CHAPTER TWELVE

MERCENARIES AND CITY RULERS: EARLY

TURKS IN PRE-MUSLIM MAWARANNAHR1

SÖREN STARK

Mawarannahr (Fig. 12.1)2 can be considered one of the most important

zones of interaction between pastoral-nomadic and settled forms of life in
the arid zone of the Old World (Fourniau 2000). Part of this interaction is
the constant influx of mobile pastoralists from the Eurasian steppes which
were dominated by Turkish ethno-cultural and linguistic groups from the
second half of the 1st millennium AD onward. This process increased
remarkably in the wake of the Mongol invasion and came to a final stage
with the foundation of Shaibanid rule by several Özbek tribes from the
Dasht-i Qipchaq in the early 16th century respectively with the invasion of
Kazakh tribes in the 18th century. All this has left profound Turkish
features across much of the ethno-linguistic landscape of Mawarannahr.
However, there are earlier stages of the “turkisation” of Transoxania,
and at present it seems safe to say that these earlier stages took place well
before the Mongol invasion. The beginnings of this process might even be
traced back to the middle of the 1st millennium AD, when the oases of
Mawarannahr belonged to the Early Turkish Qaghanat's sphere of
influence.3 The actual status of these earliest influences from the Turkish
steppes in Transoxania is still poorly understood, and consequently a
matter of considerable dispute between archaeologists, historians, and
linguists. Needless to say, this chapter cannot discuss all the problems
associated with this multifaceted phenomenon, but it does offer a closer
look at some socio-political aspects of Early Turkish presence in
Mawarannahr and their “cultural” implications as reflected in
archaeological data and historical records.4
Half a century ago Richard Frye and Aydin Sayili suggested a
substantial Turko-nomadic sedentarisation in Mawarannahr already in pre-
Muslim times (Frye and Sayili 1943; Frye 1979). A similar view, though
less explicitly expressed, can be found in some works of Vasilii Bartol’d
308 Chapter Twelve

(1963; 1964). Their arguments are primarily based on the frequent

mentioning of Turks or persons with Turkish names and titles involved in
battles against the Muslim incursions in Mawarannahr from the second
half of the seventh century onward as related by Muslim historians.5
Such a conclusion has been rejected by Clifford E. Bosworth (1973, 3)
and Yuri Bregel’ (1991, 55). They pointed out “that it would still be safer
to regard the Turks in the service of Sogdian princes at the time of the
Arab conquest as largely mercenary soldiers from the steppes rather than a
part of the indigenous population of Transoxania” (Bosworth 1973, 3).
However, they both abstained from any closer examination of the
phenomenon of Turko-nomadic mercenaries and the role they played in
Transoxania before and at the advent of Islam in the region.
Let us first touch on the archaeological side of the issue. What
archaeological data can we safely attribute to Turko-nomadic groups in
Mawarannahr since the second half of the 7th century AD? To answer this
question it seems appropriate to briefly review the archaeological material
related to Turks and other early medieval pastoral nomads in the Central
Asian and South Siberian steppes from the 6th to 8th centuries.6
The cultural sphere of the early medieval nomads in Central Asia and
South Siberia–from Kyrghyzstan and eastern Kazakhstan to Mongolia–is
archaeologically characterized by three main groups of material: 1) burials
and their inventory; 2) memorial complexes; and 3) petroglyphs. An
indicator for the archaeological complex specifically related to the Turks
of the 6th to 8th centuries are possibly the elements of the so-called “Old
Turkish triad” (“Drevnetyurkskaya triada”):7 a) barrows with (mostly
single) human inhumations (Gavrilova 1965; Grach 1960a, 1960b;
Vaynshteyn 1966a; Tabaldiyev 1996)8 and one or more attached horse
burials (Nesterov 1990); these horses are frequently buried fully equipped;
b) square or rectangular enclosures (Kubarev 1984; Khudyakov 1985;
Voytov 1996; Dosymbaeva 2002; Tabaldiyev 1991, 1996, 65-67); and c)
anthropomorphous stone stelae (Yevtyukhova 1952; Grach 1961; Sher
1966; Mokrynin, V.P. and Gavryushenko, P.P. 1975, Charikov 1980a,
1980b, 1989; Kubarev 1984; Dosymbaeva 2002; Hayashi 1996; Wang and
Qi 1996), which are spatially as well as functionally connected to the
enclosures within memorial complexes.9 In addition, some specific motifs
and sujets like armed horsemen with banners, runic inscriptions, battle and
hunting scenes and a distinctive tamgha in the shape of a Capricorn are
generally attributed to the Early Turks in Central Asia (Grach 1973;
Novgorodova and Gorelik 1980; Kubarev 1992, 2002a, 2002b;
Mar’yashev 1980; Mar’yashev et al. 1998; Samashev 1993, 1996, 2001;
Tabaldiyev and Soltobaev 2001; Cheremisin 2001). Even if we take the
 Mercenaries and City Rulers

Figure 12.1: Mawarannahr and the Western Türk Qaghanat in the 7th and early 8th century AD (Map by author).
309
310 Chapter Twelve

insufficient state of research in this area into account, the distribution of

Early Turkish burial sites, memorial complexes and petroglyphs expand
over most of the Central and Eastern Eurasian steppes and high mountain
areas. Concentrations lie in the Mongolian high plateau, Jungaria, the
Sayano-Altai (including the Upper Ob region), the Inner Tianshan and its
northwestern forelands (the Upper Irtysh, Semirech’ye, the Talas and Chu
valleys). This pattern is best illustrated by the distribution map of Early
Turkish memorial complexes and stone stelae (Fig. 12.2).
However, we know very few Early Turkish sites from Mawarannahr
proper. At present, burials with clear analogies to the Central Asian and
South Siberian material discussed above, including the interment of a
horse, are reported in only three cases.10 Compared to these, the very few
known early medieval cemeteries of pastoral nomadic groups in
Transoxania show clearly different features regarding the burial
architecture and the grave inventory. They can not be linked to groups
from the Early Turkish cultural sphere.11 Enclosures as part of memorial
complexes are at present unknown in Mawarannahr, whereas
anthropomorphous stone stelae are represented by only four examples, all
from the historical fringes of Transoxania (Khuttalān, Ilaq, Ferghāna).12
Concerning petroglyphs, the situation is more problematic. Given the
specific difficulties of dating the majority of simple animal and hunting
scenes as well as the poor state of knowledge on that subject in many
regions of Mawarannahr we should be careful not to rush to conclusions:
Some of the many simple animal carvings from Transoxania might well
belong to the 6th to 8th centuries. But we can safely say that the typical
Early Turkish repertoire of motifs and themes as mentioned above–
especially horsemen with banners and runic inscriptions–is almost
completely lacking from the archaeological record. At present we have
only one single example from Tuzbulak, some 60 miles northwest of
Bukhara in the Inner Kyzylkum desert, at our disposal (Os’kin 1978, 172-
173, Fig. 5).
The absence of burial and memorial sites connected to the Early
Turkish cultural complex in Mawarannahr proper is in notable contrast to
their concentration in the northwestern Tianshan and its forelands
(Bernshtam 1952, 72-94; Sher 1961, 1963 and 1966; Tabaldiyev 1996).
We know from literary and epigraphic sources that this area was used by
the Western Turks as their traditional autumn and winter pastures and thus
formed the heartland of the Western Türk Qaghanat (Chavannes
1903, 299; Golden 1992, 135-136; Klyashtornyi 2002). It is certainly no
coincidence that these pasture areas co-occur with concentrations of Early
 Mercenaries and City Rulers

Figure 12.2: Distribution of important Early Turkish memorial complexes and stone stelae (Map by author).
311
312 Chapter Twelve

