¹ Mongyol-un niuγa tobγa'an, in de Rachewiltz, Igor, Index to the Secret History of the Mongols (Indiana University Publications, Uralic and Altaic Studies, 121, Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1972), §274, p. 165CrossRefGoogle Scholar. Cf. Secret History of the Mongols, tr. Cleaves, Francis Woodman (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1982), 215Google Scholar; ‘The Secret History of the Mongols’, tr. de Rachewiltz, Igor, Papers on Far Eastern History [PFEH], 31, 1985, 31Google Scholar; and ‘Starinnoe Mongol'skoe skazanie o Chingiskhane’, tr. Pallady, Archimandrite, Trudy chlenov Rossiiskoi dukhovnoi missii v Pekine, 4, 1866, 155Google Scholar. See ‘Cities of the western steppe at the time of the Mongol invasion’ (BSOAS, forthcoming), for my discussion of the identity of these cities.

² For an elucidation of this point, see Ledyard, Gari K. ‘The establishment of Mongolian military governors in Korea in 1231’, Phi Theta Papers, 6, 05 1961, 4–15.Google Scholar

³ Cleaves, Francis Woodman, ‘Daruya and gerege’, Harvard Journal of Asiatic Studies, 16, 1953, 238.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

⁴ Hsiao, Ch'i-ch'ing, The military establishment of the Yuan dynasty (Cambridge, MA: Council on East Asian Studies, 1978), 137, n. 119Google Scholar., Cf. Mostaert, Antoine, Dictionnaire Ordos, 2 vols. (Monumenta Serica, no. 5. Beijing: Catholic University, 1941–1942), 646.Google Scholar

⁵ Zhiqiu, Yang, ‘Yuandai di tanmachi zhun, Zhonghua wenshi luncong, 6, 08 1965, 181–213, cited in Hsiao, Military establishment, 137, n.119.Google Scholar

⁶ Buell, Paul D., ‘Kalmyk Tanggaci people: thoughts on the mechanics and impact of Mongol expansion’, Mongolian Studies, 6, 1980, 55, n. 40Google Scholar. Cf. Buell, Paul D., ‘Tribe, qan and ulus in early Mongol China: some prolegomena to Yüan history’, Ph.D. dissertation, order no. 7800908, University of Washington, 1977, 261–2, n.143.Google Scholar

⁷ Mongγol-un niucča tobča'an, § 273, p. 165; cf. Secret Historγ (Cleaves), 214; ‘Secret History’ (Rachewiltz), PFEH, 31, 1985, 30; and ‘Starinnoe Mongol'skoe skazanie’yy, 155.

⁸ Mongγol-un niuča tobča'an, § 274, p. 165; cf. Secret Historγ (Cleaves), 214; ‘Secret History’ (Rachewiltz), PFEH, 31, 1985, 30; and ‘Starinnoe Mongol'skoe skazanie’, 155. The text declares that ‘the people of Baγtad [ = Baghdad]’ submitted to Chormaγun, but his attack on Baghdad in 1238 did not succeed. Baghdad itself did not fall until 1258 when Hülegü attacked it.

⁹ Mongγol-un niuča tobča'an, § 274, p. 165; cf. Secret Historγ (Cleaves), 215; ‘Secret History’ (Rachewiltz), PFEH, 31, 1985, 31; and ‘Starinnoe Mongol'skoe skazanie’, 155.

¹⁰ Mongγol-un niuča tobča'an, § 276, p. 166; cf.Secret History (Cleaves), 217; ‘Secret History’ (Rachewiltz), PFEH, 31, 1985, 32. Cleaves translates alginči as ‘spy’. Rachewiltz translates it here as ‘ vanguard’ and in § 273 as ‘ scouts’. Doerfer translates it as Grenzwachen. Gerhard Doerfer, Tūrkische undmongolische Elemente im Neupersischen, 4 vols. (Wiesbaden: Franz Steiner, 1963–75), I: 252. For a parallel use of the five fingers/ten fingers expression, see Mongγol-un niuča tobča'an, § 53 p. 22; cf. Secret Historγ (Cleaves), 11; ‘Secret History’ (Rachewiltz), PFEH, 4, 1971, 127.

