n-yue_ ship for himself, and that it gradually
became (1) a title, (2) and the name of a tribal division (see also the
_Wei Chi_ and the _Early Han History_). Both _Sien-pi_ and _Wu-hwan_ are
the names of mountain haunts, and at this very day part of the Russian
Liao-tung railway is styled the 'Sien-pi railway' by the native Chinese
newspapers." (E.H. PARKER, _Asiatic Quart. Rev._, Jan., 1904, p.
141.)

Page 231, note 3. Instead of _Yuche_, read _Juche_.

XLVI., p. 232.

KARACATHAYANS.

"There seems to be no doubt that Kerman in South Persia is the city to
which the Kara-Cathayan refugee fled from China in 1124; for Major Sykes,
in his recent excellent work on Persia, actually mentions [p. 194] the
Kuba Sabz, or 'Green Dome,' as having been (until destroyed in 1886 by an
earthquake) the most conspicuous building, and as having also been the
tomb of the Kara-Khitai Dynasty. The late Dr. Bretschneider (_N. China B.
R. As. Soc. Journal_, Vol. X., p. 101) had imagined the Kara-Cathayan
capital to be Kermine, lying between Samarcand and Bokhara (see _Asiatic
Quart. Rev._ for Dec., 1900, 'The Cathayans'). Colonel Yule does not
appear to be quite correct when he states (p. 232) that 'the Gurkhan
himself is not described to have extended his conquests into Persia,' for
the Chinese history of the Cathayan or Liao Dynasties distinctly states
that at Samarcand, where the Cathayan remained for ninety days, the 'King
of the Mohammedans' brought tribute to the emigrant, _who then went West
as far as K'i-r-man_, where he was proclaimed Emperor by his officers.
This was on the fifth day of the second moon in 1124, in the thirty-eighth
year of his age, and he then assumed the title of _Koh-r-han_" (E.H.
Parker, _Asiatic Quart. Rev._, Jan., 1904, pp. 134-5.)

XLVI., p. 236.

KERAITS.

"In his note to Vol. I., p. 236, M. Cordier [read Mr. Rockhill], who seems
to have been misled by d'Avezac, confuses the Ch'ih-leh or T'ieh-leh (who
have been clearly proved to be identical with the Toeloes of the Turkish
inscriptions) with the much later K'eh-lieh or Keraits of Mongol history;
at no period of Chinese history were the Ch'ih-leh called, as he supposes,
_K'i-le_ and therefore the Ch'ih-leh of the third century cannot possibly
be identified with the K'e-lieh of the thirteenth. Besides, the 'value' of
_leh_ is 'luck,' whilst the 'value' of _lieh_ is 'leet,' if we use English
sounds as equivalents to illustrate Chinese etymology. It is r