National Institute of Informatics - Digital Silk Road Project
Digital Archive of Toyo Bunko Rare Books

and Toloman and also many other provinces named above» (Vol. I, 366); or, in other words, that Toloman is only part of an incomplete enumeration of the provinces of Yün-nan, and his statement would appear more correct if he had named Caragian instead of or, at least, as well as Toloman.

364. TOMAN

chumano (-i) V thoman Z toman F, FA, L; R
comanus G toma (-i), tottamanni TA² tomano (-i) TA¹
comman (-s) FB tomain F, L tomay LT
tamain F tomam (-i) VA toumau (-x) FA
teman VB tomamus P tumani VB, VL

This is the Persian pronunciation of تومان, which is Turk. and Mong. tümān, « ten thousand »; Rubrouck has tumen (Wy, 271); Odoric writes tuman (Y¹, II, 198-199; Wy, 465); tumen is in the Codex Cumanicus, 146, 290 (where KUUN quotes also töméntelen, tömeny ezer, « myrias », « chilias », « multa millia »). TheJučen had the word as tuman or tümān, and it occurs even in the Tungusian languages. On account of Old Slaw tüma, « ten thousand », and Russian tëmnik, « commander of 10,000 », and of « Tokh. » tmāṃ, Kuchean tumane, tmane, « ten thousand », the question has been raised whether the word is originally Indo-European or Altaic, and even Chin. 萬 wan (*mi̯ɐn) may be brought eventually into line as a very old borrowing (but not as the etymology of tümān, as RAMSTEDT supposed in JFSO, XXIX, 22). I incline to think that the word is Indo-European, and has been borrowed by the Altaic languages; but Persian toman seems to have been in turn borrowed from Turkish or Mongolian in the Middle Ages, although the word is said to have existed in Khwārézmian. Cf. LAUFER, in TP, 1915, 276-281, and my remarks in TP, 1931, 448-449. LAUFER has also maintained (TP, 1915, 277) that Pers. toman, as the name of a coin, had nothing to do with tümān, contrary to YULE, Hobson-Jobson², 928-929; but YULE was right (cf. VULLERS, I, 482-483).

Rašīdu-'d-Dīn says that the commanders of ten thousand were called « wanshi », and YULE (Y¹, III, 120) has given Chin. wan, « 10,000 », as the first element of the term; this is a mistake; Rašīd's form must be read wanšaï (also written wangšaï) and represents 萬 帥 yüan-shuai, «commander of an army». Cf. Bl, II, 471, and App. 46, where BLOCHET, like YULE, thinks of wan, and is absolutely wrong in saying that wan was anciently pronounced wang; cf. also my remarks in TP, 1930, 43.

Tümān has really been employed as a technical term for a corps of 10,000 men (cf. the edict of 1347 quoted by YULE (Y, I, 264) and VULLERS, I, 482-483), but not as the title of its commander; in the Mongol edicts, such a commander is simply called a noyan.

In his excellent notice « Tuman » of the EI, BARTHOLD has expressed the opinion that tümān originally meant «many», and did not occur with the meaning of «10,000» before the Mongol period. His main argument is that, in Kāšyarī (I, 337; not in BROCKELMANN), we had only tümān türlük, « de manière très variée », and tümān ming meaning not « 10,000,000 » as might be expected, but only « 1 000 × 1 000 » = 1 million. But, even if we leave aside the « Tokharian » forms, it