¹¹ Togan, A. Zeki Velidi, ‘The composition of the history of the Mongols by Rashīd al-Dīm’, Central Asiatic Journal, 7, 1962, 64Google Scholar. Cf.Allsen, Thomas T., Mongol imperialism: the policies of the Grand Qan Möngke in China, Russia, and the Islamic lands, 1251–1258 (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1987), 197–8.Google Scholar

¹² Morgan, David, The Mongols (Oxford: Blackwell, 1986), 11–12. The resonances between the Jāmi' al-tawārīkh and the Secret History led William Hung to suggest that a later, no longer extant version of the Secret History was one of its sources. William Hung, ‘ The transmission of the book known as The Secret History of the Mongols’, Harvard Journal of Asiatic Studies, 14, 1951, 481. But the nature of the similarities between the two texts diminishes the probability of any more or less direct borrowing. For example, both have information the other does not have on the events that both discuss.Google Scholar

¹³ My thanks to Ben Tahriri and Wheeler Thackston for allowing me to consult them about these passages in Rashid al-Dīn's text.

¹⁴ al-Dīn, Rashīd, Dzhami at-tavarikh, II, pt. 1: Kriticheskii tekst, ed. Ali-zade, A. A. (Moscow: Nauka, 1980), 56Google Scholar;, al-Dīn, Rashīd, Djami el-tevarikh, ed. Blochet, Edgar B. (E. J. W. Gibb Memorial Series, vol. 18, Leiden: Brill, 1911), 18Google Scholar;, al-Dīn, Rashīd, The successors of Genghis Khan, tr. Boyle, John Andrew (New York: Columbia University Press, 1971), 32–3Google Scholar., Cf. al-Dīn, Rashīd, Sbomik letopisei, 3 vols. (Moscow and Leningrad: Akademiya nauk SSSR, 1946–1960), IIGoogle Scholar, tr.Verkhovsky, Yu. P., ed. Petrushevsky, I. P., 20. ‘Bahadur’ is an honorific title meaning ‘hero, warrior’. See, e.g., Grigor of Akner [Akanc'], ‘History of the nation of the archers (the Mongols)’, ed. and tr. Robert P. Blake and Richard N. Frye, Harvard Journal of Asiatic Studies, 12, 1949, 343.Google Scholar

¹⁵ Henthorn, W. E., Korea: the Mongol invasions (Leiden: Brill, 1963), 102.Google Scholar

¹⁶ al-Dčn, Rashid,Dzhami at-tavarikh, I, pt. 1: Kriticheskii tekst, ed. Romaskevich, A. A., Khetagurov, A. A. and Ali-zade, A. A. (Moscow: Nauka, 1965), 150–1;, Rashīd al-Dīn, Jāmi' al-tawārīkh, ed. I. N. Berezin, Trudy Vostochnogo Otdeleniya Rossiiskogo Arkheologicheskogo Obshchestva, 7, 1861, 56. Cf. Rashīd al-Dīn, Sbomik letopisei, I, pt. 1, tr. L. A. Khetagurov, ed. A. A. Semenov, 98–9.Google Scholar

¹⁷ al-Dīn, Rashīd, Jāmi' al-tawārīkh, ed. Abdul-kerim, Ali Ogly Ali-zade (Baku: Akademiya Nauk Azerbaidzhanskoi SSR, 1957), 3: 21Google Scholar; cf. Rashīd al-Dīn, Sbomik letopisei, III, tr. A. K. Arends, ed. A. A. Romaskevich, E. E. Bertel's and A. Yu. Yakubovsky, 23.

