12 
HISTORY OF THE EHOJAS OF EASTERN TURKISTAN. 
II.—THE QALMAQS. 
The story of the Qalmaqs as a race is so variously told by ethno¬ 
graphers and historians that it is impossible to follow any one authority 
exclusively. The sources from which different writers have derived their 
information have been so scattered, and the points of view from which 
they have approached the subject so wide apart, that exact agreement could 
hardly be otherwise than surprising. One has compiled his account from 
the traditions of the tribes in Northern Mongolia, another from those 
located, in the last century, on the banks of the Volga, a third from the 
annals of the Chinese, while a fourth has culled such fragments as exist 
from the works of Musulman historians. A critical comparison of all ori¬ 
ginal writers by such scholars as Howorth and Bretschneider, however, 
enables us now-a-days to get a clear view of who the people were who now 
go by the name of 4 Qalmaq ’ and how they came to occupy the position 
described by our historian of the Khojas. 
In the first place it may be remarked that the name of Qalmaq (Cal- 
muck, Kalimak, etc.) is of comparatively recent origin and is not a native 
one among the nation so called. Its meaning is uncertain, 1 but it 
appears to have originated with TurkI-speaking tribes who at some time 
were neighbours of the people they applied it to. Professor Grigorieff tells 
us that the word is not to be found in the works of Musulman authors 
previous to the 15th century, 2 and it is highly probable that it only came 
into use about that period. But it has since become universally applied 
to them by the TurkI- and Persian-speaking nations of Central Asia and 
by Europeans, and has doubtless, in later times, been partially adopted 
even by the people themselves. On the other hand, the Chinese have never 
employed the word Qalmaq or any variant of it. 
The Qalmaqs’ own name for themselves is Oira, though more often seen 
and used in its plural form of Oirdta or more fully as Durben Oirat , that 
is 44 Four Oiras ” ; and it is this word, in various phonetic forms, that the 
Chinese have always made use of in their writings. Thus we find Wa-la, 
Wa-lcL-te , O-ld-te , Wei-ld-te , etc., which European translators from the 
Chinese have rendered Olot, Clot, Eleuth, etc., according to differences of 
ear. 3 
1 If it is a real TurkI word, it would mean “ to remain, to st«y behind.” See Shaw’s 
TurTcl vocabulary , p. 146. But Sir H. Howorth gives reasons for considering it to 
be synonymous with “ unbeliever.” (Volume I, pi>. 497-498.) 
3 See Schuyler’s TurJcistdn, I, p. 369. 
8 Translators from the Mongol seem to read Oghlod, or OgeUcd (See Howorth, I, 
pp. 676-677.) 