Turkish petroglyphs (Mar’yashev 1980; Mar’yashev et al. 1998; Samashev

1993, 1996, 2001; Tabaldiyev and Soltobaev 2001; Klyashtornyi 2002).
Winter camps and the nearby pastures on the one hand, and clan
cemeteries with memorial complexes on the other constitute sacral and
social spaces providing a collective identity for nomadic societies above
the level of direct kinship, where individual families and smaller camping
units assembled in late autumn on a sub-tribal and tribal level. This
happened not only for economic reasons but also to perform social rituals
like tribal hunts, raids or sacral ceremonies which revived political and
social ties and assured the “ethnic” identity of a given nomadic community
(Hüttel 2001, 3-5). The importance of burying a deceased member of the
community at the traditional clan cemetery (i.e. in proximity to the autumn
and winter pastures) is clearly demonstrated by the custom of erecting
cenotaph burials. This probably happened in cases where it was impossible
to transfer the corpse to the traditional burial ground. Such cenotaph
burials are frequently known in Central Asia and South Siberia from Early
Turkish barrow cemeteries (Nesterov 1990, 79-81; Grach 1960a, 40-48;
Kubarev 1985).
What conclusions can be drawn from this lack of Early Turkish sites in
Mawarrannahr? The distribution patterns of Early Turkish burial and
memorial sites are determined by social traditions and “gentile” identities
of tribal and sub-tribal groups. These patterns do not reflect the sojourn of
individuals or small groups of Turks with an intact “gentile” identity
outside their traditional homeland because when ever possible the
deceased were buried on ancestral clan cemeteries.13 But a large scale
immigration of Early Turkish tribal groups into Mawarannahr is highly
improbable.14 However, individuals or small groups of Turks that lost their
social ties with the old homeland would likely have abandoned their
traditional funerary practices. This would explain the apparent
contradiction between the testimony of written sources and the
archaeological record on Early Turks in Mawarannahr.
We are therefore faced with the question regarding the social
background of those “Turks” in 7th-8th century Mawarannahr to whom the
testimony of the Muslim authors refer. Most frequently the sources
mention Turks as military contingents allied to various Soghdian
principalities, beginning with the first siege of Bukhārā in 673 and
throughout the campaigns of Qutayba b. Muslim in Mawarannahr.15
Only for the 20’s and 30’s of the 8th century can we assume a direct
involvement of the Qaghanat in the steppes north and northwest of the
Tianshan. The Qaghanat’s engagement in the political affairs of
Mawarannahr was a consequence of the growing power of the Türgesh
 Mercenaries and City Rulers 313

tribe under their Qaghan Sulu (Beckwith 1987, 84-107; Stark 2005, 309-
318), though in many cases there is no evidence that these Turks were sent
by the Qaghan or his high officials. Instead, a somewhat different pattern
emerges from our textual evidence: giving an account of the capture of
Paykand by Qutayba, al-Ṭabarī relates the interesting story of an
exceedingly rich merchant in Paykand who had been responsible for
mobilizing Turks against the Muslims.16 Bearing this information in mind,
it is intriguing that in the Early Muslim period (9th-10th centuries) Paykand
was still an area of intense ribāṭ fighting against nearby nomads.17 Not far
away–in the desert steppes around Nakhshāb–al-Ṭabarī mentions a group
of 150 Turks who tried to extort ransom from passing merchants at the
beginning of the 8th century.18 This situation is reminiscent of the post-
Mongol custom of qazāqlīq–raids of small nomadic warrior bands from
the Dasht-i Qipchaq which operated deep in Mawarannahr (Holzwart
2002, 157-158). The existence of an elaborate Early Medieval fortification
system in the region at the same time points to the presence of such uneasy
neighbors.19
It is highly probable that the Turco-nomadic contingents that served
the Soghdian dihqāns in their wars against the Muslims originated from
the same rich reservoir of warbands and retinues largely operating beyond
tribal and state structures and near the oasis territories.
I argue there were two means by which Turks entered military service
in Transoxania. In the first, Turks might have individually entered the
service of Soghdian nobles as their chākars.20 Such a practice could
possibly figure on two panels of the so-called Miho-Couch.21 One of them
shows a Soghdian noble and his entourage attending a feast, probably in
Northern China (Fig. 12.3a). Some of his retainers were most likely
chākars because we know that it was their privilege to eat and drink at
their master's table. Among this group we can clearly perceive Turks
characterized by the long plaits running down at their backs, distinct from
the Soghdians on all panels of the Miho couch. This hair-style is known
both from texts and imagery as a veritable ethno-cultural marker of the
Early Turks and other Early Medieval nomads in Eurasia.22 A second
panel shows a Soghdian prince on horseback, accompanied by two
attendants, also on horseback; again, one of them is clearly depicted as a
Turk (Fig. 12.3b).
The second means suggests that Turkish nobles and their retinue were
levied by various Transoxanian minor states as a kind of “condottieri”.
This practice would have some parallels if we look at 9th century ’Abbasid
Sāmarrā, where Turkish and Eastern Iranian military commanders replied
314 Chapter Twelve

Figure 12.3 (a-b): Two marble panels from the Miho funerary couch,
Miho Museum, Shiga, Japan (Drawing by Dorothea Erbe).

to al-Ma’mūn's and al-Mu’taṣim's systematic policy of courting noble

families in eastern Iran and Central Asia who brought their own personal
bands of warriors to Iraq (Ismail 1966; Beckwith 1984; Amabe 1995;
Gordon 2001; Kennedy 2002).
There is good evidence regarding the political influence exercised by
Turkish and Eastern Iranian commanders at the ’Abbasid court (Gordon
2001; Kennedy 2002). Such exertion of influence by military commanders
is even more probable in pre-Muslim Transoxania with its highly
fragmented political landscape. In the political milieu of several de facto
independent minor states and city-states, the power potential of such
condotierri must have been considerable. The case of the Arab rebel Mūsā
 Mercenaries and City Rulers 315

b. ’Abdallāh around AD 700 is very informative under these

circumstances: Backed by a comparatively small personal retinue of
Arabs, Khurasanīs, and Soghdians, he succeeded in seizing Termez and
withstood Muslim and Soghdian efforts to regain that city-state for more
than 15 years (Gibb 1923, 23-24; Beckwith 1987, 66-67).
Indeed, throughout the 6th-8th centuries, we find numerous references
to Turkish minor princes, city rulers and dihqāns in various regions of
Mawarannahr. Examples can be found in Paykand,23 Wardāna (in the
north of the Bukhārā oasis),24 in Panj (present-day Panjikand in
Tadjikistan),25 in Chāch (the Tashkent oasis area) (Stark 2005, 188-190),
Ferghāna (Beckwith 1988, 117-118; Stark 2005, 185-187), and possibly
Ustrūshana (Esin 1976; Stark 2005, 198-201). In addition, the Chinese
pilgrim Xuanzang speaks of Xisu Turks as princes in Akharūn and
Shūmān around present-day Dushanbe (Xuanzang 872b). A Turkish ruler
is attested for Khuttalān in the 720s (Huichao 978c), and from the 8th
century onward we have information on Turkish city rulers in the Chu and
Talas area (Stark 2005, 201-203).
In general, little is known about these Early Turkish minor potentates
in Transoxania. An especially puzzling question is whether they depended
directly on “imperial” support from the Qaghanat in the open steppes.
Such support is likely for the cities of the distant Chu and Talas region
because the political centre of the Western Qaghanat was located in the
same area. In Mawarannahr proper, it seems to have been the case for
Paykand, whose Turkish ruler relied on his father, named “the ruler of the
Turks Qarā Chūrīn Turk” and “Biyāghū” (Tārīkh-i Bukhārā, ed. Riḍawī
9).26 Also in Chāch we might suspect such dependence because the
Turkish ruler there bore the title Tudun which was used within the
administration of the Qaghanat to designate tax officials of the Qaghan or
governor of vassal states (Tongdian 197, 5403; Clauson 1972, 457;
Chavannes 1903, 263f. n. 4). Some official presence of the Qaghanat also
seems likely for the northern part of Ferghāna.27
In all other cases, such links indicative of “imperial” support are
missing. In particular, such support can be dismissed for one of the most
interesting of these Turkish city rulers, a certain Chakīn Chūr Bīlgā. This
small potentate ruled at the turn of the 7th to the 8th century over Panj, a
small principality to the east of Samarqand in the upper Zerafshan valley.
He is known to us only through his copper coins (Smirnova 1981, 256-
305),28 and by one of the documents (V-8) from Qal’a-i Mūgh (Livshits
1962, 45-53) where parts of the archive of the last ruler of Panj have
survived. This document–one of the rare primary sources on Turks in pre-
Muslim Transoxania–indicates the exact title of Chakīn Chūr Bīlgā:
316 Chapter Twelve