¹⁸ Juvaynī, 'Ala-ad-Dīn 'Ata-Malīk, [Juvaini], The history of the world-conqueror, tr. Boyle, John Andrew (Cambridge MA: Harvard University Press, 1958), 482.Google Scholar

¹⁹ Juvayni, History, 483.

²⁰ al-Dīn, Rashīd, Jāmi' al-tawārīkh (Berezin), 13, 1868, 95. Cf. Rashid al-DIn, ‘Sbornik letopisei. Istoriya mongolov’, tr. I. N. Berezin, Trudy Vostochnogo Otdeleniya Rossiiskogo Arkheologicheskogo Obshchestva, 13, 1868, 59; Rashīd al-Dīn, Sbornik letopisei, I, pt. 2, tr. O. I. Smirnova, 54.Google Scholar

²¹ Buell, ‘ Tribe, qan and ulus in early Mongol China’, 64.

²² al-Dīn, Rashīd, Jāmi' al-tawārīkh (Berezin), 15, 1888, 229. Cf. Rashīd al-Dīn, ȘSbornik letopisei’ (Berezin), 15, 1888, 152; Rashīd al-Dīn, Sbornik letopisei, I, pt. 2 (Smirnova), 279–80.Google Scholar

²³ The editors of the critical Moscow edition of 1965, however, suggest that tama here derives from tamam meaning ‘complete’ or ‘ full’, Rashīd al-Dīn, Dzhami at-tavarikh, I, pt. 1: Kriticheskii tekst. 151, n.l.

²⁴ See, e.g., Polnoe sobranie russkikh letopisei (PSRL), 40 vols. (St Petersburg/Petrograd/Leningrad and Moscow: Arkheograficheskaya komissiya, Nauka, and Arkheograficheskii tsentr, 1843–1995), 15.1: col. 68; 22: 431; and Dukhovnye i dogovornye gramoty velikikh i udel'nykh knyazei xiv-xvi vv., ed. L. V. Cherepnin (Moscow and Leningrad: Akademiya Nauk SSSR, 1950), no. 40, p. 119; Akty, otnosyashchiesa k istorii Zapadnoi Rossii, 5 vols. (St Petersburg: Arkheograficheskaya kommissiya, 1846–53), no. 6: 4–5; no. 200: 362–4.Google Scholar

²⁵ Sreznevsky, I. I., Materialy dlya slovariya drevnerusskogo yazyka, 3 vols. (St Petersburg: Imperatorskaya Akademiya Nauk, 1893–1912), III: cols. 1081–2Google Scholar.See also Fr.Carpini, Iohannes de Piano, ‘ Ystoria Mongalorum, in Sinica Franciscana, i: Itinera et relationes fratrum minorum saeculi XII et XIV, ed. van den Wyngaert, P. Anastasius (Florence: Apud Collegium S. Bonaventure, 1929), ch. vi, § 2, p.77Google Scholar, John of Piano Carpini, ‘ History of the Mongols’, in Mission to Asia: narratives and letters of the Franciscan missionaries in Mongolia and China in the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries, ed. Dawson, Christopher (New York: Harper Row, 1966), 32–3, Dawso's comment in the footnote to this passage that Carpini ‘has confused “duman” (darkness) with “tuman” ’ is incorrect.Google Scholar

²⁶ Da yuan mazheng (Guoxue wenku, no. 6), cited in Buell, ‘ Tribe, qan and ulus in early Mongol China’, 70.

²⁷ Haenisch, Erich, Manghol un niuca tobca'an (Yuan-ch'ao pi-shi). Die geheime Geschichte der Mongolen,2 vols. (Leipzig: Otto Harrassowitz, 1937–1939), II: Wörterbuch, 145; see also i, 123.Google Scholar

²⁸ Pallady, ‘Starinnoe Mongol'skoe skazanie o Chingiskhane’, 255n.641.

