¹ T. Moriyasu 森安孝夫, ‘Zōho: Uiguru to toban no hokutei sōdatsusen oyobi sonogo no seiiki jōsei ni tsuite 増補: ウイグルと吐蕃の北庭争奪戦及びその後の西域情勢について [On the war at Beiting between the Uighurs and the Tibetans and the consequent situation in the Western Region (enlarged and revised version)]’, Ajia bunka shi ronsō アジア文化史論叢, vol. 3 (Tokyo, 1979); T. Moriyasu, Tōzai Uiguru to Chūō Yūrashia 東西ウイグルと中央ユーラシア [Eastern and Western Uyghurs and Central Eurasia] (Nagoya, 2015), pp. 203–74. For a French version, see Moriyasu, T., ‘Qui des Ouigours ou des Tibétains ont gagné en 789-792 à Beš-Balïq?’ Journal Asiatique 269 (1981), pp. 193–205Google Scholar. See also Ch. Beckwith, I., The Tibetan Empire in Central Asia (Princeton, 1987), pp. 153–57Google Scholar.

² See Pei Ju's preface to his Xiyu tuji 西域圖記 ‘Map and Record of the Western Regions’ preserved in his biography in the Suishu 隋書 [History of the Sui] (Beijing, 2019), 67, p. 1772.

³ Initially established in Kuča, Khotan, Kashgar, and Karashahr, the four garrisons were fiercely contested by the Tibetans, who were also expanding into the Western Regions at this time. In 679, when the Tang regained the control of the region, they established a garrison at Suyab (near Tokmak, Kyrgyzstan) in place of the earlier one at Karashahr. On the basis of unearthed manuscripts and tomb epitaphs from Turfan, Wang Xiaofu has revealed more information on the history of the Four Garrisons during the period 670–92, when the Tang lost and regained the control three times. See Wang Xiaofu 王小甫, Tang, Tubo, Dashi zhengzhi guanxi shi 唐、吐蕃、大食政治關係史 [The History of Political Relations between the Tang Dynasty, Tibet and Arab in Central Asia (634–792 A. D.)] (Beijing, 2021), pp. 68–93.

⁴ In Chinese ‘Kaitong daolu, bie zhi guanyi’ 開通道路, 別置館驛; see Tang huiyao 唐會要 [Compilation of Key Documents of the Tang] (Shanghai, 1991), 73, p. 1576. For a detailed survey of the establishment of the routes and the postal system in the newly conquered Western Regions, see Rong Xinjiang 榮新江, ‘Tangdai Anxi duhufu yu sichou zhilu: yi Tulufan chutu wenshu wei zhongxin 唐代安西都護府與絲綢之路——以吐魯番出土文書為中心 [The Anxi protectorate and the Silk Road of the Tang time: focused on the manuscripts unearthed from Turfan]’, Qiuci xue yanjiu 龜茲學研究 [The Qiuci (Ancient Kuča) Study], 5 (2012), pp. 154–61.

⁵ Jiu Tangshu 舊唐書 [Old History of the Tang] (Beijing, 1975), 198, p. 5304.

⁶ For a detailed survey of the measures that the Tang took to control the Western Regions, see Zhang Guangda 張廣達, ‘Tang mie Gaochangguo hou de Xizhou xingshi 唐滅高昌國後的西州形勢’ [On the situation after the Tang's subjection of Gaochang]’, Tōyō bunka 東洋文化, 68 (1988), pp. 114–52; Zhang Guangda, Wenshu, dianji yu Xiyu shidi 文書、典籍與西域史 [Manuscripts, Literatures and the History and Geography of the Western Regions] (Guilin, 2008), pp. 114–52.

⁷ The area where the city of Beiting was established is crucial, not only for the control of the east–west route along the northern slope of the Tianshan, but also for the north–south route across the mountains to the Turfan Basin. Due to the crucial location, a city (or cities) had existed there long before Tang times. For the strategic position of Kehan Futu cheng going back to the time of the Türk empire and discussions of its relation to Beiting under the Tang, see A. Shimazaki 嶋崎昌, ‘On Pei-t‘ing 北庭 (Bišbalïq) and K‘o-han Fu-t‘u-ch‘eng 可汗浮圖城’, Memoirs of the Research Department of the Toyo Bunko, 32 (1974), pp. 105–9.

⁸ The ‘Treatise on the Army’ in the Xin Tangshu 新唐書 [New History of the Tang] designates the garrisons at the frontiers as jun, shouzhuo, cheng 城, and zhen 鎮 in decreasing size; see Xin Tangshu (Beijing, 1975), 50, p. 1328. In the following text, I tentatively refer to jun, shouzhuo, and zhen as large, medium-sized and small garrisons, respectively.

⁹ Xin Tangshu, 40, p. 1047.

¹⁰ Ibid., p. 1046.

