[74] As the history of this and the following period has been given
in considerable detail by Wellhausen (Arab. Reich 280 ff.) from the
Arab point of view, it is intended in these chapters to follow only
the situation in Transoxania and the course of the Türgesh conquests,
avoiding as far as possible a simple recapitulation of familiar matter.
Thus little reference is made to the factional strife among the Arabs,
though it naturally played a very important part in limiting their power
to deal with the insurgents.
[75] See Chavannes, Documents 285, n. 3.
[76] _Cf._ _T_ab. II. 1718. 3 ff.
[77] _T_ab. 1462. 11; _cf._ 1688. 10, 1481 f.
[78] _T_ab. 1690. 16.
[79] Chav. Doc. 206 f., 293 f.
[80] Van Vloten, La Domination Arabe 28.
[81] _T_ab. 1533. 15.
[82] _T_ab. 1501. 2.
[83] Wellhausen 284 f.: van Vloten 22 f.: _T_ab. 1507 f.: Bal. 428 f.
[84] See Wellhausen 218.
[85] The variant readings in _T_ab. 1509. 11. (_cf._ Ibn al-Athīr) make
it doubtful whether the taxes were reimposed on them or not.
[86] _T_ab. 1514. 11.
[87] See Yāqūt s.v.: Barthold, Turkestan 127: and _cf._ _T_ab. 1523. 3.
The chief difficulty in _T_abarī’s text is the abrupt change at the last
word of l. 14 on p. 1516: thumma ta_h_awwala (ashrashu) ilā marjin yuqālu
lahu bawādaratun _faʿatāhum_ sabābatun ... wahum nuzūlun bikamarjata.
The context shows that it was not to Ashras that Sabāba came but to the
garrison of Kamarja with the news that the Khāqān was retiring past them
(mārrun bikum).
[88] The chronological difficulties are explained by Wellhausen 285 ff.
They are of small importance however, and it seems preferable to follow
his dates for these campaigns.
[89] _Cf._ _T_ab. 1528. 9. with 1529. 5 f. 14 f.
[90] Van Vloten, _op. cit._ 29 ff.: Wellhausen 289 ff. (_cf._ 302 f.).
Another account of _H_ārith is given by Gardīzī ap. Barthold Turkestan,
Texts pp. 1-2.
[91] Chav. Doc. 210, 136, 140; Barthold, Arab. Quellen 21. n. 8.
[92] _T_ab. 1490, 1591. 18: Wellhausen 292 and 284 n.: Barthold in
Zeitschrift für Assyriologie XXVI (1911) 261.
[93] _T_ab. 1590. 5. There does not seem to be any record of when these
Syrians were settled at Balkh.
[94] Wieger 1643: Chav. Doc. 284 f.
[95] Chav. Doc. 168.
[96] As Jūzjān is distinguished from Shubūrqān in _T_ab. 1608. 17, it
is probable that this was the town Kundurm or Qurzumān mentioned in
Yaʿqūbī’s Geog. 287.
[97] _T_ab. 1613: Chav. Doc. 83 f., 122 n. As regards the adjective
Kharlukhī applied to the Jabghu in 1612. 16, the most satisfactory
explanation is that given by Marquart, Hist. Glossen 183 f.
[98] The frequent references in the Chinese annals to the association of
Se-kin-tʾi, king of Kish, with the Türgesh raise an interesting problem.
There can be no doubt that he is the same prince as Al-Ishkand, ruler
of Nasaf, in the Arabic records. The name is Iranian and personal,
not dynastic. (See Justi’s Iranisches Namenbuch.) Al-Ishkand is first
mentioned in the account of the Battle of the Pass, (_T_ab. 1542. 8)
where he appears in command of a cavalry force on the side of the Khāqān,
though Kish and Nasaf were both in the hands of the Arabs (1545. 1). The
forces which he commanded were therefore not the ordinary local troops.
During _H_ārith’s siege of Tirmidh he received reinforcements from
Al-Ishkand, but no statement is made on the composition of his forces.
He is mentioned again as accompanying the Khāqān and the _S_ughdians in
the attack on Asad before the “Battle of the Baggage” (1597. 17-18,)
where the reading ‘I_s_pahbadh of Nasā’ is probably an error in the
tradition. Again there can be no question here of local troops from Nasaf
or Kish. In the Chinese records Se-kin-tʾi appears as the commander of an
independent force, not merely a detachment of Turks or levies from Shāsh
or Farghāna. The most reasonable conclusion is that Al-Ishkand was the
commander of the corps of _S_ughdian refugees. This would explain the
title “King of the Warriors” by which he is sometimes mentioned in the
Chinese records (Chav. Doc. 147 n. 1 and 313). The actual term (Chākar)
from which the title was derived does not appear in the Arabic histories
in this connection, but it is perhaps possible that a variant of the name
(derived from _razm_) is to be read in _T_ab. 1614. 2 for the meaningless
“razābin al-Kissī.” In 1609. 15 a force of “Bābīya” is mentioned along
with the _S_ughdians, and the name, though unrecognisable, probably
refers to some forces connected with _S_ughd. Wellhausen’s conclusion
that the _S_ughdians and “Bābīya” formed part of the personal following
of _H_ārith b. Surayj seems to force the connection in the text too far
(_h_amala ʾl-_h_ārithu waman maʿahu min ahliʾs-sughdi wal-bābīyati). On
the other hand, since al-Ishkand appears as the ally of _H_ārith, we
may conclude that some understanding existed between the latter and the
_S_ughdians (and therefore the Turks) at the time of his revolt. It is
probable that the _S_ughdian corps assisted in the recovery of Samarqand
from the Arabs.