²⁹ Nasonov, A. N., Mongoly i Rus' (Istoriya tatarskoipolitiki na Rusi) (Moscow and Leningrad: Akademiya Nauk SSSR, 1940), 16–17.Google Scholar

³⁰ Pelliot, Paul, ‘ Neuf notes sur des questions ďAsie Centrale’, T'oung Pao, 26, 1929, 220–1.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

³¹ Doerfer, Tiirkische und mongolische Elemente im Neupersischen, I, no. 130, 255–7.

³² Aubin, Jean, ‘L'ethnogenese des Qaraunas’, Turcica, 1, 1969, 74–5.Google Scholar

³³ ibid., 75–6.

³⁴ Bartol'd, V. V., Sochineniya, I: Turkestan v èpokhu Mongol'skogo nashestviya, (ed.) Petrushevsky, I. P. (Moscow: Vostochnaya literatura, 1963), 534Google Scholar;, Barthold, W. [V. V. Bartol'd], Turkestan down to the Mongol invasion, 3rd edn. (London: Luzac, 1968), 465. The typescript that is the basis for ch. v was found among Barthold's papers and was published in his Sochineniya in 1963. The English translation first appeared in the third edition cited above.Google Scholar

³⁵ Bartol'd, Turkestan v epokhu Mongol'skogo nashestviya, 534; idem, Turkestan down to the Mongol invasion, 465.

³⁶ Rossabi, Morris, ‘ The Muslims in the early Yüan dynasty’, in Langlois, John D. Jr, (ed.), China under Mongol rule (Princeton University Press, 1981), 276–7.Google Scholar

³⁷ Bartol'd, Turkestan v èpokhu Mongol'skogo nashestviya, 534, n.4; idem, Turkestan down to the Mongol invasion, 496, n.14.

³⁸ Bartol'd, Turkestan v èpokhu Mongol'skogo nashestviya, 534; idem, Turkestan down to the Mongol invasion, 465.

³⁹ Bartol'd, Turkestan v èpokhu Mongol'skogo nashestviya, 534, n.4; idem, Turkestan down to the Mongol invasion, 496, n.14.

⁴⁰ Buell, ‘Kalmyk Tanggaci people’, 45.

⁴¹ ibid., 46.

⁴² ibid., 47.

⁴³ ibid., 47, 45.

⁴⁴ ibid., 48.

⁴⁵ ibid., 48.

⁴⁶ ibid., 49.

⁴⁷ Buell, ‘Tribe, qan and ulus in early Mongol China’, 69.

⁴⁸ ibid., 70.

⁴⁹ Grigor of Akner, ‘ History of the nation of the archers’, 337.

⁵⁰ Cleaves, Francis Woodman, ‘ The Mongolian names and terms in the History of the nation of the archers of Grigor of Akanc' ’, Harvard Journal of Asiatic Studies, 12, 1949, 439–40. Blake and Frye defined ‘ tamači’ in their note to the text as ‘ a class of knights or cavaliers among the Mongols.’ Grigor of Akner, ‘ History of the nation of the archers’, 388n.47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

⁵¹ The Baburnama: memoirs of Babur, prince and emperor, ed. and tr. Thackston, Wheeler M. (New York: Oxford University Press, 1996), 259 (fol. 209).Google Scholar

⁵² Thackston, , Baburnama, 454Google Scholar. Cf. Erskine, William, who defines it as ‘a sort of adjutants who attended to the order of the troops and carried orders from the general’. Memoirs of Zehir-ed-Din Muhammed Barber, Emperor of Hindustan, tr. Leyden, John and Erskine, William (London: Longman, Rees, Orme, Brown, and Green, 1826), 227, n.3.Google Scholar

⁵³ Hsiao, , Military establishment, 85Google Scholar (Yuanshi, 98/13b), 89 (Yuanshi, 98/16a), 96 (Yuanshi, 99/4b), 99 (Yuanshi, 99/7a), 102 (Yuanshi, 99/10b), 107 (Yuanshi, 99/14b), 109 (Yuanshi, 99/17a), 112 (Yuanshi, 99/20b), 115 (Yuanshi, 99/22b), 117 (Yuanshi, 99/24a), 120 (Yuanshi, 99/26b), 123 (Yuanshi, 99/29b); Mangold, Gunther, Das Militārwesen in China unter der Mongolen-Herrschaft (Bamberg: Fotodruck, 1971), 108–10 (Yuan dianzheng, 34/25a–26a), 133 (Tongchi tiaoge, 7/15a), 218 (Yuan dianzheng, 35).Google Scholar

