Mongolia. The ethnonym xurxuud / xurxad m entioned above is directly related to the ethno­ nym o f the Qor'iqan ~ Qurîqan entity after the breakup o f the latter as a single social organism. By transforming into a semi-social organism with ethnic features, it pre­ served the term qurîqan, which, already perceived as a wholesome lexical unit, trans­ formed within the Mongolie linguistic m ilieu into xurxad ~ xurxuud with the help o f the relevant M ongolie plural suffixes +d, and +ud. In the w ritten Mongolian language the suffix +d (<+/) is added to the stems ending with Ы (already in classical texts to ones with /1/), while this final consonant got re­ duced [Poppe 1954, p. 70-77], allowing to assume xurxad <*xurxan. If to assume the suffix +Ud in the second case, then in written sources it attaches itself to the stems ending with any other consonants except Ы [Poppe 1954: 72]. However, the suffix was characterized by length vowel (cf. the orthographic form +uud) developed historically due to the stressed position of this morpheme (Vladimirtsov 1929: 253-254; Sanzheev 1953: 129). Therefore, the assumed form *xurxuud < *xurxud would presuppose a derivation from the basing *xurx. Meanwhile, the formative +yud / +giid, which also attached itself to the basing stems ending with /п/ presum ing its reduction had been observed since the 17th century. It also allows to expect the formation o f xurxuud < *xurxuyud < *xurxun (sing.). However, this is hardly possible. Moreover, the forms cited by Rashid al-DIn and the anonymous au­ thor o f the Shèng wü qïnzhëng lit enable us to reconstruct only qoruqan ~ *qorqan and *xoruxan ~ *xorxan respectively. Obtaining the form *qorqan jj *xorxan from *qor'iqan with the reduction o f the medial narrow vowel can be explained by the position o f this vowel o f a non-first syllable in an unstressed position if it is a short vowel. There are two possible variants. Perhaps, it is the formation o f the two-syllable form *qorqan from the three-syllable 16 For more on this phenomenon see: Sanzheev 1953: 129. 190 Bair Z. Nanzatov & Vladim ir V. Tishin qorïqan already in the Turkic-speaking milieu as a result o f an elision o f a narrow vowel o f the second syllable. Also, the phenomenon o f the inconsistent designation o f vowel quality in non-first syllables o f multi-syllable words was characteristic of the Written Mongolian monuments both from the 14th—15th, 16th’ and 17th and even as late as 18,h-2 0 th centuries. It is explained by their being in unstressed position when in the course o f the making o f W ritten Mongolian language the principal stress fell on the first syllable and the aspiratory one on the last syllable. It allowed characterizing the second syllable vowels for the period when the Old M ongolian script was in the making as reduced vowels, which is particularly characteristic o f m odem Khalkha Mongolian (Vladimirtsov 1929: 106-112; cf.: Sanzheev 1953: 73-74). However, having the original form as precisely *qorïqan, i.e., with the low vowel in the first syllable we should explain the emergence o f the high vowel in Mongolized forms. Theoretically, one would assume qorïqan > *qoriqan || *xorixan. There are three possible explanations. The first lies in an assumption that the narrowing o f the vowel in the first syllable *qorïqan > *qurîqan had occurred already in the Turkic­ speaking milieu, which would have been more likely with the forms *qoruqan > *quruqan (assimilation affected by the second syllable vowel), similar to what Rashid al-DTn and the anonymous author o f the Shèng wü qïnzhëng lù Μ ίϋ Μ ίϊΕ ϋ docu­ mented. The second explanation is in the fact that the emergence o f the high vowel /и/ in place o f the low one /о/ in the first syllable is one o f the characteristic specific­ ities, sporadically documented in the Mongolie languages where, in words with the second vowel being high /и/ it could exert assimilative influence on the previous one (Rassadin 1982: 13-14; Sanzheev 1953: 74). This presupposes restoration o f the fol­ lowing phonetic transformations *qoruqan > Mong. *xoruxan > *xuruxan for the form *qorqan jj *xurxan. The third variant may be proposed by the fact of coincidence o f the Mongolie /и/ with both Turkic /и/ and /о/ in a stressed position, documented for the Written M ongolian language. B. Ya. Vladimirtsov tended to explain this by the formation o f the W ritten M ongolian language on the basis o f a dialect, which had a vowel /со/ or /и/, intermediate between /о/ and /и/ (Vladimirtsov 1929: 160) (it is to be recalled that in the Old Turkic runic writing monuments the low /о/ and high /и/ also did not differ graphically from each other, being denoted by a single character). Thus, borrowing o f the word qorïqan ~*qoruqan in the Mongolie linguistic envi­ ronment, already as a wholesome undivided stem, could occur either through the *qofqan or through the stage *qur“qan (possibly before the transformation o f the uvular stop /q/ into the fricative /%/). Here, we can note a dropping o f the short vowel o f the second syllable (Vladimirtsov 1929: 334-335). It is also indirectly confirmed by the reduction o f short vowels in the middle o f a word in the Tunka and Zakamna Buryat dialects (Rassadin 1996: 50, 52). The most illustrative examples from the latter dialect are xarxa (<xaraxa) ‘to look’, Ьагьха (<barixa) ‘to hold,’ and so on showing that vowels o f any articulation are subject to reduction, particularly in a position be­ tween a sonorant and a nasal consonant. Regardless o f the accepted version, this form supposedly reflected in the Daurian language where it survived in its nearly original form kurkan. The presence o f the Qurïqan 191 velar /kJ here may testify to the fact that the word is a borrowing. A firm conclusion on this issue would require resolution o f the quality problem o f the Old Turkic /К / in the back-vocalic word, be it a velar /к/ or uvular /q/ (see: Erdal 2004: 75-76), which in this paper is rendered by /q/, being traditionally. However, the Tungus origin may also be the case here (Tsybenov 2011: 242). Spirantization /к1 > /х/ before a back vowels in Daurian is sporadic, which is also reflected in dialects (Tsumagari 2005: 132). Besides, the form known in the Chinese transcription Kùêrkâ does not presuppose the presence o f the final -и, which correlates with the loss o f the final etymological -n noted in Daurian and typical for m any other Mongolie languages (Tsumagari 2005: 134). Thus, coming back to *xurxuud, the form m entioned above, we should state the following. As was shown above, beginning from the 17th century the phonetic form kurkut (<*xurxut) appeared in the Russian sources, w hereas the Buryats themselves mainly used the form xurxad. Based on this it should be assumed that xurxat > *xurxut (Rus. kurkut) is a result o f secondary development. However, from the viewpoint o f historical phonetics, it can be explained as a result o f the assimilating influence o f a strong (stressed) vowel o f the first syllable on the vowel o f the second syllable (Rassadin 1982: 32). However, the stress in the ethnonym falls on the final syllable. There­ fore, it is plausible to assume the formation from the initial *xurxan with the afore­ mentioned suffix +yud / +giid, which would produce *xurxayud > *xurxud due to the contraction o f the cluster -ayu- (Rassadin 1982: 40) Despite the relatively early dating o f this phenom enon to already the 13th- 1 4 th centuries (Vladimirtsov 1929: 217-218) we have as yet no reasonable grounds to consider the form xurxud ~ xurxuud older than the 17th century. In any case, this allows us to recognize the form *xurxut as secondary to xurxat. The ethnographic materials gathered from the Zakam na Buryats by M.M. Sodnompilova (Sodnom pilova 2018: 81) are indicative o f the preservation o f one more archaic form o f the ethnonym. For example, the Buryats o f the Terte tribe from the village (ulus) Tsagaan-M orin jokingly nickname their closest neighbours as Xurxats from the village (ulus) Bortoi “küzüü muu m iaxan xurxanuud.” Obviously, in this case, it is a paraphrase o f the well-established definition o f the Xurxats as “küzüü sayaan xurxuud” where the epithet sayaan ‘w hite’ was replaced by a mockingly de­ rogatory definition muu miaxan, which means “bad relatives via female lineage.” In this particular case, we speak about the use o f the patrilineal (yasun) and matrilineal (eligen /miaxan) kinship notions. Concerning relationships between the