APPENDIX 575 he can have been but a chief of the Tetraxite Goths, who got worknitn from Cherson. But it is very strange that an officer of Cherson should describe himself as the " loyal servant" of a Gothic prince. 5 The subject of the Tetraxite Goths has been treated by Vasilievski, in the Zhurnal Min. Narod. Prosvieshchenia, 195 (1878), p. 105 sqq., and by R. Loewe in Die Reste der Germanen am schwarzen Meere, 1896 — a book which also deals fully with the Goths of the Crimea. See also W. Tomaschek, Die Goten in Taurien, 1881. 17. THE TURKS— (P. 373) New light has been thrown on early Turkish history by the discovery and deoipherment of ancient Turkish inscriptions in Eastern Mongolia in the regions of the Orchon and Yenissei, especially the inscriptions of Kosho-Tsaidam in the valley of the former river. They were deciphered by Thomsen (Inscriptions de l'Orkhon dechiffrees, 1894), and have been edited, studied and interpreted by W. Radloff : Die alttiirkischen Inschriften der Mongolei, 1895, Neue Folge (with an essay by W. Barthold on their historical significance), 1897, and Zweite Folge (edition of the Inscription of Tonjukuk discovered in 1897, with essays by F. Hirth and W. Barthold), 1899. The historical bearings and the chronological data have been studied by Marquart, Die Chronologie der altturkisohen Inschriften, 1898. These inscriptions belong to the beginning of the eighth century, and concern mainly the history of the seventh and eighth centuries. They afford much information in regard to the institutions of the Turks (who are designated under this name). The two most important inscriptions of Kosho-Tsaidam, which describe the deeds of Kiil- Tagin and Bilga-Chagan, are prefaced by a short summary of the earlier history of the Turks. But for the fifth and earlier part of the sixth century the most detailed sources are Chinese records, and the problem is to correlate them with the incidental notices of Greek writers. This has been attempted by E. H. Parker, in the English Historical Review, July, 1896, 431 sqq. (cp. Bury, The Turks in the Sixth Century, ib., July, 1897), and also by Marquart, Historische Glossen zu den alttiirkischen Inschriften, in Wiener Zeitschrift fur die Kunde des Morgenlandes (also called Vienna Oriental Journal), xii. 157 sqq., 1898. See also Parker, A Thousand Years of the Tartars, 1896. According to Parker, a branch of the Hiung-nu, in the central part of the modern province of Kan-suh, was crushed by the Tungusic Tartars : but Asena fled westward with 500 tents to the territory of the Geougen, and his men were employed by them as iron workers in an iron district. Nearly a hundred years after the flight of Asena, his descendant Notur (before a.d. 543) first introduced the word Turk as the name of his folk. The residence of the Turkish Khans, when they overthrew the power of the Geougen, was near the eastern border of the modern Chinese pro- vince of Kan-suh, somewhat north of the Kok-o-nor mountains. Here was the iron district where they worked for the Geougen. The Turks achieved their independence and founded their empire in the middle of the sixth century under a khan who appears in the Chinese sources as Tu-men and is mentioned under a.d. 545 and 552. He was succeeded, after a brief intervening reign, by the great khan Mo-kan (553-572) who extended his power westward, conquering the Hephthalites, who at that time ruled in Transoxiana. We should be inclined to identify Bumyn Chagan (" the famous Chagan who raised himself above the sons of men "), who is celebrated as the founder of Turkish greatness in the Turkish inscriptions (Radloff, L, p. 4 and 43), with Mo-kan rather than with Tumen, but Marquart may well be right in holding that Turkish tradition had blended both these khans into one figure. I agree with Marquart in his identification of Mo-kan with Menander's Silzibulos (fr. 10, a.d. 562), a name which represents Sil-oybul-baga-qagan. It is clear that under Mo-kan the Turkish empire was divided into two realms, the Eastern and Western. The great khan, who ruled the Eastern realm, had his 5 The inscription of the Caesar Tiberius Julius Diptunes of Bosporus, published in vol. 2 of Latyshev's collection of Inscriptions (No. 39), cannot belong to Justinian's reign, as Latyshev now admits, but probably dates from the fourth or fifth century.