“βγtyk MLK’ pncy MR’Y ck’yn cwr βylk’’” which, in the translation by
Livshits, reads “King of Baght, lord of Panj, Chakīn Chor Bilgä” (Livshits
1962, 47; Livshits 1979, 58, 65).
These titles are interesting in more than one respect: The interpretation
of βylk’’ as the Turkish epithet bilgä seems secure (Livshits 1962, 52;
Livshits 1970, 257 n. 5), just as Livshits’ reading of the component cwr as
the Turkish title chor (Livshits 1962, 51; Clauson 1972, 427-428; Golden
1980, 180; Doerfer 1963-1974, II 396). More problematic to interpret is
the component ck’yn, though it is possibly another epithet or a personal
name.29
The most interesting component of his formula of titles, which is
unusual in Panj, is the first: βγtyk MLK’. In the 1962 edition, Livshits was
still unable to explain this component (Livshits 1962, 49). According to
his revised interpretation (1979), this title would point to the origin of this
Turkish minor prince from a rūstāq, which is given in the Persian
translation of al-Iṣṭakhrī’s Kitāb al-masālik wa-’l-mamālik as , and
which Livshits (1979, 59-60) amends to ‫ *ﺑﻐﺘﺎن‬or ‫*ﺑﻐﺪان‬
(*Baghtān/*Baghdān). Described by al-Iṣṭakhrī as a border rūstāq
between Samarqand and Ustrūshana, the area was likely situated
somewhere to the north of Panjikand/Panj (Livshits 1979, 59-60 n. 17).30
This area is dominated by the Southern foothills of the Turkestan Range,
and provides excellent pastures for stock breeding. Nomadic and semi-
nomadic pastoralists from various Turkish-speaking ethnic groups lived
there until the beginning of the last century (Tursunov 1976, 243-244).31
On the basis of the above data, a connection to the administration of
the Qaghanat in the open steppes can hardly be traced. On the contrary, if
we take another look at the documents from Qal’a-i Mūgh, it becomes
apparent that Turks in the vicinity of Panj where part of the military milieu
there. The document which contains by far the highest number of Turkish
names or titles is a receipt from an armoury for the delivery of weapons
(document B-1; Smirnova 1963, 43-47.). As customers of the armoury
appear, among others, a certain Ut-Tigīn (wttkyn), a Tudūn (tδwn), and a
Tardūsh (trδwš) as customers of the armoury. Yet another individual is
explicitly mentioned as a Tūrk (twrk). Thus, we can not only establish the
presence of Turks within the principality of Panj, but also their military
function in the region. Although next to nothing is known about the
political career of Chakīn Chūr Bīlgā (except that he did not inherit his
rule from his father who probably also bore a Turkish name),32 I suggest
that this Turk owed his career within the Soghdian principality of Panj to
military activity.
 Mercenaries and City Rulers 317

Where do the origins of this Turkish soldiery in the towns of Pre-

Muslim Mawarannahr lie? In order to answer this question we have to turn
to the political situation in the steppes at the northern foothold of the
western Tianshan. Here, the Western Türk Qaghanat experienced a
profound political crisis from the 630s onward which finally led to its
downfall in 658. Surely, supra-tribal cohesion would have been
considerably weakened in the course of this crisis. Simultaneously a good
part of the Qaghanat’s former military elites, standing beyond tribal
structures, lost their traditional political ties. This might have generated the
sort of military leaders and warlords who subsequently entered the service
of various Transoxanian princes and minor states. The troubled political
conditions of pre-Muslim sectionalism and the growing Muslim threat
from beyond the Oxus certainly increased the demand for mercenary
soldiery in that prosperous region.
The resulting social ties between Turks and Soghdians are clearly
demonstrated through a tendency towards “Turkish” taste within the
Soghdian aristocracy in the 7th and 8th centuries. This is how we can
explain the especially widespread use of Turkish titles and epitheta in pre-
Muslim Mawarannahr (Stark 2005, 224-225). Therefore, it is sometimes
difficult to distinguish Turks from Soghdians with Turkish titles. Clearly
the latter was the case concerning members of the Bukhār Khuda family in
Bukhārā or close relatives of the Ikhshīds of Samarqand.33 With the
decline of the Western Qaghanat and its influence in Mawarannahr in the
second half of the 7th century, even minor dihqāns in Eastern Iran start to
bear quite ambiguous Turkish titles. In some cases they even call
themselves “Qaghans” (Sims-Williams 1999, 255-256; Stark 2005, 225).
Also in Soghdian dress, horse equipment, and armament, a “Turkish
style” is clearly discernible (Raspopova 1970). The spectrum of material
in question can be associated primarily with a military-aristocratic setting.
This is particularly obvious concerning influences from the Turkish
steppes in Soghdian belt sets with metal fittings. Belt buckles and fittings
of the so-called “Martynovka type” (or “Heraldic style”) which are
predominant in the Eurasian steppes roughly from the second half of the
6th to middle of the 7th century (Ambroz 1971; Kovalevskaya 1979;
Dobzhanskii 1990; Bálint 1992, 389-415) still rarely figure in
Mawarannahr. But towards the end of the 7th century, the situation changes
with the ubiquitous occurrence of buckle and fitting types which first
occur in the Ural Mountains and South Siberia in the middle and the
second half of the 7th century (Raspopova 1965; Raspopova 1970;
Raspopova 1980; Kovalevskaya 1979; Dobzhanskii 1990, 38).
318 Chapter Twelve

Figure 12.4: Depiction of a stirrup in wall paintings from Afrasiab (Old

Samarqand), object 23/1, Southern wall (Detail drawing by the author after a
photograph taken of the original paintings by the author).

Figure 12.5: Stirrup find from

cemetery Umna-2, Kurgan 1
(after Troitskaya and Novikov
1998, fig. 23/11).
 Mercenaries and City Rulers 319

Consequently, the belt fashion in Transoxania and the Eurasian steppes

appears remarkably uniform from the end of the 7th to the middle of the 8th
century.
There should be similar influences in horse and rider equipment as
well as in armament if the theory of Turkish military presence in
Transoxania is correct. And indeed, the use of a whole set of weapons and
types of equipment typical for the pastoral nomadic culture of the Turks in
Central Asia and South Siberia starts in Transoxania in 7th century at the
latest (Raspopva 1970; Raspopova 1980, 103-107). Within this set belongs
a specific type of quiver in the form of an hour glass (Khudyakov 1986,
151-152, Fig. 66; Tabaldiyev 1996, 46, Fig. 8/1 and 11/1-2), psalia
snuffles (Tabaldiyev 1996, 37-38, Fig. 43/1, 16/9; Raspopova 1980, 99-
101; Fig. 70-71), carrying the sword on two straps instead of using a chape
(Bálint 1992, 338-343; Koch and Wenzel 2000, 193-199 Belenitskii 1973,
Fig. 8, 10-11, 23, 25, 30),34 and specific types of stirrups (Amroz 1973;
Vainshtein 1966b; Werner 1984, 149-150). Sometimes the typological
proximity of artefacts from Soghdia and pastoral nomadic Central Asia is
striking. To cite but one example, the representation of a stirrup on the
south wall of object 23/1 at Afrasiab (Old Samarqand), dating to the
middle or the second half of the 7th century (Al’baum 1975; Mode 1993;
Marshak 1994), attracts attention because it shows the characteristic torus
where the shaft of the eyelet meets the stirrup (Fig. 12.4). This detail has
exact counterparts in originals from Early Awar graves in Eastern Europe
(Werner 1984, Fig. 157 a-b) and from the Upper Ob (Fig. 12.5).
In summary, literary and epigraphic sources give ample testimony to
the presence of Turks in Mawarannahr in the 7th and 8th century. However,
the archaeological data does not support any theory for a substantial
immigration of pastoral nomads from the Early Turkish cultural sphere.
On the contrary, the presence of Early Turkish material is better explained
by the fact that Turks predominantly served as personal retainers of nobles
(chākars), or as mercenaries in the various minor states of pre-Muslim
Mawarannahr. There, powerful military leaders could have gained a
prominent social standing. Individual leaders might even have risen to the
position of a minor prince or city ruler. The examples provided here give a
small glimpse of the broad spectrum of interaction between the inhabitants
of Early Medieval Mawarannahr and the Eurasian steppes, but such
interaction remains to be elucidated in many other respects.
320 Chapter Twelve