villages (ulus) Tsagaan-M orin and Bortoy, the issue in question is intermarriage and a certain number o f daughters-in-law particularly from the neighbouring village (ulus) o f the Xurxats. In the context o f this paper, the most crucial element is the mention o f the ethnonym xurxad in the form o f xurxanuud, which may reflect its existence and conservation in earlier times. Hence, we can reconstruct the following sequence o f phonetic transformations: Turk. *KorïKan ~ *KoruKan >M ong. *qoruqan || *xoruxan > *qur"qan |j *xur“xan > *qurqan |j *xurxan, or Turk. *KcoriKan > *KcorKan > 1) Mong. *qurqan |j *xurxan, 192 B air Z. Nanzatov & V ladim ir V. Tishin 2) Mong. (Daur) *kurka/n. From *xurxan respectively evolved *xurxanuud, *xurxad и *xurxud (< *xurxuud < *xurxayud). The Daurian language, distinguished by the presence o f the velar stop /к/, as may be assumed, preserved (*kurka/n), the most archaic form for the M ongolie languages. Apparently, infiltration and adaptation of the Turkic ethnonym into various groups o f M ongolian languages, possibly asynchronical, cannot be excluded. In this way, the ethnographical data on the clan and tribal structure o f the Turkic and Mongolian peoples o f Inner Asia and South Siberia allow drawing parallels with the ethnonyms o f the previous epochs. In the hierarchy o f the Bulagat (Bulgad) tribal union, the Xurxat tribe occupies the second position. It indirectly points at the fact that the Xurxat were at the origin o f this tribal union. The geographical localization o f the bearers o f the ethnonym X urxat corresponds to the localization o f the bearers o f the Qorïqan ethnonym in the ancient Turkic period. The connection between these eth­ nonyms is linguistically substantiated. Besides, one can relate here a Daurian ethno­ nym kurka/n. An additional argument in favour o f this comparison is the fact that there are ethnonymic pairs Uliaba and Ulis corresponding to the ethnonyms xurxat and kurka/n respectively, and that they share the common root *uli. Conclusion The authors support the theory o f unity o f the ethnonym Qurîqan known from the Old Turkic runic m onum ents and the ethnonym Gîtligàn 'i t Ж -ΊΊ* known from the Chinese sources. Undoubtedly, Qurîqan and Güligàn H M Jft represent the versions o f sound­ ing o f the same ethnonym in different languages. The Turkic etymology o f the word tracing it back to the nominal stem qorïy, which denoted some forbidden or protected place with the help o f the relevant productive indicator +kAn, appears to be the most substantiated one. Based on semantics, the resulting *qorïy-qan > *qorïqan should denote people closely tied to this protected place by their functions. Examples o f ethnonyms with similar semantics “guardian” and “protector” do exist in the history o f Turkic and Mongolie peoples (Kazakh qaraul ‘guards, sentry’, Uzbek kiiteiil ‘guards, guards com m ander’, Oghuz cepni / cebni ‘se­ curity, security detachm ent’, ‘frontier guards, frontier guards detachm ent’, Kalmyk zax"tsq ‘borderland dw eller’) (Németh 1991: 90-91). At the same time, they do not fall out o f general context according to which, a Gy. Németh noted, the existence o f a number o f ethnonyms w ith numerical markers was highly characteristic o f the An­ cient Turkic epoch. The latter circumstance could reflect exactly the artificial, mili­ tary-administrative character o f the tribal units that these ethnonyms denoted (Németh 1991: 54, 75-81, 108). In the Mongolian period, the development o f this ethnonym proceeded in two di­ rections. Among the Buryats, the ethnonym evolved into the Xurxad, while among the Daurs it survived in a specific and, taking into account linguistic peculiarities, possi­ bly archaic form Kurkan, which had probably developed back at the end o f the An­ cient Turkic epoch. Qurîqan 193 The Xitrxat participation in the creation o f the Bulagat tribal union, the largest ethnic coalition o f Buryats, continued the lineage from the ancient Turkic population. The predom inance o f the Xurxats in the Kuda and Irkut valleys, as well as in the upper courses o f the Jida river indicates the dissemination o f the ancient cult o f Buxa-noyon in the Irkut (Erktiii) valley and its spread among the Bulagats via the