¹¹ The two capital cities, Qočo and Bešbalïq, both of which have been surveyed and excavated several times, are good examples for understanding major cities in the West Uighur Kingdom. According to the third round of national surveys on historical relics in China (2007–09), the perimeters of the outer wall of Qočo is circa 5,000 metres long, whereas that of Bešbalïq is 4,596 metres long; see Xinjiang Weiwuer zizhiqu wenwu ju 新疆維吾爾自治區文物局 (ed.), Xinjiang gucheng yizhi 新疆古城遺址 [Remains of Ancient Cities in Xinjiang], Xinjiang Weiwuer zizhiqu disanci quanguo wenwu pucha chengguo jicheng 新疆維吾爾自治區第三次全國文物普查成果集成 [Compilation of the Results from the Third Round of National Surveys on Historical Relics] (Beijing, 2011), pp. 342, 393. For the plan of the city of Qočo, see A. Grünwedel, Bericht über Archäologische Arbeiten in Idikutschari und Umgebung im Winter 1902–1903 (München, 1906), fig. 2; A. Stein, Innermost Asia: Detailed Report of Explorations in Central Asia, Kan-su and Eastern Iran, vol. 3 (Oxford, 1928), Plan 24. For the plan of the city of Bešbalïq, see Steinhardt, N. S., ‘Beiting: city and ritual complex’, Silk Road Art and Archaeology 7 (2001)Google Scholar, figs 1–3, pp. 224, 228–30.

¹² T. Moriyasu, ‘Tonkō to Nishi Uiguru ōkoku: Turufan kara no shokan to okurimono o chūshin ni 敦煌と西ウイグル王国—トゥルファンからの書簡と贈り物を中心に [Dunhuang and the West Uyghur Kingdom: the historical background of the letter, P 3672 Bis, sent from Turfan]’, Tōhō gaku 東方学 74 (1987); Moriyasu, Tōzai Uiguru to Chūō Yūrashia, pp. 341–42. See also Moriyasu, T., ‘On the Uighur Buddhist society at Čiqtim in Turfan during the Mongol period’, in Splitter aus der Gegend von Turfan: Festschrift für Peter Zieme anläßlich seines 60. Geburtstags, (eds.) M. Ölmez and S.-Ch. Raschmann (Berlin and Istanbul, 2002), pp. 167–68Google Scholar.

¹³ Wang Su 王素, Gaochang shigao: Jiaotong bian 高昌史稿—交通編 [A Draft History of Gaochang: Volume on Communications] (Beijing, 2000), pp. 53–57.

¹⁴ For a general summary, see Matsui, D., ‘Old Uigur toponyms of the Turfan oases’, in Kutadgu Nom Bitig: Festschrift für Jens Peter Laut zum 60. Geburtstag, (eds.) E. Ragagnin and J. Wilkens (Wiesbaden, 2015), p. 294Google Scholar.

¹⁵ The manuscript was collected in a ruined Buddhist temple in Tuyuq, Turfan by a local peasant in the 1980s and is now housed in the provincial museum of Xinjiang (Ürümqi). For the text and the dating, see Rong Xinjiang 榮新江, ‘“Xizhou Huihu mounian zao fota gongde ji” xiao kao〈西州回鶻某年造佛塔功德記〉小考 [On the “memo on the merit of building a stupa” of the West Uighur time]’, in Geng Shimin jiaoshou bashi huadan jinian wenji 耿世民教授八十華誕紀念文集 [Festschrift for the Eightieth Birthday of Professor Geng Shimin], (eds.) Zhang Dingjing 張定京 et al. (Beijing, 2009), pp. 183, 189.

¹⁶ T. Moriyasu, ‘Uiguru no seisen ni tsuite ウイグルの西遷について [On the Uighurs’ migration to the west]’, Tōyō gakuhō, 59.1+2 (1977); Moriyasu, Tōzai Uiguru to Chūō Yūrashia, p. 292; Hua Tao 華濤, Xiyu lishi yanjiu (ba zhi shi shiji) 西域歷史研究 (八至十世紀) [Study on the History of the Western Regions (from the Eighth to the Tenth Century)] (Shanghai, 2020), p. 82; Zieme, P., ‘The West Uigur Kingdom: views from inside’, Horizons, 5.1 (2014), p. 2Google Scholar; Fu Ma 付馬, Sichou zhilu shang de Xizhou Huihu wangchao: 9–13 shiji zhongya dongbu lishi yanjiu 絲綢之路上的西州回鶻王朝: 9–13 世紀中亞東部歷史研究 [The West Uighur Kingdom on the Silk Road: Study on the History of Eastern Central Asia during Ninth–Thirteenth Century] (Beijing, 2019), pp. 100–5.

¹⁷ Moriyasu, ‘Uiguru no seisen ni tsuite’, pp. 286–90.

¹⁸ Guiyi jun (‘Return to Allegiance Army’, 848–1036), a de facto independent state founded in Dunhuang by the local Chinese landlords, remained a nominal vassal of the Tang until its demise. Due to its proximity to the eastern Tianshan region, it became a main source of information on the West Uighurs for the Chinese dynasties. For a brief history of Guiyi jun, see Rong Xinjiang 榮新江, Eighteen Lectures on Dunhuang, (trans.) I. Galambos (Leiden and Boston, 2013), pp. 40–46.

¹⁹ Zizhi tongjian 資治通鑒 [Comprehensive Mirror in Aid of Governance] (Beijing, 2011), 250, pp. 8235–36.

²⁰ Xin Tangshu, 40, p. 1047.

²¹ The army was very likely the Qinghai Jun 青海軍 mentioned in a note under the entry for Beiting in the ‘Treatise on geography’ in the Xin Tangshu, ibid.