Notes
1
I wish to thank Markus Mode for his comments on an early draft of this chapter
and John Perkins for help with the English version.
2
Originally from the Arabic mā warā’a-al-nahr–“the (territories) beyond the
river” (i.e. the Amu Darya). Usually it comprises the river oases of the Zarafshan,
the right influents of the upper Amu Darya (i.e. the Wakhsh, Kobadiyan,
Kafirnigan and Surkhan Darya), the Amu-Darya delta (Khwarezm) and the river
oases of the Upper and Middle Syr Darya as well as its influents (i.e. the Chirchik).
These oasis territories are either scattered in the steppes and deserts of the
Turanian basin (e.g. the Kyzylkum or the Hunger steppe) or confined within the
high mountain and piedmont zone of the Pamirs and the Tianshan (Fig. 12-1). As a
geographical terminus it appears first in the context of the Muslim expansion
beyond the Amu Darya into Central Asia around the second half of the 7th century
AD was used in Arabic and Persian medieval sources frequently. A synonym with
19th and 20th century western scholars is “Transoxania”.
3
In this chapter the terminus “Early Turks” resp. “Early Turkish” is used
synonymously with the Russian “Drevnie Tyurki/drevnetyurkskii”, and the
German “Alttürken/alttürkisch”. It designates those groups of pastoral nomads who
exercised the suzerainty of the central and eastern parts of the Eurasian steppes for
most of the time from the middle of the 6th to the middle of the 8th century.
According to the Orkhon inscriptions (1st half of the 8th century) their self-
designation was Türk, Chinese sources call them Tujue 突厥. Arab and Persian
medieval sources mention them as al-Turk (pl. al-Atrāk) resp. Turk (pl. Turkān),
although in the Middle East this “ethnonym” soon lost its original ethno-political
sense and was often used to designate indifferently pastoral nomadic peoples in the
steppes north of the Dār al-Islām–cf. Golden 1983, Golden 1992, 115-117;
Scharlipp 1992, 13-17; Frenkel 2005, 208-229.
4
For a broader discussion of these problems see my PhD thesis (Stark 2005).
5
The most important muslim authors on the muslim expansion in Central Asia are
al-Ṭabarī (Ta’rīkh al-rusul wa-’l-mulūk, ed. de Goeje, M. J. et al., Leiden 1879-
1901), al-Balāḏurī (Kitāb futūḥ al-buldān, ed. de Goeje, M.J., Leiden 1866) and al-
Ya’qūbī (Ta’rīkh, ed. Houtsma, M.Th, Leiden 1883). For a detailed discussion of
their material on Central Asia see Gibb 1923 and Goibov 1989.
6
The sample area in question is vast and stretches from the Dasht-i Qipchaq to
present-day Inner Mongolia at least. Since the 1920’s archaeological research on
the issue had its geographical focus in the Russian Altai, Tuva, and Khakassia, to a
lesser degree in Kyrghyzstan and Kazakhstan. Still insufficiently explored are
Early Turkish sites in Inner Mongolia and Xinjiang. A groundbreaking and still
valuable study focused on the type site Kudyrge in the Russian Altai is Gavrilova
(1965). For a more general survey of this subject see Vaynshteyn (1966b),
Mogil’nikov (1981), Bálint (1989, 239-267), and Savinov (1984, 1989).
Remarkable new material is coming from the Upper Ob region and the Kuznetsk
bassin (Troitskaya 1990; Troitskaya and Borodovskii 1990; Troitskaya and
Novikov 1998; Borodovskii 2001; Ilyushin and Suleymanov and Guz’ and
Starodubtsev 1992).
 Mercenaries and City Rulers 321

7
For this terminus see Mogil’nikov 1994, 24. It is a clear reference to the so-called
“Scythian triad”.
8
Regarding the burial customs of the Turks we are faced by an obvious
contradiction between the testimony of Chinese written sources (Zhoushu 50, 910;
Suishu 84, 1864) and the actual archaeological record: The Chinese dynastical
records unanimously refer to the custom of cremation among the Tujue whereas
archaeological data seem exclusively to testify the praxis of inhumation. This
contradiction is still the subject of considerable debate (Grach 1968; Jisl 1970;
Trifonov 1973; Kyzlasov 1979, 77-78; Mogil’nikov 1981, 32; Ecsedy 1984; Bálint
1989, 260; Tryjarski 2001, 149-153; Stark 2005, 90-93).
9
Given the scattered state of Russian language publications on that topic, Kubarev
(2001) offers a very useful and up-to-date research summary at least for the
Russian Altai (with extensive bibliography). An exceptional position within this
category of sites is occupied by the memorial complexes of the elite of the late
Eastern Qaghanat in present-day Mongolia. This is due to their monumentality and
obvious Chinese architectural influences (cf. Jisl 1961; Novgorodova 1980, 238-
244; Moğolistan'daki Türk Anıtları Projesi 2001 Yılı Çalışmaları, Ankara 2003).
10
One burial is known from the environs of Samarkand (Sprishevskii 1951),
another from Dal’verzin (Zadneprovskii 1967, 270) and one from Arsif (Torgoev
2003, 106), both in East-Ferghāna. Obviously, none of these burials belong to
proper cemeteries. A fourth example might have come to light in recent years in
Kul’-tyube (near Turkestan) but is difficult to evaluate at present because of the
poor documentation (Baypakov and Smagulov 1998, 34; Stark 2005, 240-241).
11
Special mention should be made on the kurgan cemetery of Baytudasht in
Southern Tadzhikistan which dates, at least partly, to the 6th to 7th centuries. This
necropolis seems to be connected to a “ethnic” group of “Hunnish” (Hephthalite)
background (Stark 2005, 247-249 with the relevant literature on the subject).
12
Examples are known from Kalaydasht–Rayon Fayzabad, South-Tadjikistan
(Zhukov 1978), Toytepe—southwest of Tashkent—(Masson 1953, 25-27), the
Rajon Gulcha in East-Ferghana (Sher 1966, 92) and from the Oblastnoi
Krayevedcheskii Muzey in Ferghana-City. The latter is still unpublished (I owe
this information to Dr. L. Baratova to whom I would like to express my gratitude).
Two fragments of one or two further stelea from Ob-i Kiyk (Upper Vakhsh-Valley,
South-Tadzhikistan) show significant typological and stylistical peculiarities and
are, therefore, difficult to classify as “Early Turkish” (Solov’yov 1985; Stark 2005,
253-254).
13
This phenomenon can be observed in many Central Asian nomadic societies
throughout history. A short historical and ethnographic survey on this phenomenon
is given by Bálint (1992, 362-363).
14
This assumption can be further sustained by the fact that there are no substantial
Early Turkish elements in the Early medieval toponomasticon of the core regions
of Transoxania (Lur’ye 2004, 192).
15
For Turks in the context of the first siege of Bukhārā in AD 673 see Tarīkh-i
Bukhārā, ed. Riḍawī 52-53; ten years later Turks were again called in against the
Muslims (Tarīkh-i Bukhārā, ed. Riḍawī, 57-59). In AD 704 the Ikhshīd of
Samarqand disposed of an army of Turks (al-Ṭabarī, ed. de Goeje, II 1162). For
322 Chapter Twelve

Turks allied to the Soghdians in the time of Qutayba b. Muslim see al-Ṭabarī, ed.
de Goeje, II 1188, II 1195, II 1201.
16
al-Ṭabarī, ed. de Goeje II 1188; on that account see also de La Vaissière (2004,
151, 241); Stark (2005, 212).
17
Tārīkh-i Bukhārā, ed. Ridawī 22.
18
al-Tabarī, ed. de Goeje II 1080-1081.
19
This system ranges from walls around single farmsteads, suburban villas, small
castles and villages (Naymark 1999, 46), over an echeloned system of city walls
(Semyonov 1996) to impressive “long walls” which protected whole micro-oases.
The largest of these oasis walls was probably the so called Qampyraq wall around
Bukhārā with a circumference of ca. 150 miles (Shishkin 1963, 16, 30). The
Devār-i Qiyāmat, the oasis wall of Samarqand, had an overall size of at least 27
miles. An especially strong development of the fortification system is known from
the border areas of Transoxania to the Turkish steppes: In that context Muqaddasī
mentions a belt of seven walls around the oasis of Sawrān on the Middle Syr Darya
at the border to the nomadic Kimāk and Ghuzz (Muqaddasī, ed. de Goeje 274). All
these walls were repeatedly restored down to the late Middle Ages which makes it
even more difficult to date them by archaeological means. Nevertheless, there are
some textual hints that they existed already in pre-muslim times. For a more
detailed survey on that issue see Stark (2005, 210-211).
20
The term describes military bondsmen and bodyguards of Soghdian aristocrats
(de la Vaissière 2005). It is interesting to note that Turkish nobles around the same
time also seem to have served as personal retainers of muslim commanders in
Mawarannahr: Al-Ṭabarī reports that a certain Sulayman b. Ṣūl, chākar of Naṣr b.
Sayyār, negotiated on behalf of Naṣr with the king of Ferghāna and finally
persuaded him to submit to the Arabs (al-Ṭabarī, ed. de Goeje II 1696-1697). The
origin of this person is nowhere specified but the name of his father corresponds
with one of the regular Arabic transcriptions of the Turkish title chor (Marquart
1898a, 182; Beckwith 1987, 209f. n.3). That he was indeed a Turk becomes even
more likely if we keep in mind that by then also the kings of Ferghāna were Turks.
Naṣr b. Sayyar’s choice for a Turk as negotiator with Ferghāna, therefore, does not
seem to be a coincidence.
21
This funeral monument originates from the antiquity market but can be safely
associated with a Soghdian burial in Northern China of the second half of the 6th
century (Juliano 1992; Lerner 1995; Juliano and Lerner 2001; Marshak 2001, 233-
244). It belongs to a small corpus of more or less similar monuments which grows
surprisingly fast in recent years. Although these couches are increasingly known
from archaeological excavations in Northern China, the interpretation of their
pictorial programmes is still problematic in many ways.
22
An early textual source is Zhoushu 50, 909. Pictorial evidence can be found on
some Early Turkish stone stelae (Sher 1966, Fig. 9, 16, 17, 19, 26, 36, 37, 50). See
also Shiratori (1929, 26-28), Vainshein and Kryukov (1966, 179-181) and Stark
(2005, 69-72).
23
Tārīkh-i Bukhārā, ed. Ridawī 9. However, the reliability of the passage is
difficult to evaluate (Stark 2005, 190-192).
 Mercenaries and City Rulers 323