Kuda steppes. The X urxat participation in the northward expansion o f Buryats in the ranks o f the seventeenth-century Ikinats along the Oka and A ngara valleys, the dissemination o f the toponyms from the Olkhon to the Alar (Alair) regions and settlement in the Baley (Baila), Kitoy (Kiiti), Irkut (Erküü) and Jida (Zede) valleys allows to delineate a broad area in which bearers o f the ethnonym spread in Cisbaikalia over various historical epochs. Abbreviations and Bibliography Aydm, E. (2007): §ine Usu Yaziti. Çonim: KaraM Y aym cihk. Aydin, E. (2009): “Köl Tigin ve Bilge Kagan Y azitlarm daki Am ga (Amgt) Korgan Ü zerine” . Turkish Studies 4 (3): 273-282. Aydm, E. (2012): “Y enisey Yazitlan Nasil Tarihlendirilebilir?”. Turkish Studies 7 (2): 161 168. Barthold, W. (1897): “Die historische Bedeutung der alttürkischen Inschriften“. In: W. Radloff: Die Alttürkischen Inschriften der Mongolei. Neue Folge. St. Petersburg: K aiserliche A ka­ demie der W issenschaften. 1-36. Barthold, V. V. (1963a): “Kirgizy. [storicheskii ocherk“ . In: V. V. Barthold: Sochineniia, Vol. 2. Pt. 1. Obshchie raboty p o istorii Srednei Azii. Raboty p o istorii K avkaza i Vostochnoi Evropy. M oscow: Nauka. 471-525. Barthold, V. V. (1963b): “Ocherki istorii Sem irech’ia”. In: V. V. BartoFd: Sochineniia, Vol. 2. Pt. 1. O bshchie raboty p o istorii Srednei Azii. R aboty p o istorii Kavkaza i Vostochnoi Evropy. M oscow: Nauka. 23-106. Barthold, V. V. (1966): “K voprosu о pogrebal’nykh obriadakh u turkov i m ongolov” . In: V. V. Barthold: Sochineniia, Vol. 4. Rabotyi p o arkheologii, numizmatike, epigraftke i etnografli. M oscow: Nauka. 377-396. Barthold, V. V. (1968): “[Rets, na] Léon Cahun, Introduction â l ’histoire de l’Asie. Turcs et M ongols des origines â 1405. Paris, 1896”. In: V. V. Barthold: Sochineniia, Vol. 5. Raboty po istorii ifilo lo g ii tiurkskikh i m ongol'skikh narodov. Moscow: Nauka. 238-252. Barthold, V. V. (1973): d zv lec h en ie iz sochineniia Gardizi Zain al-ahbâr> Prilozhenie к “Otchetu о poezdke v Sredniuiu Aziiu s nauchnoiu tsel’iu. 1893-1894 gg.“ . In: V.V. Bar­ thold: Sochineniia, vol. 9. Raboty p o istochnikovedeniiu. Moscow: Nauka. 23-62. Baxter, W. H.; Sagan, L. (2014): ocbaxtersagart.lsait.Isa.umich.edu/BaxterSagartOCbyM an darinM C 2014-09-20.pdf Bazylkhan, N. (2005): Ko 'ne tu ’rik bitiktastary men eskertkishteri (Orkhon. Enisei, Talas). A l­ maty : D aik-Press. Bertagaev, T. A. (1972): “Ob etnonimakh buryat i kurykan” . In: N. A. N ikonov (ed.): Etnonimy. Moscow: Nauka, 130-172. Bichurin, N. Ia. [Iakinf] (1950): Sobranie svedenii о narodakh, obitavshikh v Srednei A zii v drevnie vrem ena, Т. 1. Moskva, Leningrad: A kadem iia N auk SSSR. 194 Bair Z. Nanzatov & V ladim ir V. Tishin Bo Lin h # (1998): D âw è'ë r ζύ de “hä lei” hé “т о кип” D à w ô ’ër ζύ zïliào j i Di èr ji Ш — Ф . B ë ijïn g jtM : Μίηζύ chübän s h è K f t f f i l î g t t . 671-681. Bretschneider, E. (1910): M ediaeval Researches fr o m Eastern A siatic Sources. Fragments towards the Knowledge o f the Geography and H istory o f C entral and Western Asia fro m the 13th to the 1 7th century, vol. 1. With a Map o f M iddle Asia. London: Kegan Paul, Trench, Trübner & Co. BQ E: Bilgä Qayan Inscription, Eastern side BQ N: Bilgä Qayan Inscription, Northern side Bur.: Buriat Butanaev, V. Ya. (1972): “N ovaia uibatskaia sabra”. Uchenye zapiski KhakNIIIaLI 18 (2): 149-152. Cahun, L. (1896): Introduction à l ’histoire de l ’A sie. Turcs et M ongols des origines à 1405. Paris: Armand Colin et C,e, Éditeurs. Cén Z h ô n g - m iâ n ^ f Î M (1958): Tüjué j i s W Ä M Ä Ä . B ëijîng dbJjt: Zhônghuâ shüjù 4>^t Chavannes, E. (1903): D ocuments sur les Tou-kiue (Turcs) Occidentaux. Paris: Librairie d ’A mérique et d ’Orient Adrien Maisonneuve. Chin.: Chinese Clauson, G. (1972): A n Etymological Dictionary o f Pre-Thirteenth-Century Turkish. Oxford: Clarendon Press. Cleaves, F.W . (1956): “Qabqanas-Qamqanas”. H arvard Journal o f Asiatic Studies 19 (3-4): 390406. Doerfer, G. (1965): Türkische und mongolische E lem ente im Neupersischen unter besonderer B erücksichtigung älterer neupersischer Geschichtsquellen vor allem der Mongolen- und Timuridenzeit, Bd. II, Türkische Elemente im Neupersischen. W iesbaden: Franz Steiner Verlag. D oerfer, G. (1967): Türkische und mongolische Elem ente im Neupersischen unter besonderer Berücksichtigung älterer neupersischer Geschichtsquellen vor allem der Mongolen- und Timuridenzeit, Bd. III, Türkische Elemente im Neupersischen. W iesbaden: Franz Steiner Verlag. Dashibalov, B. B. (1995): Arkheologicheskiepam iatniki kurykan i khori. Ulan-Ude: BNTs SO RAN. Dugarov, B. S. (1983): “O proiskhozhdenii okinskikh buriat”. In: G. N. Zayantuev (ed.): Etnicheskie i istoriko-kul ’lurnye sviazi m ongol’skikh narödov. Ulan-Ude: Izdatel’stvo BF SO A N S S S R . 