²² Housed in the Chinese Academy of Cultural Heritage with the shelf number xj222-0661.09, it was published in coloured facsimile in 2009, but the information on its origin and the finding site has not been released. For the text edition, see Zhang, T. and Zieme, P., ‘A memorandum about the king of the On Uygur and his realm’, Acta Orientalia Academiae Scientiarum Hungaricae, 64.2 (2011), pp. 129–59Google Scholar. Another folio belonging to other parts of the text has been edited by the same authors; see Zhang, T. and Zieme, P., ‘A further fragment of old Uigur annals’, Acta Orientalia Academiae Scientiarum Hungaricae, 66.4 (2013), pp. 397–410CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

²³ The editors of the manuscript have dated the events to the tenth or eleventh century without detailed argumentation; see Zhang and Zieme, ‘Memorandum about the king’, p. 129. I have argued that the events should be dated to the second half of the ninth century—the years immediately following the founding of the West Uighur Kingdom by Pugu Jun; see Fu Ma, ‘Xizhou Huihu wangguo jianli chuqi de duiwai kuozhang: Zhongguo wenhua yichan yanjiuyuan cang xj222-0661.09 hao Huihu wenshu de lishixue yanjiu 西州回鶻王國建立初期的對外擴張——中國文化遺產研究院藏 xj222-0661.09 號回鶻文書的歷史學研究 [The expansion of the Uighur kingdom of Qocho in its early years: a study on the manuscript xj222-0661.09 housed in the Chinese Academy of Cultural Heritage]’, in Xiyu wenshi 西域文史 [Literature and History of the Western Region], vol. 8, (ed.) Zhu Yuqi 朱玉麒 (Beijing, 2013), pp. 145–62; Fu Ma, Sichou zhilu shang de Xizhou Huihu wangchao, pp. 125–32. Despite disagreement over the exact time, the general dating to the early time of the West Uighur Kingdom has been well accepted.

²⁴ Zhang and Zieme, ‘Memorandum about the king’, pp. 139, 143.

²⁵ Jiu Wudaishi 舊五代史 [Old History of the Five Dynasties] (Beijing, 2016), 137, p. 2130.

²⁶ Section T; see Zhang and Zieme, ‘Memorandum about the king’, p. 143.

²⁷ Ibid., p. 148.

²⁸ Section V; see ibid., p. 143.

²⁹ Ibid., p. 143.

³⁰ Chin. ‘Tang zhi biancheng, wangwang shang cun’ 唐之邊城，往往尚存; see Wang Guowei 王國維 (ed. and comm.), Changchun zhenren xiyouji zhu 長春真人西遊記注 [Notes on Changchun Zhenren's ‘Journey to the West’], in Wang guowei quanji 王國維全集 [The Complete Works of Wang Guowei], vol. 11, (eds.) Xie Weiyang 謝維揚 and Fang Xinliang 房鑫亮 (Hangzhou, 2009), p. 573.

³¹ Matsui, ‘Old Uigur toponyms’, p. 276.

³² Moriyasu, ‘On the Uighur Buddhist society’, pp. 153–77.

³³ Ibid., p. 169.

³⁴ Huang Lie 黃烈, Zhongguo gudai minzushi yanjiu 中國古代民族史研究 [Study on History of Non-Han Chinese Peoples in Pre-Modern China] (Beijing, 1987), chapter 5, pp. 431–58.

³⁵ Wang Su, Gaochang shigao, p. 66.

³⁶ Huili 慧立 and Yancong 彥悰, Da Ci'ensi sanzang fashi zhuan 大慈恩寺三藏法師傳 [A Biography of the Tripiṭaka Master of the Great Ci'en Monastery], (eds. and comms.) Sun Yutang 孫毓棠 and Xie Fang 謝方 (Beijing, 2000), 1, p. 18.

³⁷ Tang Zhangru 唐長孺 (ed.), Tulufan chutu wenshu 吐魯番出土文書 [Texts Unearthed from Turfan], vol. II (Beijing, 1994), p. 56.

³⁸ Cheng Xilin 程喜霖, ‘Lun Tangdai Xizhou zhenshu 論唐代西州鎮戍 [On the garrisons in Xizhou (Turfan) of the Tang time]’, Xiyu yanjiu 西域研究, 2 (2013), p. 12.

³⁹ Chen Guocan 陳國燦, ‘Tang xihzou puchangfu fangqu de zhenshu yu guanyi 唐西州蒲昌府防區的鎮戍與館驛 [Garrisons and relay posts within the military zone of Puchang Fu, Xizhou during the Tang period]’, Wei jin nanbeichao sui tang shi ziliao 魏晉南北朝隋唐史資料 [Historical Materials on the Wei, Jin, Northern and Southern Dynasties, Sui and Tang], 17 (2000), p. 95.

⁴⁰ For the joining of the fragments and the reconstructed text, see Chen Guocan 陳國燦, Sitanyin suohuo Tulufan wenshu yanjiu 斯坦因所獲吐魯番文書研究 [Studies on the Turfan Documents Obtained by Stein], revised version (Wuhan, 1997), pp. 261–63.

⁴¹ Ibid., p. 262.

⁴² Tang Zhangru 唐長孺 (ed.), Tulufan chutu wenshu 吐魯番出土文書 [Texts Unearthed from Turfan], vol. IV (Beijing, 1996), p. 101; cf. Ma Fu, ‘Buddhist and Christian relay posts on the Silk Road (9th–12th cc.)’, Central Asiatic Journal, 63.1+2 (2020), p. 242.

⁴³ Ibid.

⁴⁴ Xin Tangshu, 40, p. 1046.

⁴⁵ Fu, ‘Buddhist and Christian relay posts’, p. 242.