24
Tārīkh-i Bukhārā 13. See in detail Naymark 2001, 256-259 who, however, does
not touch on the Turkish origin of the Wardān Khuda as related by the Tārīkh-i
Bukhārā.
25
This example will be discussed in more detail below.
26
The last part of his name is obviously a corrupted form of Yabghu (Marquart
1938, 144-148) a title second in rank to the Qaghan. Besides, the title Yabghu
frequently appears in combination with the title Qaghan as the title of the supreme
ruler of the Western Qaghanat.
27
The Xin Tangshu 221b, 6250 states that since the period zhenguan (627-649) the
northern part of Ferghāna was ruled by a Turk called Asena Shuni 阿瑟那鼠匿.
The first part of his name resp. title, Asena 阿瑟那, is certainly a variant of Ashina
阿史那, the regular Chinese transcription of the name of the ruling house of the
Türk Qaghanat (Chavannes 1903, 148 n. 2).
28
Smirnova reads βyδy’n or βyδk’n instead of βylk’’. For the reading βylk’’ see
Livshits 1970, 257 n. 5.
29
The combination “personal name–title–epitheton” is quite common for the Early
Turkish onomasticon. As for its etymology different proposals were put forward by
V. Livshits (1962, 51: from the Turkic čıqan) respectively I. Yakubovich (from
Mongolian čegin; see I. Yakubovich, “Marriage Sogdian Style”, In: Proceedings of
the Conference “Iranistik in Europa: Gestern, Heute, Morgen, Graz, Februar 2002”
(forthcoming) – cited after Lur’ye 2005, 127).
30
Yutaka Yoshida proposed in a passing remark (1993, 254) another explanation
for the additional βγtyk MLK’: As we know from the same document V-1, Chāqīn
Chūr Bīlgā was the son of a certain pycwtt (Livshits 1962, 51 hypothetically reads
*Bičut, *Bīčūt or *Bīčūd). Yoshida (1993, 254) identifies him with a certain
Bizhou 閉拙 who is mentioned in the Xin Tangshu 221b, 6247 on the occasion of
his nomination as Chinese vassal king in Mi/Māymurġ in 658 (the Tangshu
erroneously calls him Kaizhou 開拙). In this context Yoshida remarks: "In my
opinion this nomination by the Chinese gouvernment gives glue to an enigmatic
expression βγtyk MLK attested in B8. This question will be discussed in detail
elsewhere." I'm not competent to enter the philological discussion in question. But
I would like to point out that the same Bizhou 閉拙 is mentioned already in the
Suishu 83, 1854 as lord of Māymurġ (by than still dependent on the Ikhshīd of
Samarqand). The compilation of the Suishu was finished by Wei Zheng in 636
while its data on the Western countries mostly dates back to the time of the Sui
(581-618). Therefore, Bizhou would have needed to have ruled at least around 70
years to be the father of Chakīn Chūr Bīlgā–even if we admit that the latter ruled
some years in Maymurġ before he became lord of Panj, where he ruled at least
another 15 years. Yet another explanation for βγtyk MLK was recently proposed by
Lur’ye (2005). He interprets it as a Soghdian rendering of Turkish “ülüg-lüg”–
“having destiny” which occurs in the Orkhon inscriptions in combination with
“qutlugh”–“having fortune” (Lur’ye 2005, 129f.). Consequently, he denies the
testimony of Iṣṯakhrī regarding a rūstāq named *Baghtān or *Baghdān. Instead,
324 Chapter Twelve

Lur’ye interprets as a corrupted form of *‫ ﺑﻘﻨﺎن‬which he takes to be a variant

transcription of Faknān, the rūstāq around present-day Djizak (Lur’ye 2005, 128).
31
Even today kishlaks bear names like "Mogholon" or "Turk-Rodzh" in that area,
which points to these once nomadic and semi-nomadic groups.
32
The same document V-1 states that he is the son of a certain pycwtt (Livshits
1962, 51 hypotheticaly reads *Bičut, *Bīčūt or *Bīčūd). According to numismatic
evidence his father obviously did not rule over Panj.
33
According to the Cefu Yuangui 971, 7a (11408) a brother of the Bukhār Khuda
Tughshāda bore the Turkish title Axilan Dagan–Arslan Tarqan; the regent of
Māymurgh, a younger son of the Ikhshīd Ghūrek, is mentioned by the Xin Tangshu
221b, 6244 as Mochuo which was also the title of an Eastern Türk Qaghan.
34
However, the earliest securely dated original finds of scabbards on two straps
come from graves in Northern China from the period of the Northern Dynasties
(Koch and Wenzel 2000, Fig. 2-3). The earliest pictorial evidence can be found on
stone panels of a funerary couch from the Northern Qi-Dynasty. It has been
convincingly attributed to a Central Asian, most probably a Soghdian (Scalia
1958).

Works Cited
Al’baum, L.I. 1975: Zhivopis’ Afrasiaba. Tashkent.
Ambroz, A.K. 1971: Problemy rannesrednevekovoy khronologii
Vostochnoy Yevropy. Sovetskaya archeologiya 2-3, 96-123, 106-134.
—. 1973: Stremena i sedla rannego srednevekov’ya kak khronologicheskii
pokazatel’ (IV-VIII vv.). Sovetskaya arkheologiya 4, 81-98.
Amabe, F.1995: The Emergence of the ’Abbāsid Autocracy: The ’Abbāsid
Army, Khurāsān and Adharbayjān. Kyoto.
Bálint, Cs. 1989: Die Archäologie der Steppe. Steppenvölker zwischen
Volga und Donau vom 6. bis zum 10. Jahrhundert. Wien/Köln.
—. 1992: Kontakte zwischen Iran, Byzanz und der Steppe. Das Grab von
Üč Tepe (Sowjet. Azerbajdzan) und der beschlagverzierte Gürtel im 6.
und 7. Jahrhundert. In Daim, F. (ed.), Awarenforschungen 1. Studien
zur Archäologie der Awaren 4, Wien, 309-496.
Bartol’d, V.V. 1963: Ocherk istorii turkmenskogo naroda. In: Sochineniya
2/1: Obshchiye raboty po istorii Sredney Azii. Raboty po istorii
Kavkaza i Vostochnoy Yevropy. Moskva, 547-623.
—. 1964: O khristianstve v Turkestane v domongol’skii period (po povodu
Semirechesnskykh nadpisey). In Sochineniya 2/2: Raboty po otdel’nym
problemam istorii Sredney Azii. Moskva, 265-302.
Baypakov, K.M. and Smagulov, Ye.A. 1998: Novoe v arkheologii
Turkestana. In Molodin, V.I. (ed.), Sibir’ v panorame tysyacheletii
(Materialy mezhdunarodnogo simpoziuma). Tom 1. Novosibirsk, 32-
42.
 Mercenaries and City Rulers 325

