594 SlNO-lRANICA 



"exempt from taxes." GOLSTUNSKI, in his Mongol-Russian Dictionary 

 (Vol. Ill, p. 63), defines it as " smith, master; exempt from taxes and 

 obligations." There is no association between these two meanings, as 

 wrongly deduced by E. BLOCHET (Djami el-TeVarikh, Vol. II, p. 58). 

 In Karakirgiz we have darkan in the sense of "smith, artist," while the 

 same word in Kirgiz means "favorite of the Khan" and "liberty." 

 Perhaps darkan was an independent Mongol-Turkish word, which was 

 subsequently amalgamated with Old Turkish tarkan. 



The Tibetan forms dar-k'a-c'e and dar-rgan lead to Uigur darkati 

 (-&* being a suffix) and dargan or darkan. Tibetan tradition itself assigns 

 these words to the Uigur language; thus it is legitimate to conclude that 

 Mongol, on its part, derived the words from the Uigur, and that the 

 initial dental sonant is peculiar or due to the latter. The Tibetan 

 transcriptions, further, are decisive in reconstructing the Uigur forms; 

 for an Uigur (or Mongol) tarkan would have been transcribed by the 

 Tibetans only t*ar-k*an. Among the Mongols, the title never had an 

 extensive application; it does not occur in the chronicle of Sanafi 

 Setsen. Also the fact that the Manchu and other Tungusian languages 

 did not adopt it from the Mongols is apt to show that it is of com- 

 paratively recent date among the Mongols. Neither was it the Mongols 

 who conveyed the word to Persia, as is evidenced by the Persian form 

 tarxan. The form dargan paves the way to daruga, which, although a 

 different word, that has assumed a development of its own, in its founda- 

 tion is doubtless related to darkan, tarkan. Both words start with the 

 common significance "official, governor, commander, high authority," 

 and gradually depreciate in value, daruga simply becoming a chief, 

 mayor, superintendent, manager, and tarkan a favorite of the Khan. 



There is no evidence of the existence of the title on Asiatic soil 

 prior to the seventh or eighth century A.D. The Chinese do not ascribe 

 it to the Hiun-nu or any of the numerous early Turkish tribes with 

 which they came in contact, while they have preserved many titles and 

 offices in their languages. We have no right to assume an unlimited 

 antiquity for any historical or linguistic phenomenon; nor can it be 

 argued with Mr. Beveridge that "the antiquity of the name is evidenced 

 by the fact that its etymology is unknown, and that Oriental writers are 

 obliged to make absurd guesses on the subject." There are a great many 

 ancient words the etymology of which is perfectly known, and there are 

 many words of recent origin the etymology of which is shrouded in 

 mystery or dubious. I have no judgment on the point raised by Mr. 

 Beveridge, that the names Tarchon, Tarquin, and Tarkhan may be 

 identical ; but for chronological and ethnographical reasons this theory 

 does not seem very probable. At any rate, both detailed phonetic and 