⁴⁶ Songshi 宋史 [History of the Song] (Beijing, 1977), 490, p. 14111; cf. Fu, ‘Buddhist and Christian relay posts’, pp. 241–42.

⁴⁷ Moriyasu, ‘On the Uighur Buddhist society’, pp. 156, 169.

⁴⁸ Ibid., p. 170.

⁴⁹ One of the two provision orders preserved in the manuscript SI 4820 housed in St. Petersburg. For the latest edition of the text, see M. Vér, Old Uyghur Documents Concerning the Postal System of the Mongol Empire (Turnhout, 2019), PO19, pp. 92–93.

⁵⁰ In the style of traditional Chinese landscape painting, this map depicts cities, mountains, waters, and other landmarks along the overland route from Jiayu guan 嘉峪關 all the way to Arabia and the eastern Mediterranean. The geographic knowledge reflected on the map can be dated to Ming China; see Lin Meicun 林梅村 (ed. and comm.), Menggu shanshui ditu: zai Riben xin faxian de yifu shiliu shiji Sichou zhilu ditu 蒙古山水地圖: 在日本新發現的一幅十六世紀絲綢之路地圖 [Mongolian Landscape Map: A Sixteenth Century Silk Road Map Recently Discovered in Japan] (Beijing, 2011), p. 2; N. Kenzheakhmet, Eurasian Historical Geography. As Reflected in Geographical Literature and in Maps from the 13th to the Mid-17th Centuries (Gossenberg, 2021), pp. 112–22.

⁵¹ Xin Tangshu, 40, p. 1046.

⁵² Dai Liangzuo 戴良佐, ‘Dushan cheng guzhi takan ji 獨山城故址踏勘記 [Survey of the site of Dushan city]’, Yuanshi ji beifang minzushi yanjiu jikan 元史及北方民族史研究集刊, 8 (1984), pp. 107–8; Liu Yingsheng 劉迎勝, Chahetai hanguo shi yanjiu 察合台汗國史研究 [Study on the History of the Chagatay Khanate] (Shanghai, 2006), p. 591.

⁵³ Xinjiang Weiwuer zizhiqu wenwu ju (ed.), Xinjiang gucheng yizhi, pp. 404–5.

⁵⁴ J. A. Boyle (trans. and comm.), ‘The journey of Hetʿum I, king of Little Armenia, to the court of the Great Khan Möngke’, Central Asiatic Journal, 9.3 (1964), p. 181.

⁵⁵ However, he wrongly identified it with the Tang-era Pulei County; see J. R. Hamilton, ‘Autour du manuscrit Staël-Holstein’, T'oung Pao, Second Series, 46.1+2 (1958), pp. 146–47.

⁵⁶ Liaoshi 遼史 [History of the Liao] (Beijing, 2016), 94, pp. 1519–20.

⁵⁷ Dai Liangzuo, ‘Dushan cheng guzhi takan ji’, p. 107.

⁵⁸ Hua Tao, Xiyu lishi yanjiu, p. 87. However, he did not realise that the Dushan garrison of the Tang should be included in this group, but followed Hamilton in mistakenly identifying it with Pulei County; Liu Yingsheng, Chahetai hanguo shi yanjiu, pp. 590–91.

⁵⁹ Yuanshi 元史 [History of the Yuan] (Beijing, 1976), 124, p. 3047.

⁶⁰ P. Pelliot, ‘Book review: G. L. M. Clauson, ‘The Geographical Names in the Staël-Holstein Scroll’ (JRAS, 1931. 297–309)’, T'oung Pao, Second Series, 28.1+2 (1931), p. 140. For the dating of the text to 925, see E. G. Pulleyblank, ‘The date of the Staël-Holstein roll’, Asia Major 4.1 (1954), pp. 90–97.

⁶¹ Hamilton, ‘Autour du manuscrit Staël-Holstein’, p. 149.

⁶² V. Minorsky (ed., trans., and comm.), Hudūd al-Ālam: The Regions of the World (London, 1970), p. 265.

⁶³ Ibid., p. 94.

⁶⁴ The Late Middle Chinese and Early Mandarin (EM) pronunciations of Chinese characters in this article are all based on E. G. Pulleyblank's reconstruction (Lexicon of Reconstructed Pronunciation in Early Middle Chinese, Late Middle Chinese, and Early Mandarin (Vancouver, 1991)).

⁶⁵ Although the loss of final /ŋ/ in the north-western dialect was limited to words with spread vowels in the late-Tang period, it began to spread to words with rounded and neutral vowels from the period of the Five Dynasties, i.e. the tenth century onwards; see Luo Changpei 羅常培, Tang Wudai xibei fangyin 唐五代西北方音 [North-Western Dialect in the Tang and the Five Dynasties] (Beijing, 2018), p. 190.

⁶⁶ J. A. Boyle (trans.), The History of the World-Conqueror, vol. 2 (Cambridge, MA, 1958), p. 489.

⁶⁷ For example, Bivar has estimated a range of 4.48 to 5.35 kilometres based on pre-Islamic sources; see A. D. H. Bivar, ‘Weights and measures in pre-Islamic period’, Encyclopaedia Iranica, online edn (2010), http://www.iranicaonline.org/articles/weights-measures-i (accessed 17 November 2023). The Persian-English Dictionary gives an estimate of 1 league, i.e. 5.49 kilometres; see F. J. Steingass, A Comprehensive Persian-English Dictionary, including the Arabic Words and Phrases to Be Met with in Persian Literature (London, 1892), p. 918.