Beckwith, C.I. 1984: Aspects of the early history of the Central Asian
guard corps in Islam. Archivum Eurasiae Medii Aevi 4, 29-43.
—. 1987: The Tibetan Empire in Central Asia: A History of the Struggle
for Great Power among Tibetans, Turks, Arabs, and Chinese during
the Early Middle Ages. Princeton.
Belenitskii, A.M. 1973: Monumental’noe iskusstvo Pendzhikenta.
Zhivopis’. Skul’ptura. Moskva.
Bernshtam, A.N. 1952: Istoriko-arkheologicheskie ocherki Tsentral’nogo
Tyan’-Shanya i Pamiro-Alaya. Materialy i issledovaniya po
arkheologii SSSR 26. Moskva/Leningrad.
Bo, Wang and Xiaoshan, Qi 1996, Sichou zhilu caoyuan shiren yanjiu.
Sichou zhilu yanjiu congshu 7. Urumqi.
Bogolyubov, M.N. and Smirnova, O.I. 1963: Khozyaystvennye dokumenty.
Chtenie, perevod i kommentarii. Sogdiyskie dokumenty s gory Mug 3.
Moskva.
Borodovskii, A.P. 2001: Frühmittelalterliche Prunkbestattungen von
Kindern am Oberen Ob, Sibirien. Eurasia Antiqua 7, 569-583.
Bosworth, C.E. 1973: Barbarian Incursions: the coming of the Turks into
the Islamic World. In Richardson, D.S. (ed.), Papers on Islamic
History 3: Islamic Civilisation 950-1150. Oxford, 1-15.
Bregel’, Yu. 1991: Turco-Mongol Influences in Central Asia. In Canfield,
R.L., (ed.), Turko-Persia in Historical Perspective. New York, 53-77.
Charikov, A.A. 1980a: Novaya seriya kamennykh statuy iz Semirech’ya.
In Pletnyova, S.A. (ed.), Srednevekovye drevnosti yevraziyskikh stepey.
Moskva, 213-234.
—. 1980b: Gruppa skul’ptur iz Dzhambula. Sovetskaya arkheologiya 3,
301-307.
—. 1989: Novye nakhodki srednevekovykh izvayanii v Kazakhstane.
Sovetskaya arkheologiya 3, 184-192.
Chavannes, E. 1903: Documents sur les Tou-Kiue (Turcs) occidentaux.
Sbornik trudov Orkhonskoy ekspeditsii 6. Saint Petersburg.
Cheremisin, D.V. 2001: Issledovaniya petroglifov na yuge Gornogo
Altaya v 2001 godu. Naskal’nye izobrazheniya Chaganki. In
Derebyanko, A.P. and Molodin, V.I. (eds.), Problemy arkheologii,
etnografii, antropologii Sibiri i sopredel’nykh territorii VII: Materialy
godovoy sessii Instituta arkheologii i etnografii SO RAN, dekabr’ 2001
g. Novosibirsk, 480-484.
Clauson, G. 1972: An Etymological Dictionary of Pre-Thirteenth Century
Turkish. Oxford.
de la Vaissière, É. 2004: Histoire des Marchands Sogdiens. 2nd edition.
Bibliothèque de l’institut des Haute Études Chinoise 32, Paris.
326 Chapter Twelve

—. 2005: Châkars d’Asie Centrale: à propos d’ouvrages récents. Studia

Iranica 34/1, 139-149.
Defen, Linghu 1971: Zhoushu. Beijing.
Dobzhanskii, V.N. 1990: Nabornye poyasa kochevnikov Azii. Novosibirsk.
Doerfer, G. 1963-1974: Türkische und mongolische Elemente im
Neupersischen. Unter besonderer Berücksichtigung älterer
neupersischer Geschichtsquellen, vor allem der Mongolen- und
Timuridenzeit. 4Vols., Akademie der Wissenschaften und der
Literatur. Veröffentlichungen der Orientalischen Kommission 21,
Wiesbaden.
Dosymbaeva, A.M. 2002: Merke – sakral’naya zemlya tyurkov Zhetysu.
Taraz.
Ecsedy, I. 1984: Ancient Turk (T'u-chüeh) burial customs. Acta Orientalia
Hungarica 38, 263-287.
Esin, E. 1976: The Cultural Background of Afšīn Ḥaidar of Ušrūsana in
the Light of Recent Numismatic and Iconographic Data. Abhandlungen
der Akademie der Wissenschaften in Göttingen, Philologisch-
historische Klasse 3. Folge 98, 127-145
Fourniau, V. 2000: Le Semiretchie et la Transoxaniane: Leur liens dans
l'histoire des Turcisations et des sédentarisations en Basse Asie
Centrale. In Balland, D. (ed.), Hommes et Terres d'Islam. Mélanges
offerts à Xavier de Planhol, vol. 2, Bibliothèque Iranienne 53. Teheran,
229-242.
Frenkel, Ye. 2005: The Turks of the Eurasian Steppes in Medieval Arabic
Writing. In Amitai, R. and Biran, M. (eds.), Mongols, Turks, and
Others. Eurasian Noamds and the Sedentary World. Leiden/Boston,
201-241.
Frye, R. 1979: The Turks in Khurasan and Transoxania at the time of the
Arab conquest. In Frye, R.N., Islamic Iran and Central Asia (7th-12th
centuries). Collected Studies Series 99 [Reprint from: The Moslem
World 35, Hartford 1945, 308-315] London.
Frye, R. and Sayili, A. 1943: Turks in the Middle East before the Saljuqs.
Journal of the American Oriental Society 63, 194-207.
Gavrilova, A.A. 1965: Mogil’nik Kudyrge kak istochnik po istorii
altayskikh plemen. Moskva/Leningrad.
Gibb, H.A.R. 1923: The Arab Conquest of Central Asia. London.
Goibov, G. 1989: Rannie pokhody arabov v Srednyuyu Aziyu (644-704
gg.). Dushanbe.
Golden, P.B. 1980: Khazar Studies. An Historico-Philological Inquiry into
the Origins of the Khazars. 2 Vols., Bibliotheca Orientalis Hungarica
25/1-2, Budapest.
 Mercenaries and City Rulers 327

—. 1983: Imperial Ideology and the Sources of Political Unity amongst the
Pre-Činggisid Nomads of Western Eurasia. Archivum Eurasiae Medii
Aevi 2, 37-76.
—. 1992: An Introduction to the History of the Turkic Peoples.
Ethnogenesis and State-Formation in Medieval and Early Modern
Eurasia and the Middle East. Turcologica 9, Wiesbaden.
Gordon, M. S. 2001: The Breaking of a Thousand Swords: A History of
the Turkish Military of Samarra. Albany/NY.
Grach, A.D. 1960a: Arkheologicheskie raskopki v Mogun-Tayge i
issledovaniya v tsentral’noy Tuve (polevoy sezon 1957 g.). Trudy
Tuvinskoy kompleksnoy arkheologo-etnograficheskoy ekspeditsii 1.
Moskva/Leningrad, 7-72.
—. 1960b: Arkheologicheskie issledovaniya v Kara-Khole v Mogun-Tajge
(polevoy sezon 1958 g.). Trudy Tuvinskoy kompleksnoy arkheologo-
etnograficheskoy ekspeditsii 1. Moskva/Leningrad, 73-150.
—. 1961: Drevnetyurkskie izvayaniya Tuvy. Po materialam issledovanii
1953-1960 gg. Moskva.
—. 1968: Drevneyshie tyurkskie pogrebeniya s sozhzheniyem v
Tsentral’noy Azii. In Vinogradov, A.V., Vorob’eva, M.G., Zhdanko,
T.A., Itina, M.A., Levina, L.M., and Rapoport, Yu.A. (eds.), Istoriya,
arkheologiya i ethnografiya Srednei Azii. Moskva, 207-213.
—. 1973: Voprosy datirovki i semantiki drevnetyurkskikh tamgoobraznykh
izobrazhenii gornogo kozla. Tyurkologicheskii sbornik 1972, 316-333.
Hayashi, T. 1996: Stone Statues in Mongolia. Bulletin of the National
Museum of Ethnology 21, 117-267 [in Japanese with English
summary].
Holzwarth, W. 2002: Nomaden und Sesshafte in Turkī-Quellen (narrative
Quellen aus dem frühen 16. Jahrhundert). In Leder, St. and Streck, B.
(eds.), Akkulturation und Selbstbehauptung, Orientwissenschafliche
Hefte 4/2002/Mitteilungen des SFB "Differenz und Integration" 2,
Halle , 147-165.
Huichao, Yufangji Chao. 1983: Taishoo Shinshuu Daizookyoo 51/2089,
Taipei.
Hüttel, H.-G. 2001: Ursprung, Gemeinschaft, Herrschaft. Eine Skizze zur
sozialen Morphologie der Frühen Nomaden in den zentralasiatischen
Hochländern. In Pohl, E., Recker, U., and Theune, C. (eds.),
Archäologisches Zellwerk: Beiträge zur Kulturgeschichte in Europa
und Asien. Festschrift für Helmut Roth zum 60. Geburtstag.
Internationale Archäologie. Studia honoraria 16, Rahden/Westf, 3-19.
328 Chapter Twelve

Ilyushin, A.M., Suleymenov, M.G., Guz’, V.B., and Starodubtsev, A.G.