⁵⁴ Yuanshi l/2a, transl. in Hsiao, , Military establishment, 73.Google Scholar

⁵⁵ Yuanshi 99/5a, transl. in Hsiao, , Military establishment, 96. In his translation, Hsiao added the words ‘qun’ and ‘armies’ because he thought that is what was meant.Google Scholar

⁵⁶ Sbornik letopisei, I, pt. 2 (Smirnova), 205.Google Scholar

⁵⁷ For the early history of this administrative structure, see Bodde, Derk, China's first unifier: a study of the Ch'in dynasty as seen in the life of Li Ssü (280?–208 B.C.) (Leiden: Brill, 1938), 145Google Scholar; and Loewe, Michael, Records of Han administration, 2 vols. (Cambridge University Press, 1967)Google Scholar, 1: Historical assessment, 59. According to Bielenstein, the difference between the two territorial divisions during the Han dynasty was that the designation dao was reserved for ‘certain sensitive areas’ that included non-Chinese inhabitants along the border, whereas the xian made up the commanderies of the rest. Bielenstein, Hans, The bureaucracy of Han times (Cambridge University Press, 1980), 99–100CrossRefGoogle Scholar. Even in the interior regions, however, dispersed areas of agriculturalists and pastoralists were incorporated within each prefecture into circuits. Circuits were called dao until 998 and li or lu after that. Kracke, E. A. Jr, Civil service in early Sung China 960–1067: with particular emphasis on the development of controlled sponsorship to foster administrative responsibility (Cambridge MA: Harvard University Press, 1953, 1968), 50, n.139Google Scholar; and Herrmann, Albert, Historical and commercial atlas of China (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1935), 42–3. Ch'u translates li as ‘rural zone’. T'ung-tsu Ch'u, Local government in China under the Ch'ing (Stanford University Press, 1969), 65.Google Scholar

⁵⁸ The emperor could also appoint a third official as overseer (zhienyushi [chien-yü-shih]) to maintain the balance between the military governor and the civilian governor. Loewe, Records of Han administration, 61. Cf. de Crespigny, Rafe, Official titles of the former Han dynasty, (tr.) Dubs, H. H. (Canberra: Australian National University Press, 1967), 24, 30.Google Scholar

⁵⁹ Under the Sui dynasty (589–618), local government was organized into territorial units of zhou (chou) and xian when the zhun was abolished. Endicott-West, Elizabeth, Mongolian rule in China: local administration in the Yuan dynasty (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1989), 5. But at some point the zhun was re-established because we see it again under the Song. Kracke, Civil service in early Sung China, 48. For provincial organization under the Qing (1644–1911), see Ch'u, Local government in China under the Ch'ing, 1–13.Google Scholar

⁶⁰ Kracke, , Civil service in early Sung China, 54–7Google Scholar; Lo, Winston W., An introduction to the civil service of Sung China: with emphasis on its personnel administration (Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press, 1987).Google Scholar

⁶¹ Endicott-West, , Mongolian rule in China, 6.Google Scholar

⁶² This attestation is in a Chinese source, the Siyuki, which is a description by Li Qichang of theijourney of the Daoist monk Changchun to meet Chingiz Khan in the Hindu Kush. At one point, Changchun was met by the ruler of Almaliγ and a daruγači. Cf. Bretschneider, E., Mediaval researchers from eastern Asiatic sources, 2 vols. (London: Trubner, 1888Google Scholar, repr.: Kegan Paul, Trench, Trübner, 1910), I:70; Waley, Arthur, Travels of an alchemist: the journey of the Taoist Ch'ang-ch'un (London: George Routledge & Sons, 1931), 85.Google Scholar