⁶⁸ Hamilton, ‘Autour du manuscrit Staël-Holstein’, p. 145; Boyle (trans. and comm.), ‘Journey of Hetʿum I’, p. 182.

⁶⁹ Short for Honil kangni yoktae kukto chi to 混一疆理歷代國都之圖 [Comprehensive Map of Integrated Lands and Regions of Historical Countries and Their Capitals], compiled in Korea in 1402, see Kenzheakhmet, Eurasian Historical Geography, pp. 1–4.

⁷⁰ Chen Dezhi 陳得芝 ‘“Hunyi jiangli lidai guodu zhi tu” xiyu diming shidu 混一疆理歷代國都之圖西域地名釋讀 [Studies on the toponyms in the West Region on the “Comprehensive map of integrated lands and regions of historical countries and their capitals”]’, in ‘Da Ming hunyi tu’ yu ‘Hunyi jiangli tu’ yanjiu 大明混一圖與混一疆理圖研究 [Studies on the ‘Comprehensive Map of Integrated Lands of the Great Ming’ and the ‘Comprehensive Map of Integrated Lands and Regions of Historical Countries and Their Capitals’], (ed.) Liu Yingsheng (Nanjing, 2010), pp. 3–4. The character yin 因 might also be a mistake for kun 困, in EM /k^hun/, fitting the first syllable of *köllüg as well. Kenzheakhmet also related it to K‘ullug and Juliu, but he ignored Chen's study and explanation; see Kenzheakhmet, Eurasian Historical Geography, pp. 76–77.

⁷¹ Yuanshi, 134, p. 3246.

⁷² Initiated by Tu Ji in his note to Xiban's Biography; see Tu Ji 屠寄, Mengwuer shi ji 蒙兀兒史記 [Historical Records of the Mongols] (Shanghai, 1989), p. 357. This idea was accepted by the editors of the Zhongguo lishi dituji 中國歷史地圖集 [Historical Atlas of China]; see Tan Qixiang 譚其驤 (ed. in chief), Zhongguo lishi ditu ji (Beijing, 1982), vol. 7, p. 22; see also Deng Ruiling 鄧銳齡, Zhongguo lishi ditu ji nan Song Yuan shiqi xibei bianjiang tufu dili kaoshi 中國歷史地圖集南宋、元時期西北邊疆圖幅地理考釋 [Studies on the Geography on the Portions of the Historical Atlas of China that Relate to the North-Western Frontiers of the Southern Song and the Yuan] (Beijing, 2016), p. 28; Liu Yingsheng, Chahetai hanguo shi yanjiu, p. 591.

⁷³ Some famous cases in Yuan-era Chinese sources can prove this theory. The Turkic word külüg used in the khagan title of Qayšan was transcribed as Qulü 曲律 with lü (EM ly) as the transcription of –lüg. The Naiman prince Küčlüg was transcribed as Quchulü 屈出律 in Chinese, where lü (EM ly) is also used to transcribe -lüg. The Turkic ethnonym Qarluq was written as Halalu 哈剌鲁 in Chinese sources of the Yuan era, with lu (EM lɔ) as the transcription of -luq.

⁷⁴ These tribes were organised and settled as vassals in the form of zhous and fus; see Xin Tangshu, 43, pp. 1130–32.

⁷⁵ R. Dankoff (ed. and trans.), Compendium of the Turkic Dialects, Part I (Cambridge, MA, 1982), pp. 139–40.

⁷⁶ The data of the sites are based on the third round of national surveys on historical relics in China (2007–09), on which see Xinjiang Weiwuer zizhiqu wenwu ju (ed.), Xinjiang gucheng yizhi.

⁷⁷ Despite the absence of records in any written sources, recent archaeological excavations have proven that the city site was used by the West Uighurs; see Zhongguo renmin daxue beifang minzu kaogu yanjiu suo 中國人民大學北方民族考古研究所 et al., ‘Xinjiang Qitai xian Tangchao dun chengzhi 2018~2019 nian fajue jianbao 新疆奇台縣唐朝墩城址 2018~2019 年發掘簡報 [Brief Report on 2018~2019 Excavation of Tangchao dun City Site in Qitai County, Xinjang]’, Kaogu 考古 (2020), 5, pp. 54–63.

⁷⁸ Xinjiang Weiwuer zizhiqu wenwu ju mistakenly records the data as 28,770 m² (Xinjiang gucheng yizhi, p. 404).

⁷⁹ Attested in the Staël-Holstein scroll of 925; see H. W. Bailey, ‘The Staël-Holstein miscellany’, Asia Major 2 (1951), pp. 3, 14; cf. Hamilton, ‘Autour du manuscrit Staël-Holstein’, p. 149.

⁸⁰ Attested as Arleγ or Yarhleγ on Het‘um I's itinerary; see Hamilton, ‘Autour du manuscrit Staël-Holstein’, pp. 146–47; Boyle (trans. and comm.), ‘Journey of Hetʿum I’, p. 182.

⁸¹ Wang Guowei (ed. and comm.), Changchun zhenren xiyouji zhu, p. 573; Hamilton, ‘Autour du manuscrit Staël-Holstein’, p. 147; Liu Yingsheng, Chahetai hanguo shi yanjiu, pp. 588–89.

⁸² Hamilton, ‘Autour du manuscrit Staël-Holstein’, p. 148; Liu Yingsheng, Chahetai hanguo shi yanjiu, pp. 589–90.

