[347] The name of this famous conqueror has been spelled in many different ways,--_e.g._, _Genghiz_ (De Guignes), _Gengis_ (Voltaire, in his tragedy of that name), _Zingis_ (Gibbon), _Tchinguiz_ (d’Ohsson), etc. We have adopted the one which most nearly approaches the Turkish and Persian pronunciation of the name. For authorities we would refer the reader to Sir H. Howorth’s _History of the Mongols_, part i. (1876); R. K. Douglas, _Life of Jinghiz Khān_ (1877); an article by same author in the _Encyclopædia Britannica_; Erdmann’s _Temudschin der Unerschütterliche_ (1862); and d’Ohsson and De Guignes (vol. iv.). The principal _original_ sources for the history of Chingiz Khān are: (1) the Chinese account of a contemporary named _Men-Hun_, which has been translated into Russian by Professor Vassilief, and published in his _History and Antiquities of the Eastern Part of Central Asia_ (see Transactions of Oriental Section of the Russian Archæological Society, vol. iv.); and (2) the _Tabakāt-i-Nāsiri_ of Juzjānī, translated by Major Raverty. This important work comprises a collection of the accounts of Chingiz Khān written by his Mohammedan contemporaries. Other Chinese and Persian sources might be mentioned, but the above are the most important. One very important authority for the Mongol period is the compilation, from Chinese sources, by Father Hyacinth, entitled _History of the first four Khāns of the House of Chingiz_, St. Petersburg, 1829. This Russian work is comparatively little known outside Russia. Both Erdmann and d’Ohsson often lay it under contribution. It may be added that Sir Henry Howorth, in his first volume on the Mongols (published in 1876), gives a complete bibliography of all the available sources for the history of Chingiz and his successors. [348] M. Barthold, of the St. Petersburg University, has devoted much time to the study of the Mongol period in Central Asia, the fruits of which he has not yet published on an extended scale, though some shorter articles of great value have appeared in Baron Rosen’s _Zapiski_. The expeditions of Chingiz Khān and Tamerlane were admirably treated by M. M. I. Ivanin in a work published after his death, entitled _On the Military Art and Conquests of the Mongol-Tatars under Chingiz Khān and Tamerlane_, St. Petersburg. [349] Since the discovery and decipherment of the Orkon inscriptions it may be regarded as certain that the form _Khitan_, or _Kidan_, is but the Chinese transcription of the word _Kitai_, which is the name of a people, most probably of Manchurian origin, who, as is well known, ruled over Northern China during the tenth, eleventh, and twelfth centuries. It was borrowed by some of the tribes inhabiting those parts. Cf. note on p. 106 of vol. x. of Baron Rosen’s _Zapiski_, article by M. Barthold. [350] Precisely the same thing occurred in the case of the Yué-Chi and the Kushans.