90-101. EMand: Early M andarin EMC: Early M iddle Chinese Erdal, M. (1991): O ld Turkic Word Formation: A F unctional Approach Io the Lexicon, Vol. 1 IT. W iesbaden: ffarrassowitz. Erdal, M. (2004): A G ramm ar o f Old Turkic. Leiden; Boston: Brill. Giraud, R. (1960): L 'Empire des Turcs Célestes. Les règnes d ’E lterich, Qapghan et Bilgä (6 80734). Contribution à i ’histoire des Turcs d ’A sie Centrale. Paris: Librairie d'A m erique et d ’Orient Adrien-M aisonneuve. Golden, P. B. (1995 1997): “Cumanica IV: The Tribes o f the Cuman-Qipcaq”. Archivum Eurasiae Medii Aevi 9: 99-122. Qurîqan 195 Gù Züyü ЛИШИ (2005): Du sh ïf a n g yù jly à o (gong 12 cè) 4 cè Д . B ëijîng J h s t: Zhônghuâ shüjù ф Ф ф гЩ . H aussig, H. W. (1953): “Theophylakts Exkurs über die skythischen Völker”. Bvzanttion 23: 275-462. H irth, F. (1899): “Nachworte zur Inschrift des Tonjukuk. Beiträge zur Geschichte der OstT ürken im 7. und 8. Jahrhundert nach chinesischen Quellen”. In: W. Radloff: D ie alttürkischen Inschriften der Mongolei. Zweite Folge. St. Petersburg: Kaiserliche Akademie der W issenschaften. 1-140. H istoire des campagnes 1951: Histoire des cam pagnes de Gengis Khan, Chêng-wou t s ’intchêng lou. Traduit et annoté: P. Pelliot et L. Hambis. T. I. Leiden: E.J. Brill. Hudüd a l-‘Älam/M inorsky 1970: H udüd al- Ä lam : “The Regions o f the World", A Persian G eography 372 A.H. - 982 A.D. Trans.: V. M inorsky, preface: V.V. Barthold. London: Luzac & Company. [Julien, S., trans. (1857)]: H istoire de ta vie de H iouen-Thsang et de ses voyages dans l ’Inde, depuis l ’an 629jusq u ’en 645, p a r Hoeï-Ii et Yen-thsong, suivie de docum ents et d ’éclair­ cissem ents géographiques tirés de la relation originale de Hiouen-Thsang, traduite du chi­ nois p a r Stanislas Julien. Paris: Imprimé par Autorisation de l’Empereur à l'Im prim erie im périale, 1857. LXXXIV, 472 p. [Julien, S., trans. (1858)]: Mémoires sur les contrées occidentales traduits du sanscrit en chi­ nois en l ’an 648, p a r Hiouen-Thsang, et du chinois en français p a r M. Stanislas Julien. Paris: Im prim é par Autorisation de l ’Em pereur à l ’Imprimerie impériale, 1858. T. II, con­ tenant les livres IX à XII, et un M émoire de M. V ivien De Saint-Martin, sur la carte de l’A sie Centrale et de l’Inde. 428 p Jiù Tâng shü: Liu Xu (2005): Q ïnding si kù quànshü hu iyà o : Jiù tâng shü i H f i e : I B I S # . Zhängchün H # : Jilin chübân jituân TËfM ill® i l S3. К : K arlgren’s “A ncient Chinese” (= MC) K arlgren, B. (1964): Grammata Serica Recensa. Stockholm: Museum o f Far Eastern A ntiqui­ ties [Reprinted from 1957]. Kasai, Y ukiyo (2012): Die alttürkischen W örter aus N atur und Gesellschaft in chinesischen Q uellen (6. und 9. Jh.). Der A usgangsterminus der chinesischen Transkription tu ju é In: В. H euer, В. Kellner-Heinkele, C. Schönig (eds.): "Die Wunder der S ch ö p fu n g”. M ensch und N atur in der türksprachigen Welt. W ürzburg: Ergon-Verlag. 81-141. Kasai, Y ukiyo (2014): The Chinese Phonetic Transcriptions o f Old Turkish W ords in the C hi­ nese Sources from 6th - 9th Century: Focused on the Original Word Transcribed as tû ju é Ш. FЧШ. 7 'J 7 gf In ® Щ % [Nairiku ajia gengo no кепкуй] / Studies on the Inner Asian languages 29. 57-135. Kharinskii, A. V. (2001): P redbaikal’e v kontse I tys. do n.e. - seredine II tys. n.e.: genezis k u l’tur i ikhperiodizatsiia. Irkutsk: Izdatel’stvo IrGTU. K lyashtom yi, S. G. (2010): Runicheskiepam iatniki Uigurskogo kaganata i istoriia evraziiskikh stepei. St. Peterburg: Peterburgskoe vostokovedenie. Kormushin, I. V. (1997): Tiurkskie eniseiskie epitafii. Teksty i issledovaniia. M oskva: Nauka. K ormushin, I. V. (2004): Drevnie tiurkskie iazyki: uchehnoe posobie dlia studentov vysshikh uchebnykh zavedenii, obuchaiushchikhsiapo sp e tsia l’nosti 022800 - Vostokovedenie, A ba­ kan: Izdatel’stvo Khakasskogo gosudarstvennogo universiteta im. N. F. Katanova. K orm ushin, I. V. (2008): Tiurkskie eniseiskie epitaßi: grammatika, tekstologiia. M.: Nauka. K senofontov, G. V. (1992): Uraangkhai-sakhalar. O cherki po drevnei istorii iakutov, T. 1. Pt 2. Yakutsk: N atsional’noe izdatel’stvo Respubliki Sakha (Yakutiya). 