⁸³ Transcribed in Chinese as Gutaba 古塔巴 on the map in Jingshi dadian 經世大典 [Compendium for Administering the Empire] (circa 1330); see Zhou Shaochuan 周少川 et al. (eds.), Jingshi dadian jijiao 經世大典輯校 [Edition of the ‘Compendium of Administering the Empire’] (Beijing, 2020), p. 10. See also the ‘Treatise on Geography’ in the Yuanshi, 63, pp. 1567–70. The same toponym is also attested as Xut‘ap‘ay on Het‘um I's itinerary (Hamilton, ‘Autour du manuscrit Staël-Holstein’, p. 148; Boyle (trans. and comm.), ‘Journey of Hetʿum I’, p. 182) and in various forms of Chinese transcription in the sources after the fourteenth century; see Kenzheakhmet, Eurasian Historical Geography, pp. 162, 271.

⁸⁴ N. Yamada 山田信夫, Sammlung uigurischer Kontrakte, (eds.) J. Oda et al. (Osaka, 1993), II, RH13, pp. 81–82.

⁸⁵ Wang Guowei (ed. and comm.), Changchun zhenren xiyouji zhu, p. 575.

⁸⁶ Hamilton, ‘Autour du manuscrit Staël-Holstein’, p. 148.

⁸⁷ Fang Linggui 方齡貴, Tongzhi tiaoge jiaozhu 通制條格校註 [Edition and Commentary of The Comprehensive Regulations and Statutes] (Beijing, 2001), 4, p. 202; cf. Fu Ma, Sichou zhilu shang de Xizhou Huihu wangchao, p. 199.

⁸⁸ Lin Meicun (ed. and comm.), Menggu shanshui ditu, pp. 234–35.

⁸⁹ Ibid., p. 134.

⁹⁰ The toponym is preserved in the late-Qing source Xinmao shixing ji 辛卯侍行記 (composed in 1897); see Kenzheakhmet, Eurasian Historical Geography, pp. 155–56. He has also proposed identifications with another toponym Tegusi 特古斯 from Qing times and a modern toponym Tügüz to the north-east of Lükčün; however, the latter, located to the west of Pičan, evidently does not fit the location of Tuogusi and Tekusi.

⁹¹ Yamada, Sammlung uigurischer Kontrakte, II, RH03, p. 71; modified after M. Shōgaito 庄垣内正弘 ‘Book review: N. Yamada (J. Oda, P. Zieme, T. Umemura, and T. Moriyasu, eds.), Sammlung uighurischer Kontrakte (Osaka, 1993)’, Tōyōshi kenkyū 東洋史研究, 53.2 (1994), p. 144. For the facsimile, see Yamada, Sammlung uigurischer Kontrakte, III, pl. 58.

⁹² T. Allsen, ‘The Yüan Dynasty and the Uighurs of Turfan in the 13th century’, China among Equals: The Middle Kingdom and Its Neighbors (10th–14th Centuries), (ed.) M. Rossabi (Berkeley, 1983), pp. 258–59.

⁹³ Yuanshi, 180, p. 4161.

⁹⁴ Cen Zhongmian 岑仲勉, ‘“Yelü Xiliang shendao bei” zhi dili renshi 耶律希亮神道碑之地理人事 [Geography and events seen from the shendao bei of Yelü Xiliang]’, Zhongwai shidi kaozheng 中外史地考證 [Studies on Historical Geography of China and Abroad], Cen Zhongmian (Beijing, 1962), p. 547.

⁹⁵ Wei Su 危素, Wei taipu wen xuji 危太僕文續集 [Sequel to the Prose Works of Wei taipu], 2, in Yuanren wenji zhenben congkan 元人文集珍本叢刊 [Reprinted Rare Books on the Works of the Authors of the Yuan], vol. 7 (Taibei, 1985), p. 507. The text reads: 六月，繇苦先城至哈剌火州，宕柳中，經鑯堠子，宿伊州，涉大漠以還. ‘In the sixth month (of the fourth year of Zhiyuan = 1267), he started from Kuča, arriving at Qara Qočo (for the first stop). (Continuing) past Liuzhong (modern Lükčün) and Jian hou zi, he stayed overnight in Hami, and crossed the desert to return (to the territory controlled by the Yuan).’

⁹⁶ Cen Zhongmian, ‘Yelü Xiliang shendao bei’, p. 574. However, he has further identified it as another form of the Chinese toponym Chiting, regarding jian as a transcription of the sound chi, and hou zi, literally ‘beacon tower’, as a synonym of ting (ibid.). His solution is very unlikely to be correct, since Chiting had already become a frozen toponym and been inherited by the Uighur people in phonetic transcription at the latest by the tenth century (Matsui, ‘Old Uigur toponyms’, p. 276).

⁹⁷ Bailey, ‘Staël-Holstein miscellany’, pp. 3, 13; cf. Hamilton, ‘Autour du manuscrit Staël-Holstein’, p. 140.

⁹⁸ D. Matsui, ‘Two remarks on the Toyoq Caves and Abita Qur “Abita Cave”’, Письменные памятники Востока 18.3 (2021), pp. 45–46.

⁹⁹ T. Moriyasu 森安孝夫, ‘Uigurugo Bunken ウイグル語文献 [Uighur literature]’, in Tonkō Kogo Bunken 敦煌胡語文献 [Non-Chinese Literature from Dunhuang], (ed.) Z. Yamaguchi 山口瑞鳳 (Tokyo, 1980), pp. 82–83; Y. Kasai, Die uigurischen buddhistischen Kolophone (Turnhout, 2008), p. 211.

