[59] Tab. 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. Tab. 1418: Bal. 425.
[62] Tab. 1365. 8, 1518, 1542. 1.
[63] Ibn Hawqal 383; Istakhrī 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 Sughd in this expedition would seem to favour Prof. Barthold’s theory of a Sughdian rising in co-operation with the Turks. The evidence in favour of an accidental omission is, however, very strong. At this point Tabarī’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 Sughd. Naturally the Sughdian levies would have awaited his arrival there. Had the omission been intentional it would be difficult to explain why Tabarī did not include some account of the reasons why Sughdian troops were not summoned. In any case it is certain that Qutayba would not have left a hostile Sughdian 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: Tab. 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.