[41] Chav. Doc. 42, 282 f.: Marquart Chronologie 15: _T_abarī II. 1078,
1080.
[42] As was suggested by Prof. Houtsma, Gotting. Gelehrt. Anz., 1899,
386-7.
[43] Suggested readings in Barthold, Turkestan, p. 71 n. 5, and p. 76.
[44] _T_ab. 1184 f., 1195: Chav. Doc. 172: Hamadhānī, Kitāb al-Buldān
(Bibl. Geog. Arab. V) 209. 7: _cf._ _T_ab. 1874.
[45] Narshakhī 8, 15, 30, 37, 44: _T_ab. 1199. 1: Yaʿqūbī Hist. II. 342.
9. _Cf._ Marquart, Chronologie 63 and Barthold, Arab. Quellen 7.
[46] _H_amāsa, ed. Freytag, I. 349.
[47] Narshakhī 8. 15.
[48] _T_ab. 1207. 16: _cf._ Yaʿqūbī loc. cit. On the Arab method of
crucifixion, Nöldeke Z.D.M.G. LVI (1902) 433; _cf._ _T_ab. 1691 and
Dīnawarī 336. 18.
[49] Detailed accounts of this are readily accessible in “The Heart of
Asia”, and “The Caliph’s Last Heritage” by Sir Mark Sykes, the latter
in a richly imaginative vein. Very full geographical data are given by
Marquart, Ērānshahr 219 f.
[50] Narsh. 46. 12, 50. 15.
[51] _E.g._ Narsh. 58. 5. On the new city, Barthold Turkestan 110 f.
[52] _E.g._ _T_ab. 1544. 9, 1600 ff.
[53] On this dynasty see Ērānshahr 37 f., 248 ff. and de Goeje in
W.Z.K.M. XVI (1902) 192-195.
[54] Yaʿqūbī Geog. 283: Chav. Doc. 161.
[55] The pronunciation of this name, usually pointed Ghūzak, is fixed by
the Chinese transcription U-le-kia (Chav. Doc. 136).
[56] On the city of Khwārizm (Fīl, Kath) see Sachau “Zur Geschichte usw.
von Khwārizm” pp. 23-25.
[57] _T_ab. 1252 f., 1525: Bal. 421: Al-Bīrūnī, “Chronology of Ancient
Nations” (trans. Sachau, London 1879) pp. 41 f. Prof. Barthold is
inclined to regard Al-Bīrūnī’s narrative as fictitious (perhaps intended
to account for the absence of written records of Khwārizm dating from
pre-Muslim times?) _cf._ “Turkestan” p. 1.
[58] Barthold, Arab. Quellen 21 f.
[59] _T_ab. 1247 f., 1249. For Ghūrak’s latter, Chav. Doc. 204 f.
[60] Marquart, Chronologie 5 ff.: Barthold, Arab. Quell. 11 f.: Houtsma
as note 2 above.
[61] _Cf._ _T_ab. 1418: Bal. 425.
[62] _T_ab. 1365. 8, 1518, 1542. 1.
[63] Ibn Hawqal 383; I_st_akhrī 328. 4. The latter’s statement that
Qutayba here beleaguered the Afshīn of Ushrūsana is almost certainly due
to the omission of some words or perversion of the text. On the other
hand, there could not be, as in Ibn Hawqal’s account, any question of
Musawwida (“Black Robes”) in the ordinary sense of the term as early as
94 A.H. and above all in Ushrūsana.
The absence of any reference to levies from _S_ughd in this expedition
would seem to favour Prof. Barthold’s theory of a _S_ughdian rising in
co-operation with the Turks. The evidence in favour of an accidental
omission is, however, very strong. At this point _T_abarī’s narratives,
in contrast to the preceding period, become extremely brief. The levies
from the four states mentioned met Qutayba at Bukhārā and marched with
him into _S_ughd. Naturally the _S_ughdian levies would have awaited his
arrival there. Had the omission been intentional it would be difficult
to explain why _T_abarī did not include some account of the reasons why
_S_ughdian troops were not summoned. In any case it is certain that
Qutayba would not have left a hostile _S_ughdian army in his rear, and
they must therefore have taken part in the march to the Jaxartes.
[64] Cordier, Hist. gen. de la Chine, I. 460: Wieger 1642: _T_ab. 1280. 3.
[65] Bulletin of the School of Oriental Studies, II. 619 ff. For another
view of these embassies see Bretschneider, Mediaeval Researches (1910),
II. 247 f.
[66] Hirth, Nachworte 81.
[67] Bal. 425 f.: Yaʿqūbī, Hist. II. 354: Wellhausen, Arab. Reich 275.
[68] Yaʿqūbī, Hist. II. 346. 7.
[69] See his character-sketch in Wellhausen 277.
[70] Bal. 401. 5: _T_ab. 1353.
[71] _T_ab. 1364 f., 1356. 13, 1364. 13, 1421. 7, 1418. 13: Bal. 422, 426.
[72] Narsh. 57. 4: Fa_z_āʾil Balkh, ap. Schefer, Chrest. Persane, I. 71.
2.
[73] Sachau, Khwārizm I, 29: Barthold, Turkestan 189.