¹⁰⁰ K. Kitsudo, ‘Etymon of Sirkip Oasis in the Turfan region’, Türk Dilleri Araştırmaları, 24.1 (2014), pp. 145–50.

¹⁰¹ Lin Meicun (ed. and comm.), Menggu shanshui ditu, pp. 234–35.

¹⁰² Ibid., p. 134.

¹⁰³ Fu Ma, Sichou zhilu shang de Xizhou Huihu wangchao, pp. 217–18; Kenzheakhmet, Eurasian Historical Geography, pp. 156–57.

¹⁰⁴ Lin Meicun (ed. and comm.), Menggu shanshui ditu, pp. 235–36.

¹⁰⁵ For the critical edition of the Chinese text, see ibid., p. 99. For the English translation, see Kenzheakhmet, Eurasian Historical Geography, p. 126.

¹⁰⁶ V. Minorsky (ed., trans., and comm.), ‘Tamīm ibn Baḥr's journey to the Uyghurs’, Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African Studies, 12.2 (1948), p. 283. For the most recent data revealed by the German–Mongolian joint excavation, see B. Dähne, Karabalgasun – Stadt der Nomaden: Die archäologischen Ausgrabungen in der frühuigurischen Hauptstadt 2009–2011 (Wiesbaden, 2017), pp. 27–135.

¹⁰⁷ Recorded in the inscription of Šine usu; see T. Moriyasu 森安孝夫 et al., ‘Shineusu hibun yakuchū シネウス碑文訳注 [Šine-Usu inscription from the Uyghur period in Mongolia: revised text, translation and commentaries]’, Nairiku ajia gengo no kenkyū 内陸アジア言語の研究 [Studies on the Inner Asian Languages] 24 (2009), pp. 20, 31, 78.

¹⁰⁸ For the most recent survey of the site, see T. Moriyasu 森安孝夫 and A. Ochir (eds.), Mongorukoku genzon iseki, hibun chōsa kenkyū hōkoku モンゴル国現存遺蹟⋅碑文調查研究報告 [Provisional Report of Researches on Historical Sites and Inscriptions in Mongolia from 1996 to 1998] (Toyonaka, 1999), pp. 196–98.

¹⁰⁹ The ‘Treatise on Geography’ in the Liaoshi listed two garrison cities that were built on the site of former Uighur cities, both called the ‘city for the Khatun’ in Uighur times; see Liaoshi, 39, p. 507.

¹¹⁰ E. Pohl, ‘Interpretation without excavation—topographic mapping on the territory of the first Mongolian capital Karakorum’, in Current Archaeological Research in Mongolia: Papers from the First International Conference on ‘Archaeological Research in Mongolia’ Held in Ulaanbaatar, August 19th–23rd, 2007, (eds.) J. Bemmann et al. (Bonn, 2009), pp. 526–31.

¹¹¹ For example, the city of Por Bajin has been carbon dated to 777; see Margot Kuitems et al., ‘Radiocarbon-based approach capable of subannual precision resolves the origins of the site of Por-Bajin’, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 117.25 (2020), pp. 14038–41.

¹¹² For a thorough survey, see Song Guodong 宋國棟, ‘Huihe chengzhi yanjiu 回紇城址研究 [Research on the City Sites of the Uighur Khaganate]’ (unpublished PhD dissertation, Shanxi University, 2018), pp. 23 et seq.

¹¹³ For a chronological survey of the sedentary sites of nomadic peoples on Mongolian steppe, see Kh. Perlee, ‘K istorii drevnich gorodov i poselenii Mongolii [On the history of ancient cities and settlements of Mongolia]’, Sovetskaja Archeologija, 3 (1957), pp. 43–53; Kh. Perlee, Mongol Ard Ulsyn ėrt dundad üeijn chot suuriny tovčoon [A Brief History of Ancient and Medieval Period Settlements in the Mongolian People's Republic] (Ulaanbaatar, 1961); Dähne, Karabalgasun – Stadt der Nomaden, pp. 137–53. Despite some records in literary sources, solid archaeological evidence for cities from the Türk times is still missing on the Mongolian steppe; see D. K. Tulush, ‘Gorodskaja kultura kočevnikov stepnoi zony evrazii v epochu rannich tjurok k postanovke problem issledovanija [Urban culture of nomads of the Steppe zone of Eurasia in the period of the early Turks: study problem statement]’, Archeologija Evraziiskich Stepei, 2 (2021), p. 340.

¹¹⁴ For the scale and the impact of the famous ‘horse and silk trade’, see Ch. I. Beckwith, ‘The impact of the horse and silk trade on the economies of T'ang China and the Uighur empire’, Journal of the Economic and Social History of the Orient, 34.3 (1991), pp. 183–98.

¹¹⁵ Zizhi tongjian, 226, p. 7400.

¹¹⁶ For example, the former Türk Khaganate took control of an even more extensive international trade network with the help of Sogdian traders; see É. de la Vaissière, Sogdian Traders: A History (Leiden, 2005), pp. 199–215. On the compelling need for trade in the steppe empires in general, see Ch. I. Beckwith, Empires of the Silk Road: A History of Central Eurasia from the Bronze Age to the Present (Princeton, 2008), pp. 26–28.

