[21] Bal. 408. 5: Chav., Doc. 172, n. 1. There were two localities called
Māyamurgh in _S_ughd: one near Samarqand (I_st_akhrī 321. 6), and the
other one day’s march from Nasaf on the Bukhārā road (ibid. 337. 7).
According to the Chinese records the former is the one in question here.
[22] Yāqūt, ed. Wüstenfeld, II. 411. 21: _cf._ Caetani, “Annali” VIII. 4
ff. On Qārin, Nöldeke, Sasaniden 127, 437: Marquart, Ērānshahr 134.
[23] Chav., Doc. 172.
[24] _Cf._ Lammens, “Ziād b. Abīhi” (R.S.O. 1912) p. 664.
[25] _Cf._ with _T_ughshāda the name of the reigning prince in 658,
Chav., Doc. 137.
[26] Chav., Doc. 136.
[27] Narshakhī 8 and 30.
[28] Chronologie 57: Ērānshahr 303 f. This view is supported also by the
letter from the king of Samarqand to the Emperor of China in 718 (see p.
60), which puts the first Arab conquest some 35 years before, _i.e._ in
682 or 683.
[29] Accounts also in Kitāb al-Aghānī I. 18: Ibn Qutayba 101.
[30] _H_amāsa, ed. Freytag, I. 363-4.
[31] _Cf._ Barthold, “Turkestan” 103 n. 1.
[32] The account given in _T_ab. II. 394 of the annual meeting of the
“Kings of Khurāsān” near Khwārizm for mutual counsel not only possesses
little intrinsic probability, but is obviously intended to magnify the
exploits of Muhallab. In this case, fortunately, the authorities quoted
by _T_ab. leave no doubt as to the Azdite origin of the narrative.
Madāʾinī’s version is given _ib._ ll. 19 sq.
[33] Wieger, Textes Historiques, 1608 f: Chav., Doc. 273 ff: Marquart,
Ēran. 68.
[34] _T_ab. II. 490, 860 ff.: Bal. 414 f.: I. Athīr, IV. 66: Anon. (ed.
Ahlwardt), 195.
[35] Abū ʿUbayda ap. Bal. 426. 10: _cf._ Lestrange, “Lands of the Eastern
Caliphate” p. 448, note.
[36] _T_ab. 1031: _cf._ Anon. 310 f.
[37] _T_ab. 1040 f., 1078. 5: Yaʿqūbī, Hist. II. 330.
[38] _Cf._ _T_ab. 1152 with 1185. 5. For the son of Pērōz, Chav., Doc.
172.
[39] _Cf._ _T_ab. 1129 with 1144 and 1184.
[40] Anon. 337.