1992: Mogil’nik Sapogovo – pamyatnik drevnetyurkskoy epokhi v
Kuznetskoy kotlovine. Novosibirsk.
Ismail, O.S.A. 1966: Mu’taṣim and the Turks. Bulletin of the School of
Oriental and African Studies 29, 12-24.
Jisl, L. 1961: Archeologické památky v Mongolké Lidové Republice,
Archeologické rozhledy 13, 49-83.
—. 1970: Balbals, Steinbabas und andere Steinfiguren als Äußerung der
religiösen Vorstellung der Osttürken. Dissertationes orientales 26,
Prag.
Juliano, A.L. 1992: Northern Dynasties: A Perspective. In Chinese
Archaic Bronzes, Sculptures and Works of Arts, June 2 to June 27,
1992, J.J. Lally and Co. New York, 1-15.
Juliano, A.L. and Lerner, J.A. 2001: Monks and Merchants. Silk Road
Treasures from Northwest China. Gansu and Ningxia, 4th–7th Century.
New York.
Kennedy, H. 2002: The Armies of the Caliphs: Military and society in the
early Islamic state. London.
Klyashtornyi, S.G. 2002: Ancient Turk Inscriptions on the Silk Road:
Runic Inscriptions of Tian-Shan. Silk Road Art and Archaeology 8,
197-205.
Khudyakov, Yu.S. 1985: Drevnetyurkskie pominal’nye pamyatniki na
territorii Mongolii (po Materialam SMIK v 1979-1982 gg.). In
Vasilevskii, R.S. (ed.), Drevnie kul’tury Mongolii. Novosibirsk, 168-
184.
Koch, A. and Wenzel, A. 2000: Waffentechnologie zwischen China und
Byzanz. Anmerkungen zu einem Miniaturschwert aus dem Grab des
Kaisers Wudi der Nördlichen Zhou-Dynastie (557-581 n. Chr.). In:
Studia Antiquaria. Festschrift für Niels Bantelmann zum 60.
Geburtstag, Universitätsforschungen zur prähistorischen Archäologie
63, Bonn, 187-202.
Kovalevskya, V.B. 1979: Poyasnye nabory Yevrazii IV-IX vv. Pryazhki.
Archeologiya SSSR E 1-2, Moskva.
Kubarev, V.D. 1984: Drevnetyurkskie izvayaniya Altaya. Novosibirsk.
—. 1985: Drevnetyurkskie kenotafy Borotala. In Vasilevskii, R.S. (ed.),
Drevnie kul’tury Mongolii. Novosibirsk, 136-148.
—. 1992: Senmurv iz Kalbak-Tasha. In Vasil’evskii, R.S. (ed.), Naskal’nye
risunki Yevrazii. Sbornik nauchnykh trudov. Novosibirsk, 94-97.
—. 2001: Izvayaniya, ogradki, balbaly (o problemakh tipologii,
khronologii i semantiki drevnetyurkskikh pominal’nykh sooruzhenii
 Mercenaries and City Rulers 329

Altaya i sopredel’nykh territorii. In Altay i sopredel’nye territorii v

epokhu srednevekov’ya. Sbornik nauchnykh trudov. Barnaul, 24-54.
—. 2002a: Vsadniki iz petroglifov gory Shiveet-Khayran (Mongolskii
Altay). In Tyurkskie narody. Materialy V-ogo Sibirskogo simpoziuma
«Kul’turnoe nasledie narodov Zapadnoy Sibiri». Tobol’sk/Omsk, 58-
60.
—. 2002b: Naskal’noe iskusstvo Altaya (iz ekspeditsionnykh zametok
arkheologa). Novosibirsk/Gorno-Altaysk.
Kyzlasov, L.P. 1979: Drevnyaya Tuva. Moskva.
Lerner, J. 1995: Central Asians in Sixth-Century China: A Zoroastrian
Funeral Rite. Iranica Antiqua 30, 179-190.
Livshits, V.A. 1962: Yuridicheskie dokumenty i pis’ma. Chtenie, perevod i
kommentarii. Sogdiyskie dokumenty s gory Mug 2, Moskva.
—. 1970: A Sogdian Alphabet from Panjikant. In Boyce, M. and
Gershevitch, I. (eds.), W.B. Henning Memorial Volume. London, 256-
263.
—. 1979: Praviteli Pancha: Sogdiytsy i tyurki. Narody Azii i Afriki.
Istoriya, ekonomika, kul’tura 1979/4, 56-68.
Lur’ye, P.B. 2004: Istoriko-linguisticheskii analiz sogdiiskoy toponimii
(dissertatsiya na soiskanie uchenoi stepeni kandidata filologicheskikh
nauk). Sankt-Peterburg.
—. 2005: Schastlivyi pravitel, tsar Pendzhikenta Chegin Chur Bilgä. In
Nikonorov, V.P. (ed.), Tsentral’naya Aziya ot Akhemenidov do
Timuridov. Arkheologiya, istoriya, etnologiya, kul’tura. Materialy
mezhdunarodnoy nauchnoy konferentsii, posvyashchennoy 100-letiyu
so dnya rozhdeniya Aleksandra Markovicha Belenitskogo, Sankt-
Peterburg 2-5 noyabrya 2004 goda. Sankt-Peterburg, 127-131.
Marquart, J. 1898: Historische Glossen zu den alttürkischen Inschriften.
Wiener Zeitschrift für die Kunde des Morgenlandes 12, 157-200.
Marshak, B.I 1994: Le programme iconographique des peintures de la
«Salle des ambassadeurs» à Afrasiab (Samarkand). Arts Asiatiques 49,
5-20.
—. 2001: La thématique sogdienne dans l'art de la Chine de la seconde
moitié du VIe siècle. Comptes rendus des séances de l'Académie des
Inscriptions et Belles-Lettres 2001/1 (janvier-mars), 228-64.
Mar’yashev, A.N. 1980: Petroglify Semirech’ya. In: Vasil’evskii, R.S.
(ed.), Zveri v kamne. Novosibirsk, 211-229.
Mar’yashev, A.N., Goryachev, A.A., and Potapov, S.A. 1998: Répertoire
des pétroglyphes d'Asie Centrale, Fasc. N° 5: Kazakhstan 1: Choix de
petroglyphes du Semirech'e (Felsbilder im Siebenstromland).
330 Chapter Twelve

Mémoires de la Mission Archéologique Française en Asie Centrale

5.5. Paris.
Masson, M.Ye. 1953: Akhangeran. Arkheologo-topograficheskii ocherk.
Tashkent.
Mode, M. 1993: Sogdien und die Herrscher der Welt. Türken, Sasaniden
und Chinesen in Historiengemälden des 7. Jahrhunderts n. Chr. aus
Alt-Samarqand. Europäische Hochschulschriften. Reihe 27.
Kunstgeschichte 162, Frankfurt a.M.
Mogil’nikov, V.A. 1981: Tyurki. In Pletnyova, S.A. (ed.), Stepi Yevrazii v
epokhu srednevekov’ya. Arkheologiya SSSR, Moskva, 29-42.
—. 1996: Ob istokakh genezisa drevnetyurkskoy kul’tury. In Kochkina,
A.F., Kuznetsova, L.V., Stashenkov, D.A. (eds.), Kul’tury
yevraziyskikh stepey vtoroy poloviny I tysyacheletiya n.e. Samara, 24-
30.
Moğolistan'daki Türk Anıtları Projesi (2001) 2003: Yılı Çalışmaları.
Ankara.
Mokrynin, V.P. and Gavryushenko, P.P. 1975: Drevnetyurkskie
pamyatniki doliny reki Ton, In: Arkheologicheskie pamyatniki
Priissykkul’ya. Frunze, 102-106.
al-Muqaddasī 1877: Aḥsan al-taqāsīm fī ma’rīfat al-aqālīm, In de Goeje,
M.J. (ed.), Descriptio imperii Moslemici, Leiden: Bibliotheca
geographorum Arabicorum 3.
Naymark, A. 1999: The Size of Samanid Bukhara: A Note on Settlement
Patterns in Early Islamic Mawarannahr. In Petruccioli, A. (ed.),
Bukhara: The Myth and the Architecture. Proceedings of the
international symposium held at M. I. T., Cambridge on November
1996. Aga Khan Program for Islamic Architecture, Series 1: Theory
and Method in Islamic Architectural Design 3, Cambridge, Mass., 39-
60.
—. 2001: Sogdiana, its Christians and Byzantium: A Study of Artistic and
Cultural Connections in Late Antiquity and Early Middle Ages.
Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation. Bloomington, Indiana.
Nesterov, S.P. 1990: Kon’ v kul’takh tyurkoyazychnykh plemen
Tsentral’noy Azii v epokhu srednevekov’ya. Novosibirsk.
Novgorodova, Ye.A. 1980: Alte Kunst der Mongolei. Leipzig.
Novgorodova, Ye.A.. and Gorelik, M.V. 1980: Naskal'nye izobrazheniya
tyazhyolovooruzhennykh voinov s mongol'skogo Altaya. In
Kuzishchin, V.I. (ed.), Drevnii Vostok i antichnyi mir. Moskva, 101-
112.
 Mercenaries and City Rulers 331