¹¹⁷ Minorsky (ed., trans., and comm.), ‘Tamīm ibn Baḥr's journey to the Uyghurs’, p. 283.

¹¹⁸ L. 10 on the Chinese version of the ‘Karabalgasun Inscription’. See Moriyasu's most recent edition and English translation: T. Moriyasu, ‘Karabarugasun hibun kanbun ban no shin kōtei to yakuchū カラバルガスン碑文漢文版の新校訂と訳註 [New edition, translation and commentary of the Chinese version of the Karabalgasun Inscription]’, Nairiku ajia gengo no kenkyū 内陸アジア言語の研究 [Studies on the Inner Asian Languages], 34 (2019), pp. 20, 28.

¹¹⁹ 81 TB 10: 06 – 3, unearthed in Bezeklik, Turfan. See Zieme's edition: P. Zieme, ‘Youguan monijiao kaijiao huihu de yijian xin shiliao 有關摩尼教開教回鶻的一件新史料 [A new document on the history of the Uighurs’ conversion to Manichaeism]’, Dunhuangxue jikan [Journal of Dunhuang Studies], 3 (2009), pp. 2–4. It confirms in detail the relatively vague and general record in the Karabalgasun Inscription: ‘the Teacher (možak) and his disciples traversed the land in all directions from east to west, and shuttling (between the Uighurs and their homeland), they edified the people’ (Moriyasu, ‘Karabarugasun hibun kanbun ban no shin kōtei to yakuchū’, p. 28).

¹²⁰ The double-walled complex HB 1 in the northern part of the ruined Uighur capital city Karabalgasun has been regarded as a ‘Manichaean sacral complex’ based on the recent archaeological data from this site; see B. Dähne, ‘Karabalgasun—city layout and building structures’, in The Ruins of Kocho: Traces of Wooden Architecture on the Ancient Silk Road, (eds.) L. Russell-Smith and I. Konczak-Nagel (Berlin, 2016), p. 36; Dähne, Karabalgasun – Stadt der Nomaden, pp. 27–85. In addition to HB 1, Arden-Wong also attempted to relate other structures of ritual nature to Manichaeism; see L. A. G. Arden-Wong, ‘Some thoughts on Manichaean architecture and its applications in the eastern Uighur Khaganate’, in Between Rome and China, History, Religions and Material Culture of the Silk Road, (eds.) S. N. C. Lieu and G. B. Mikkelsen (Turnhout, 2016), pp. 214–21; but solid evidence of his identification is yet to be found.

¹²¹ Xin Tangshu, 217, p. 6126; see also C. Mackerras (ed. and trans.), The Uighur Empire According to the T'ang Dynastic Histories: A Study in Sino-Uighur Relations, 744–840 (Canberra, 1972), p. 109.

¹²² The long scroll ‘official edict on the economy of a Manichaean monastery’ lists in detail the obligations of various people dependent on a Manichaean monastery in Turfan under the Uighurs, providing a possible parallel for the situation in the core area of the Uighur Khaganate; see T. Moriyasu 森安孝夫, Die Geschichte des Uigurischen Manichäismus an der Seidenstraße (Wiesbaden, 2004), pp. 44–51.

¹²³ Moriyasu, ‘Karabarugasun hibun kanbun ban no shin kōtei to yakuchū’, p. 28.

¹²⁴ Minorsky (ed., trans., and comm.), ‘Tamīm ibn Baḥr's journey to the Uyghurs’, p. 283.

¹²⁵ Arden-Wong, L. A. G., ‘The architectural relationship between Tang and eastern Uighur imperial cities’, in Frontiers and Boundaries: Encounters on China's Margins, (eds.) Zs. Rajkai and I. Bellér-Hann (Wiesbaden, 2012), pp. 31–38Google Scholar.

¹²⁶ The ‘Treatise of Geography’ in Liaoshi records that two cities during the Liao Dynasty—Zhenzhou 鎮州and Hedong cheng 河董城—were built on the foundation of a Uighur city for the residence of the khatun; see Liaoshi, 37, p. 509. The Song envoy Wang Yande recorded another city along his route, where, literally, the ‘Tang Uighur princess (tang huihu gongzhu 唐回鶻公主) dwelt’ (Songshi, 490, p. 14111). This should rather be understood as the Tang princess sent to the Uighur (khagan).

¹²⁷ Xin Tangshu, 142, p. 6131.

¹²⁸ Wang Qinruo 王欽若et al. (eds.), Cefu yuangui 冊府元龜 [Outstanding Models from the Storehouse of Literature] (Beijing, 1960), 170, p. 2056; Zizhi Tongjian, 225, p. 7384.

¹²⁹ Zizhi Tongjian, 225, p. 7384.

¹³⁰ T. Moriyasu, ‘Orutoku to Uiguru shōnin オルトク(斡脱)とウイグル商人 [Ortoq and the Uighur merchants]’, in Kinsei kindai Chūgoku oyobi ta shūhen chiiki ni okeru shominzoku no idō to chiiki kaihatsu 近世⋅近代中国および周辺地域における諸民族の移動と地域開発, (ed.) T. Moriyasu (Toyonaka, 1997); Moriyasu, Tōzai Uiguru to Chūō Yūrashia, pp. 422–25.

¹³¹ Boyle, J. A. (trans.), The History of the World-Conqueror, vol. 1 (Cambridge, MA, 1958), p. 61Google Scholar. Juvayni claimed that his record was collected from the books of the Uighurs (ibid., p. 53).