⁶³ Vásáry, Istvan, ‘The origin of the institution of basqaqs’, Acta Orientalia Academiae Scientiarum Hungaricae, 32, 1978, 203–5Google Scholar. Initially, he accepted the proposition that the root forms dadu- (Mongolian) and bas- (Turkic) both derived from words meaning to press, as in to affix a seal. Vāsāry, Istvan, ‘The Golden Horde daruġa and its survival in Russia’, Acta Orientalia Academiae Scientiarum Hungaricae, 30, 1976, 188Google Scholar. Later he modified that acceptance to suggest that the root forms had more the sense of governing than of affixing a seal or oppressing. Vásáry, ‘Origin of the institution of basqaqs’, 202–3. On the pre-Mongol šiḥna, see Horst, Heribert, Die Staatsverwaltung der Grosselǧùgen und Hōrazmšāhs (Wiesbaden: Franz Steiner, 1964), 93–6.Google Scholar

⁶⁴ Juvaynī, , History, 44, n.3.Google Scholar

⁶⁵ Grousset, René, The empire of the steppes: a history of Central Asia, tr. Walford, Naomi (New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press, 1970), 216Google Scholar. Cf. Abel-Rémusat, Jean-Pierre, ‘Tha-tha-toung-'o, ministre ouigour’, Nouveaux mélanges asiatiques, 2 vols. (Paris: Schubart et Heideloff, 1829), II: 61–7. Buell proposed that his position under the Mongols was that of balaqači, that is, storehouse keeper. Buell, ‘Kalmyk Tanggaci people’, 51, n.5.Google Scholar

⁶⁶ de Rachewiltz, Igor, ‘Some remarks on the ideological foundation of Chinggis Khan's empire’, Papers on Far Eastern History, 7, 1973, 29.Google Scholar

⁶⁷ Lattimore, Owen, ‘The geography of Chingis Khan’, Geographical Journal, 129, 1963CrossRefGoogle Scholar, 1. Arthur Waldron has convincingly argued that the Great Wall, as we know it, was not built until the Ming dynasty (1368–1644). At that time, the various dirt ramparts and barriers that had been set up under previous dynasties and by local rulers were united and fortified into one continuous wall. Waldron dismissed the common conception that the Great Wall was built under Shi Huangdi., Waldron, Arthur, The Great Wall of China: from history to myth (Cambridge University Press, 1990). Parts of a previous wall constructed under the Sui have recently been discovered by space-shuttle photography. ‘The Great Wall's ancestor’, Discover, August 1996, 19.Google Scholar

⁶⁸ Morgan, Mongols, 49–50. For an opposing view, that ‘ the central administration of the early Mongolian empire was not based upon nor inspired by Chinese bureaucratic models’ but that ‘ it emerged from the guard/household establishment’ of Chingiz Khan, see Allsen, Thomas T., ‘Guard and government in the reign of the Grand Qan Möngke, 1251–1259’, Harvard Journal of Asiatic Studies, 46, 1986CrossRefGoogle Scholar, 521. For the idea that the Mongols may have borrowed their administrative institutions from the Jurchens,see Munkuev, N. Ts., ‘A new Mongolian p'ai-tzu from Simferopol’, Acta Orientalia Academiae Scientiarium Hungaricae, 31, 1977, 186.Google Scholar

⁶⁹ See, e.g., Pelliot, Paul, Notes sur I'histoire de la Horde ďOr, Œuvres posthumes, II (Paris: Adrien-Maisonneuve, 1949), 72–73, n.lGoogle Scholar; Vernadsky, George, The Mongols and Russia, vol. in ofA history of Russia (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1953), 219–20; H. F. Schurmann,‘ Mongolian tributary practices of the thirteenth century’, Harvard Journal of Asiatic Studies, 19, 1956, 343,, n.87; and Doerfer, Türkische und mongolische Elemente im Neupersischen, I: 319–23.Google Scholar