196 Bair Z. Nanzatov & V ladim ir V. Tishin KT E: Klil Tegin Inscription, Eastern side Kyuner, N. V. (1961): Kitaiskie izvestiia о narodakh Iuzhnoi Sibiri, Tsentral’noi A zii i D al ’nego Vostoka. Moscow: Nauka. Li Y ong-Söng (2003): “Zu QWRDNTA in der Tunuquq-lnschrift”. Centrai Asiatic Journal 47 (2): 229-241. LMC: Late M iddle Chinese Lurje, P. B. (2007): “Description o f the O verland Route to China in Hudud al-‘Alam: D ates o f the U nderlying Itinerary” . Eurasian Studies (O uyaxuekan, KM'if'TP1!) 6: 179-197. M ahm üd al-Käsyari (1982): Compendium o f the Turkic D ialects (Dîwân Luyât at-Turk). Ed. and transi.: R. Dankoff. in collaboration w ith J. Kelly. Pt. I. Cambridge, Mass.: H arvard U niversity Office o f the University Publisher. M ahm ud al-Käsyari (2005): Dîwân Luyât at-Turk. Trans.: Z.-A.M . Auezova. Almaty: DaikPress. M ahm üd al-Käsyari (2010). Dîwân Luyât at-Turk (Svod tiurkskikh slov). Trans.: A. R. Rustamov; ed.: I. V. Kormushin. T. 1. M oskva: V ostochnaia literatura RAN. M alyavkin, A. G. (1981): Istoricheskaia geograflia Tsentral'noi A zii (materialy i issledovaniia). Novosibirsk: Nauka. M alyavkin, A. G. (1989): Tanskie khroniki о gosudarstvakh Tsentral'noi Azii: teksty i issledo­ vaniia. Novosibirsk: Nauka, 1989. M artinez, A. P. (1982): G ardîzî’s Two Chapters on the Turks. Archivum Eurasiae M edii A evi 2: 109-217. MC: M iddle Chinese M elioranskiy, P. M. (1899): “Pamiatnik v chest’ K iul'-Tegina. S dvumia tablitsami nadpisei”, Zapiski Vostochnogo otdeleniia Russkogo arkheologicheskogo obshchestva 12 (2 -3 ): 1— 144. M en Di Dun, Bayar, Ü. (1989): Dayur i'mdüsüten-ü tobci teiike. Naiyrayulan bicikii duyuyilang naiyrayulaba. Kökeqo-ta: Öbör Mongyol-un arad-un keblel-ün qoriy-a. M enges, K. G. (1979): Vostochnye elementy v “Slove о polku Igoreve”. Trans.: A. A. Alekseev; ed.: A. N. Kononov. Leningrad: Nauka. M K I: A talay, B. (trans.): Divanü Lûgat-it-Türk ve Tercümesi, eilt I. Ankara: Türk Tarih Kurum u Basimevi. Mong.: Mongolie M oriyasu, T. (1998): “Site and Inscription o f Sine Usu ('> T Z Я Ш Ш ' SÎftC)” . ln: Takao M oriyasu and Ayudai Ochir (eds.): Provisional Report o f Researches on Historical Sites and Inscriptions in Mongolia fro m 1996 to 1998 ( ΐ V J tv ЩШ'&ШШ * δ ί и"). Toyonaka: The Society o f Central Eurasian Studies, Osaka University. M SU S: M ogoin Sine Usu Inscription, Southern side N adeliaev, V. M.; Nasilov, D. M.; Tenishev, E. R.; Shcherbak, Л. M. (eds.) (1969): Drevineturkskii slovar ’. Leningrad: Nauka. N anzatov, B. Z. (2005): Etnogenez zapadnykh huriat (6 -1 9 vv.). Irkutsk: Radian. Nanzatov, B. Z. (2014): “Kitoiskaia uprava (etnicheskii sostav i rasselenie kitoiskikh i baleiskikh buriat)” . Vestnik Buriatskogo nauchnogo tsentra SO R AN 1 (13): 117-125. Nanzatov, B. Z.; Sodnompilova, M. M. (2017a): “Tunkinskie buriaty v 19 v.: etnicheskii sostav i rasselenie”. Vestnik arkheologii, antropologii i e tn o g ra f i 3 (38): 131-142. Nanzatov, B. Z.; Sodnompilova, M. M. (2017b): “Zakam enskie buriaty v 19 v.: etnicheskii sostav i rasselenie” . Izvestiia lrkutskogo gosudarstvennogo universiteta. Seriia: Georkheologiia. Etnologiia. Antropologiia 19: 151-171. Qur'iqan 197 N ém eth, Gy. (1991): A honfoglalô M agyarsäg kialakuläsa. Mäsodik, bövitett és ätdolgozott kiadäs. Ed.: B. Arpad. Budapest: Akadém iai Kiadô. Nim aev, D. D. (2000): Buryaty: etnogenez i etnicheskaya Istoriya Buryat. Ulan-Ude: Izdate l’sko-poligraficheskii kompleks VSGAK1. О S: O ngin Inscription, Southern side Ösawa, T. (2011): “Revisiting the Ongi inscription o f Mongolia from the Second Turkic Qayanate on the basis o f rubbings by G.J. Ram stedt”. Suomalais-Ugrilaisen Seuran Aikaka u skirja /Jo u rn a l de la Société F inno-O ugrienne 93: 147-203. Ögel, B. (1971): TürkKültürüniin Geliçme Çaglari, Cilt 2. Istanbul: M illi Egitim