36 E. Mockler— Origin of the Baloch. [No. 1,- 
ready suggested by Professor Rawlinson), while the latter are dis¬ 
tinctly Cushite, the former are possibly Turanian or probably Iranian, 
living side by side. The Purki are few in number, believe themselves 
aboriginal, and claim no connection with the Rinds. 
With regard to the name “ Baloch ” I would also hazard a sug¬ 
gestion which, if it contains an element of truth, some better philolo¬ 
gist than myself may perhaps uphold. It is this—whenever I have 
enquired of the “ Baloch ” the meaning of their name, they have inva¬ 
riably (as if the expression were proverbial) “ Baloc Badroc ,r 
(Badrosh in some parts of the country). Bad means “evil,” “bad” 
“ ill,” and roc or rosh means “ day ” ( ruz is the modern Persian 
pronunciation). Gad in Pehlevl or Zend (ancient Persian) is equal 
to and synonymous with had in Balochi or more modern Persian, 
therefore Badroc or Badrosh or Badros in Balochi is equivalent to Gadroc 
or Gadrosh or Gadros of the more ancient Pehlevi or Zend, and to 
Gadros-ii or Gedros-ii of the Greeks. Badroc, from the interchang- 
ability of the liquids “ r ” and “1”, is equivalent to Badloc , out of which 
the “d” must naturally drop, leaving Baloc equivalent to u the Gedros- 
ii.” If the derivation of Baloc from Gadroc in the manner suggested be 
considered philologically inadmissible, then we may suppose that the 
proverbial expression Baloc badrosh was current in the time of the 
Greeks, only that it was pronounced in those days Baloc gadrosh, and 
that the Greeks wrote down the epithet for the name, which in such 
case would undoubtedly have been derived from Belus (or Balochis.) 
Note that Sistan was called Nimroc “ half day.” 
The suggestions made in the foregoing paper are, I wish it to be 
understood, tentative suggestions only, put forward, together with the 
arguments in support of them, in the hope of stimulating enquiry into 
the earlier history of Balochistan and of the various clans now and in 
times past inhabiting it (such page in the world’s history being at pre¬ 
sent almost blank) and not as authoritative conclusions. It is proba¬ 
ble that my suggestions that the Rinds, Marris, and other clans who 
now claim to be the “ pur sang ” of the Baloch, are not Baloch at all, 
may find many warm dissentients, but it will be necessary at any rate 
for such dissentients to define whom they call Baloch and give a deri¬ 
vation of the name; to offer a more plausible one than I have ven¬ 
tured on, viz., Baloc = Gadros; to trace back to Aleppo the Rinds and 
other clans claiming to have migrated thence; and to explain away the 
statements of Pirdusi and other authors that certain Baloch clans, 
named by them, and who still exist in the country under the same 
names, had their habitat in Makran long before the Muhammadan era. 