⁷⁰ See Berezin, I. N., Tarkhannye yarlyki Tokhtamysha, Timur-Kutluka i Saadet-Gireya (Kazan': Tipografiya Kazanskogo Universiteta, 1851), 43, n.43Google Scholar; Berezin, I. N., ‘Ocherk vnutrennego ustroistva Ulusa Dzhuchieva’, Trudy Vostochnogo Otdeleniya Russkogo Arkheologicheskogo Obshchestva, 8, 1864, 452–3Google Scholar; Sablukov, G. S., Ocherk vnutrennego sostoyaniya Kipchakskogo Tsarstva (Kazan': Tipografiya Kazanskogo Universiteta, 1895), 8Google Scholar; Nasonov, , Mongoly i Rus', 104–5Google Scholar; Spuler, Bertold, Die goldene Horde. Die Mongolen in Ruϒland (Leipzig: Otto Harrassowitz, 1943), 303Google Scholar; and Ratchnevsky, Paul, Genghis Khan: his life and legacy, ed. and tr. Haining, Thomas Nivison (Oxford: Blackwell, 1991), 138–9Google Scholar, 178–80. Halperin considered them to be the same in the thirteenth century but different in the fourteenth century. Halperin, Charles J., Russia and the Golden Horde: the Mongol impact on medieval Russian history (Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1985), 39–40.Google Scholar

⁷¹ This was also the case under the Han. See Loewe, , Records of Han administration, 61. See also Karl A. Wittfogel and Fêng Chia-Shêng, History of Chinese society: Liao (907–1125), in Transactions of the American Philosophical Society, n.s., 36, 1946 (Philadelphia, 1949), 428 on overlapping military and civilian functions under the Liao.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

⁷² Yuanshi, 7/16 cited in Pallady, ‘Starinnoe Mongol'skoe skazanie’, 256.

⁷³ Barthold, , Turkestan down to the Mongol invasion, 401Google Scholar.

⁷⁴ Carpini, ‘Ystoria Mongalorum’, ch. vii, § 6, pp. 86–7; Carpini, ‘History of the Mongols’, 40.

⁷⁵ Juvaynī, , History, 105, 110, and 482.Google Scholar

⁷⁶ ibid., 144, 146, and 155.

⁷⁷ ibid., 150.

⁷⁸ ibid., 173.

⁷⁹ ibid., 154. If the Khwarezm Shah did give such advice, the Mervians ignored it for the Mongols destroyed their city in 1223 after several revolts.

⁸⁰ Juvaynī, , History, 349 (peaceful), 351 (military).Google Scholar

⁸¹ Juvayni, , History, 506Google Scholar; al-Dīn, Rashīd, Successors, 51Google Scholar; al-Dīn, Rashīd, Sbornik letopisei, II (Verkhovsky), 33.Google Scholar

⁸² Ratchnevsky, Genghis Khan, 179; Juvaynī, History, 511.

⁸³ Juvayni, , History, 109–15.Google Scholar

⁸⁴ ibid., 44–5.

⁸⁵ Wittfogel, and Feng, , History of Chinese society: Liao (907–1125), 666. Boyle agreed with them. See his comment in Juvaynī, History, 44n.4.Google Scholar

⁸⁶ Kracke tells us that, under the Song, ‘the name of the function or unit administered was generally preceded by a term such as “administering”, or “supervising”, or “provisional”, or a combination of these. The exact use of these prefixes varied at different times.’ Kracke, Civil service in early Sung China, 80.