Basimevi. Ögel, В . (1978): Türk Kiiltür Tarihine Giriy, C ilt I. Türklerde K öy ve §ehir Hayati. Göktiirklerden Osmanblara. Ankara: K ültür Bakanhgt Yaymlari. Ögel, В. (1991): Türk Kültür Tarihine Giriç. C ilt VII. Türklerde ordu. ordugäh, ve otag: devlet, ordu, ve aile disipiinin temeiieri. H unlardan Osmanlilara, 2. Bk. A nkara : K ultur Bakanligi Y aym lari. Pelliot, P. (1930): “Sur la légende d ’U yuz-khan en écriture ouigoure” . T ’oung Pao (Second Series) 27 (4-5): 247-358. Poppe, N. (1955): Introduction to M ongolian Comparative Studies. Helsinki: M ém oires de la Société Finno-Ougrienne. Poppe, N. (1954): “[Review on] Professor G. D. Sanzeev, Ph. D., “The M ongolian Languages and Dialects, Introduction”, Learned M émoires o f the Institute o f Orientai Studies, Vol. IV, A linguistic Collection, Moscow, 1952, pp. 3 0 -1 2 5 ”. H arvard Journal o fA sia tic Studies 17 (1-2): 295-304. Pritsak, O. (1952): “Stammesnamen und Titulaturen der altaischen Völker” . Ural-Altaische Jahrbücher 24 (1-2): 49-104. Pulleyblank, E. G. (1991): A Lexicon o f R econstructed Pronunciation in E arly M iddle Chinese, Late M iddle Chinese, and Early M andarin. Vancouver: UBC Press. Q urqat ovog 2018: Mongol Ulsin ündesnii Statistikiin: http://srv.nso.m n/sonirholtoi/ fam ilynam e/?search=% dl% 85% dl% 83% dl% 80% dl% 85% d0% b0% d0% b4 [11.03.2018] Rachewiltz, I. (1962): “The Hsi-yu Lu ЩШШ by Yeh-lü C h’u-ts’ai M onum enta Serica 21: 1-128. Radloff, W. (1899): Versuch eines Wörterbuchs der Türk-Dialekte, Bd. 11. Pt. 1 St. Petersburg: K aiserliche Akademie der W issenschaften. 1-1052. R ashid al-DTn (1952a): Sbornik letopisei. Т. 1. Pt. 1. Trans.: L. A. Khetagurov; ed.: A. A. Se­ m enov. Moscow, Leningrad: AN SSSR. R ashïd al-DTn (1952b): Sbornik letopisei. Т. 1. Pt. 2. Trans.: О. I. Smirnova; ed.: I. P. Petrashevskii. Moscow, Leninngrad: AN SSSR. [Rashld al-DTn (1998)]: Rashiduddin F a zlu lla h ’s J a m i'u ’t-tawarikh. A Compendium o f Chronicles: A History o f the Mongols. Trans.: W. M. Thackston. Pt. 1. Cambridge, MA: H arvard University, Departm ent o f N ear Eastern Languages and Civilizations. [Rashid al-Dïn (M'VV)]: Rashid al-DTn Fazl-âllah Hamedânï. Jam I al-Tawärlkh. Publ. and comm ent: Mohammad Roshan, M ostafa M ousavi. Vol. 1-4. Tehran: N ashr äl-barz, 1373. R assadin, V. I. (1996): Prisaianskaia gruppa buriatskikh govorov. Ulan-Ude: BNTs SO RAN. R ui Chuanm ing (1998): Gü tüjué bëim ing yànjiü rY/ïM W -ÎÎiÎff 9u, Shànghâi _Ь#5: Shànghâi güji chübàn shè $ 5 É T i§ ffi)ïîlt. Rum yantsev, G. N. (1951): Rodo-plem ennoy sostav verkholenskikh Buryat. Zapiski BM NIIK 12: 77-108. B air Z. Nanzatov & Vladim ir V. Tishin 198 Rumyantsev, G. N. (1962): Proiskhozhdenie khorinskikh buriat, Ulan-Ude: Izdatel’stva Akademii nauk SSSR. Rus.: Russian Rybatzki, V. (1997): D ie Tohuquq-Inschrift. Szeged: U niversity o f Szeged Press. Sanzheev, G. D. (1953): Sravnitel'naia grammatika m o n g o l’skikh iazykov, T. 1. Moscow: Izdatel’stvo AN SSSR. Sanzheev, G. D. (1983): Zametki po etnicheskoi istorii buriat. Kto takie bulagachiny i keremuchiny?”. In: K. D. Basaeva (ed.): Sovremennost ’ i traditsionnaia kul ’tura narodov Buriatii. Ulan-Ude: BF SO RAN SSSR. 81-108. Schafer, E. H. (1963): The Golden Peaches o f Samarkand: a Study o f T ’ang Exotics. Berkeley: University o f California Press. Schlegel, G. (1895): “Problèmes Géographiques. Les peuples étrangers chez les historiens chinois”. T ’o u n g p a o 3 (2): 101-168. Schlegel, G. ( 1896): D ie chinesische Inschrift a u f dem uigurischen D enkm al in Kara Balgassun. Helsingfors: M ém ories de la Société Finno-ougrienne. Schott, W. (1865): “Über die ächten Kirgisen”. Abhandlungen der K öniglichen Akademie der Wissenschaften zu Berlin. 