Os’kin, A.V. 1975: Petroglify Bukantau. In Sokolov, Z.R. and Tul’tsev,

L.A. (eds.), Novoe v ethnografii i antropologii (Itogi polevykh rabot
Instituta etnografii v 1973 g.). Moskva 1975, 34-43.
Qinruo, Wang et al. 1960: Cefu Yuangui. 12 Vols. Beijing.
Raspopova, V.I. 1965: Poyasnoy nabor Sogda VII-VIII vv.. Sovetskaya
arkheologiya 1965/4, 78-91.
—. 1970: Sogdiyskii gorod i kochevaya step’ v VII-VIII vv.. Kratkie
soobshcheniya Instituta arkheologii 122, 86-91.
—. 1980: Metallicheskie izdeliya rannesrednevekogo Sogda. Leningrad.
Samashev, Z. 1993: Petroglyphs of the East Kazakhstan as a Historical
Sources [sic], Almaty.
—. 1996: Graffiti srednevekovykh nomadov. In Kurmanbekov, E.Zh.,
Myrzabayev, B.B. and Gutsalov, S.Yu (eds.), Voprosy arkheologii
Zapadnogo Kazakhstana. Sbornik nauchnykh trudov 1 (Pamyati
Viktora Vasil’evicha Rodionova). Samara, 259-269.
—. 2001: Petroglyphs of Kazakhstan. In Tashbaeva, K. et al. (eds.),
Petroglyphs of Central Asia. Bishkek, 151-219.
Savinov, D.G. 1982: Drevnetyurkskie kurgany Uzuntala. In Konapskii,
A.K. (ed.), Arkheologiya Severnoi Azii. Novosibirsk, 102-122.
—. 1984: Narody Yuzhnoy Sibiri v drevnetyurkskuyu epokhu. Leningrad.
—. 1989: The Sayano-Altaic centre of early medieval culture. Antiquity 63,
814-826.
Scaglia, G. 1958: Central Asians on a Northern Ch’i Gate Shrine. Artibus
Asiae 21/1, 9-28.
Semyonov, G.L. 1996: Sogdiyskaya fortifikatsiya V-VIII vekov. Sankt-
Peterburg.
Sher, Ya.A. 1961: Pogrebenie s konem v Chuyskoy doline. Sovetskaya
arkheologiya 1961/1, 280-282.
—. 1963: Pamyatniki altaysko-orkhonskikh tyurok na Tyan’-Shane.
Sovetskaya arkheologiya 1963/4, 158-166.
—. 1966: Kamennye izvayaniya Semirech’ya. Moskva/Leningrad.
Shiratori K. 1929: The Queue among the Peoples of North Asia. Memoirs
of the Research Department of the Toyo Bunko 4, 1-37.
Shishkin, V.A. 1963: Varakhsha. Moskva.
Sims-Williams, N. 1999: From the Kushan-Shahs to the Arabs. New
Bactrian documents dated in the era of the Tochi inscriptions. In
Alram, M. and Klimburg-Salter, D. (eds.), Coins, Art and Chronology.
Essays on the Pre-Islamic History of the Indo-Iranian Borderlands.
Wien, 245-258.
Smirnova, O.I. 1981: Svodnii katalog sogdiyskikh monet. Bronza. Moskva.
332 Chapter Twelve

Solov’yov, V.S. 1985: Novye nakhodki drevnetyurkskikh izvayanii v

Yuzhnom Tadzhikistane. Sovetskaya arkheologiya 1985/2, 246-247.
Sprishevskii, V.I. 1951: Pogrebenie s konem serediny I tysyacheletiya n.e.
obnaruzhennoe okolo observatorii Ulugbeka. Trudy Muzeya Istorii
Narodov Uzbekistana 1, 33-42.
Stark, S. 2005: Die Alttürkenzeit in Mittel- und Zentralasien. Studien zu
Archäologie und Geschichte pastoralnomadischer Gruppen und ihrer
Interaktion mit Seßhaften vom 6.-8. Jh. Unpublished Ph.D. Thesis
University Halle-Wittenberg.
Tabaldiyev, K.Sh. 1991: Ob ogradke tyurkskogo vremeni. In Nekotorye
voprosy arkheologii i etnografii Kyrgyzstana. Sbornik nauchnykh
trudov Kyrgyzkogo gosudarstennogo universiteta. Bishkek, 31-34.
Tabaldiyev, K.Sh. 1996: Kurgany srednevekovykh plemen Tyan’-Shanya.
Bishkek.
Tabaldiyev, K.Sh. and Soltobayev, O.A. 2001: Runicheskie nadpisi
Kochkorskoy doliny. Izvestiya Natsional’noy Akademii Nauk
Kyrgyzkoy Respubliki 2001/1-2, 68-73.
al-Ṭabarī 1879-1901: Ta’rīkh al-rusul wa-’l-mulūk. In de Goeje, M.J. et al.
(eds.), Annales quos scripsit Abu Djafar Mohammed ibn Djarir at-
Tabari, Vol. I-III, Leiden.
Tārīkh-i Bukhārā 1984: edited by M. Riḍawī, Tehran.
Torgoev, A.I. 2003: K interpretatsii mogil’nika Uch-At. Arkheologicheskii
vestnik 10, 104-107.
Trifonov, Yu.I. 1973: Ob etnicheskoy prinadlezhnosti pogrebenii s konem
drevnetyurkskogo vremeni (v svyazi s voprosom o strukture
pogrebal’nogo obryada tyurkov-tugyu). Tyurkologicheskii sbornik
1972, 351-374.
Troitskaya, T.N. 1990: Novii tip «pominal’nykh» pamyatnikov v
Zapadnoy Sibiri. Sovetskya Arkheologiya 2, 256-258.
Troitskaya, T.N. and Borodovskii, A.P. 1990: Pogrebenie mladentsev v
kurganakh 7 v.n.e. v Novosibirskom Priob’e. In Gemuev, I.N. (ed.),
Mirovozzrenie finno-ugorskikh narodov. Novosibirsk, 149-162.
Troitskaya, T.N. and Novikov, A.B. 1998: Verkhneobskaya kul’tura v
Novosibirskom Priob’e. Novosibirsk.
Tryjarski, E. 2001: Bestattungssitten türkischer Völker auf dem
Hintergrund ihrer Glaubensvorstellungen. Studia Eurasia 7, Berlin.
Tursunov, N.O. 1976: Slozhenie i puti razvitiya gorodskogo i sel’skogo
naseleniya Severnogo Tadzhikistana XIX-nachala XX vv. (istoriko-
etnograficheskie ocherki). Dushanbe.
 Mercenaries and City Rulers 333

Vaynshteyn, S.I. 1966a: Pamyatniki vtoroy poloviny I tysyacheletiya v

Zapadnoy Tuve. Trudy Tuvinskoy kompleksnoy arkheologo-
etnograficheskoy ekspeditsii 2. Moskva/Leningrad, 292-348.
Vaynshteyn, S.I. 1966b: Nekotorye voprosy istorii drevnetyurkskoy
kul’tury, Sovetskaya etnografiya 3, 60-81.
Vaynshteyn, S.I. and Kryukov, M.V. 1966, Ob oblike drevnikh tyurkov,
Tyurkologicheskii sbornik 1966, 177-187.
Voytov, V.E. 1996: Drevnetyurkskii panteon i model’ mirozdaniya v
kul’tovo-pominal’nykh pamyatnikakh Mongolii VI-VIII vv. Moskva.
Werner, J. 1984: Ein byzantinischer‚ Steigbügel’ aus Cariçin Grad. In
Duval, N. and Popoviç, V. (eds.), Cariçin Grad I. Collection de l'École
Française de Rome 75), Belgrade, 147-155.
Xiu, Ouyang and Qi, Song 1975: Xin Tangshu. Beijing.
Xuanzang 1983: Da Tang Xiyue Ji. Taishoo Shinshuu Daizookyoo
51/2087, Taipei.
Yevtyukhova, L.A. 1952: Kamennye izvayaniya Yuzhnoy Sibiri i
Mongolii. Materialy i issledovaniya po arkheologii SSSR 24,
Leningrad.
Yoshida, Y. 1993: Review of: Sims-Williams, N., Sogdian and other
Iranian inscriptions of the Upper Indus I. Indo-Iranian-Journal 36/3,
252-256.
You, Du 1988-1992: Tongdian, 5 Vol. Beijing.
Zadneprovskii, Yu.A. 1967: Tyurkskie pamyatniki v Fergane. Sovetskaya
arkheologiya 1967/1, 270-274.
Zheng, Wei 1973: Suishu. Beijing.
Zhukov, V.A. 1978: Nakhodka drevnetyurkskogo izvayaniya v
Tadzhikistane. Material’naya kul’tura Tadzhikistana 3, 120-121.