“A note of Yule’s on p. 190 of Vol.  I. describes Johnson’s report on the people of Khoten (1865) as having ‘a slightly Tartar cast of countenance.’  The Toba History makes the same remark 1300 years earlier:  ’From Kao-ch’ang (Turfan) westwards the people of the various countries have deep eyes and high noses; the features in only this one country (Khoten) are not very Hu (Persian, etc.), but rather like Chinese.’  I published a tolerably complete digest of Lob Nor and Khoten early history from Chinese sources, in the Anglo-Russian Society’s Journal for Jan. and April, 1903.  It appears to me that the ancient capital Yotkhan, discovered thirty-five years ago, and visited in 1891 by MM. de Rhins and Grenard, probably furnishes a clue to the ancient Chinese name of Yu-t’ien.” (E.H.  PARKER, Asiatic Quart.  Rev., Jan., 1904, p. 143.)

XXXVII., p. 190 n.

Stein has devoted a whole chapter of his Sand-buried Ruins of Khotan,
Chap.  XVI., pp. 256 seq. to Yotkan, the Site of the Ancient Capital.

XXXVII., p. 191, n. 1.

PEIN.

“It is a mistake to suppose that the earlier pilgrim Fa-hien (A.D. 400) followed the ‘directer route’ from China; he was obliged to go to Kao ch’ang, and then turn sharp south to Khoten.” (E.H.  PARKER, Asiatic Quart.  Rev., Jan., 1904, p. 143.)

XXXVII., p. 192.

I have embodied, in Vol.  II., p. 595, of Marco Polo, some of the remarks of Sir Aurel Stein regarding Pein and Uzun Tati.  In Ancient Khotan, I., pp. 462-3, he has given further evidence of the identity of Uzun Tati and P’i mo, and he has discussed the position of Ulug-Ziarat, probably the Han mo of Sung Yun.

XXXVII., p. 191; II., p. 595.

“Keriya, the Pein of Marco Polo and Pimo of Hwen Tsiang, writes Huntington, is a pleasant district, with a population of about fifteen thousand souls.”  Huntington discusses (p. 387) the theory of Stein: 

“Stein identifies Pimo or Pein, with ancient Kenan, the site ... now known as Uzun Tetti or Ulugh Mazar, north of Chira.  This identification is doubtful, as appears from the following table of distances given by Hwen Tsiang, which is as accurate as could be expected from a casual traveller.  I have reckoned the ‘li,’ the Chinese unit of distance, as equivalent to 0.26 of a mile.

Distance according to
Names of Places.                       True Distance.      Hwen Tsiang. 
Khotan (Yutien) to Keriya (Pimo)           97 miles.    330 li   86 miles. 
Keriya (Pimo) to Niya (Niyang)             64 "         200 "    52 "
Niya (Niyang) to Endereh (Tuholo)          94 "         400 "   104 "
Endereh (Tuholo) to Kotak Sheri? (Chemotona) 138? "     600 "   156 "
Kotak Sheri (Chemotona) to Lulan (Nafopo) 264? "       1000 "   260 "

“If we use the value of the ‘li’ 0.274 of a mile given by Hedin, the distances from Khotan to Keriya and from Keriya to Niya, according to Hwen Tsiang, become 91 and 55 miles instead of 86 and 52 as given in the table, which is not far from the true distances, 97 and 64.