429^174. Schuessler, A. (2009): M inim al O ld Chinese and Later Han Chinese: A Companion to Grammata Serica Recensa. Honolulu: University o f Hawaii Press. Sevortyan, E. V. (1974): Etimologicheskii slovar’ tiurkskikh iazykov (Obshchetiurkskie i mezhtiurkskie osnovy na glasnye). Moscow: Nauka. Sheherbak, A. M. (1959): Oguz-näme. Muhabbat-näme. Pam iatniki drevneuigurskoi i starou zb eksko ip is’mennosti. Moskva: Vostochnaia literatura. Sodnompilova, M. M. (2018): “Etnoterritorial’nyye gruppy buryat v brachnykh predpochteniyakh: obraz “drugogo”” . Bulletin o f the Kalmyk Institute fo r H umanities o f the Russiona Academy o f Sciences 2 (36): 79-87. Starostin, S. A. (1989): http://starling.rinet.ru/ Stein, R. A. (1941): “[Rewiew on] Houa-si Hie-ho ta-hio Tchong-kouo wen houa yen-kieousouo tsi-k ’an ФШ'ЖЖМТЭиМгЖТУ (Studia Serica, Journal o f the Chi­ nese Cultural Studies Research Institute, West China U nion U niversity), volume I, parts 1, 2, 3, Chengtu, sept. 1940,dec. 1940 et mars 1941”. Bulletin de l ’E colefrançaise d ’ExtrêmeOrient 4 1: 406-441. Svinin, V. V. (1974): “O snovnye etapy drevney istorii naseleniya poberezhya ozera Baikal”. In: M. P. M edvedev and D. G. Svinin (ed.): Drevnyaya Istoriya narod o vyu g a Vostochnoy Sibiri 2. Irkutsk: Izdatel'stvo Irkutskogo Universiteta. 7-24. Çirin User, H. (2009): K öktürk ve Ötüken Uygur K aganhgi Yazitlari. Söz Varltgi incelemesi. Konya (Körnen Yayinlari 32; Türk Dili Dizisi 1). [al-Tabari(1989)]: The H istory o f a l-T a b a rî(T a ’rïkh al-rusul w a ’l-mulûk), t. XXV. T h e E n d o f Expansion: The Caliphate o f Hishâm A. D. 724-738 / A. H. 105-120. Trans.: Khalid Yahya Blankinship. N ew York: State U niversity o f New York Press. Tàiping huânyü ji: Song bën tàiping huàn-уй j't: (sàng) lè shizhttàn. Ytngytn song ben Ж Ф Ф Ф Й Ж н С : (Ф)ШЖ111. Ι ίΕ Ρ Φ Φ . BëijTng jttfC: Zhönghua shüjù chübän J tljt/ft'P ililiS tt. Talko-Hryncewicz, Yu. D. (1899): “Drevnie obitateli T sentral’noi A zii”. Trudy Troitskosavskogo-Kiakhtinskogo otdeleniia Priamurskogo otdela lmperatorskogo Russkogo geograficheskogo obshchestva 2 (1-2): 61-76. Qurîqan 199 Tâng hui yào: W âng Pü _Li§- (1991): Tâng hin yào Di Ш 1 bàn Ш. Shànghâi h ïS : Shànghài gùji chübàn shè h ï S î 1! ü îiü ® ïd :: X înhuâ shüdiàn Shanghai faxing suô faxing ж щ т т хт т т т п. Tekin, T. (1968): A G ramm ar o f Orkhon Turkic. Bloom ington; The Hague: M outon & Co. Tekin, T. (2003): Orhon Tiirkçesi Grameri, 2. bk. Istanbul: Türk Dilleri Araçtirmalari. Tenishev, E. R. (ed.) (1997/2001 ): Sravnitel 'no-istoricheskaia gram matika tiurkskikh iazykov. Leksika. M oscow: Nauka. Tenishev, E. R. (ed.) (2002): Sravnitel'no-istoricheskaia gram m atika tiurkskikh iazykov. R e­ gional ’nye rekonstruktsii. Moscow: Nauka. Tes S: Tes Inscription, Southern side Thomsen, V. (1896): Inscriptions de l'O rkhon déchiffrées. Helsingfors: Impr. de la Société de littérature finnoise. Töng diän: Dù Y ou 4 B f) (2005): Qînding si kù quànshû hui yào: Töng diän (quàn 3 cè) И M M 45 S i c : Я Л ( М З ф ) . Zhàngchün Ц # : Zhàngchün chübàn shè 4 έ # ίϋ ® 4 ± . Tsumagari, T. (2005): “D agur”. In: J. Jahunen (ed.): The M ongolie languages. London, N ew York: Routledge. 129-153. Tsybenov, B. D. (2011): “Daurskie rody v 17 v.”. Vestnik 8: 238-246. Tsybikdorzhiev, D. B. (1996): “K voprosu о proiskhozhdenii etnonima kurykan". In: L. E. Y angutov (ed.): Gumanitarnye issledovaniya molodykh uchenykh Buryatii. UlanUde: Izdatel’stvo BNTs SO RAN. 143-148. Tsydendambaev, Ts. В. (1972): Buryatskie istoricheskie khroniki i rodoslovnye. Ulan-Ude: Buriatskoe khizhnoie izdatel’stvo. Turk.: Turkic Uvarova, T. B. (2004): Nerchinskie evenki v 18-20 vekakh. M oskva: 1NION. V asil’ev, D. D. (1983): Korpus tiurkskikh runicheskikh pam iatnikov basseina Eniseia. Lenin­ grad: Nauka. Vladim irtsov, B. Ya. (1929): Sravnitel’naia gram matika m ongol'skogo p i s ’mennogo iazyka i khalkhaskogo narechiia. Vvedenie ifonetika. Moscow, Leningrad: Izdatel’stv Vostochnogo instituta. V ladim irtsov, B. (1948): L e régime social des Mongols, le féodalism e nomade. Préface: R. Grousset, trad.: M. Carsow. Paris: Librairie d ’A m érique et d ’Orient, Adrien-M aisonneuve. XTn Tâng shü: Ô uyâng Xiü ШШаШ (2005): Q înding si kù quànshû hui yào: xïn tâng shü fR'ff. S I S # . Chàngchün # # : Chängchün chübän shè Ιέ# 111®f i . Ye: Yenisei Inscriptions Yildirim, F.; Aydm , E.; Alimov, R. (2013): Yenisey-K irgizistan Yazitlan ve Irk Bitig. Ankara: BilgeSu. Zuev, Yu. A. (1960): “Tamgi loshadei iz vassal’nykh kniazhestv (Perevod iz Kitaiskogo sochineniia 8 -9 vv. Tankhuiao)”. In: V. Shakhmatov, S. K. Ibragimov: Novye m aterialy po drevnei i srednevekovoi istorii Kazakhstana. Alma-Ata: Izdatel’stvo AN KazSSR, 93-140. Zuev, Yu. A. (2002): Ranniye tyurki: ocherki istorii i ideologii. Almaty: Daik-Press.