⁸⁷ Juvaynī, , History, 107, n.27; Bartol'd, Turkestan down to the Mongol invasion, 427, 448, and 492.Google Scholar

⁸⁸ Buell, Paul D., ‘Sino-Khitan administration in Mongol Bukhara’, Journal of Asian History, 13, 1979, 122–4Google Scholar. Morgan used Buell's identification as an example of why it is important to have some knowledge of Chinese when studying these texts. David [D. O.] Morgan, , ‘Who ran the Mongol empire?’ Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society, 2, 1982, 129.Google Scholar

⁸⁹ Serruys, Henry, ‘The Office of tayisi in Mongolia in the fifteenth century’, Harvard Journal of Asiatic Studies, 37, 1977, 353.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

⁹⁰ Wittfogel and Fêng reported that Paul Pelliot, in a personal communication suggested that the term shahna (Seljuq: šihna), derives from shaochien. Wittfogel and Fêng, History of Chinese society: Liao (907–1125), 666.

⁹¹ This is the sense in which Radloff defines it. Radloff, Wilhelm, Versuch eines Wörterbuches der Türkdialecte, 4 vols. (St Petersburg: Commissionnaires de l'Académie Imperiale des Sciences, 1888–1911), iv: 1533.Google Scholar

⁹² On the Mongol campaigns in northern China, see Martin, H. Desmond, The rise of Chingis Khan and his conquest of north China (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1950).Google Scholar

⁹³ On the career and significance of Yelü Chucai, see Igor de Rachewiltz, ‘Yeh-lil Ch'u-ts'ai (1189–1243): Buddhist idealist and Confucian statesman’, in Wright, A. F. and Twitchett, D. (ed.), Confucian personalities (Stanford University Press, 1962), 189–216Google Scholar. For a translation into Russian of the biography of Yelü Chucai that appears in the Yuanshi, see Munkuev, N. Ts., Kitaiskii istochnik o pervykh mongol'skikh khanakh: nadgrobnaya nadpis' na mogile Eliui Chu-tsaya. Perevod i issledovanie (Moscow: Nauka, 1965), 185–201. For a paraphrase cum translation into French, see Rémusat, ‘Yeliu-thsou-tsai, ministre tartare’, Nouveaux Melanges Asiatiques, 2: 64–88. For a translation into English of Yelü Chucai's Si yu lu (‘Account of a journey to the West’), see Igor de Rachewiltz, ‘The Hsi-yu lu by Yeh-lü Ch'u Ts'ai', Monumenta Serica, 21, 1962, 1–128.Google Scholar

⁹⁴ Owen Lattimore, ‘Honour and loyalty: the case of Temüjin and Jamulka’, in Clark, Larry V. and Draghi, Paul Alexander (ed.), Aspects of Altaic civilization II. Proceedings of the XVIII PI AC, Bloomington, June 29-July 3, 1975 (Bloomington: Asian Studies Research Institute, Indiana University, 1978), 129.Google Scholar

⁹⁵ See inter alia Dalai, Chuluuny, Mongoliya v XIII–XIV vekakh (Moscow: Nauka, 1983), 46.Google Scholar

⁹⁶ Buell, ‘Sino-Khitan administration in Mongol Bukhara’, 124n.15.

⁹⁷ Endicott-West, Mongolian rule in China, 3.

⁹⁸ Endicott-West, Mongolian rule in China, 79–83; see also Wittfogel and Fêng, History of Chinese society: Liao (907–1125), 65, n.29. The daluhuachi governed an area called a touxia and, according to Wittfogel and Fêng, was replaced every three years. But Endicott-West found a number of cases where daluhuachis served longer, in one case 17 years. Endicott-West, Mongolian rule in China, 76–7.

⁹⁹ For some of the problems of jurisdiction that arose between the civil and military administrations, see Endicott-West, Mongolian rule in China, 38–42.

¹⁰⁰ Yuanshi 120: 2969, as translated in Endicott-West, Mongolian rule in China, 35. Ratchnevsky pointed out that this is the only occurrence of the term basiha in the Yuanshi. Ratchnevsky, Genghis Khan, 180.

¹⁰¹ Mottahedeh, Roy P., Loyalty and leadership in an early Islamic society (Princeton University Press, 1980), 182.CrossRefGoogle Scholar