THE EARLIEST ATTESTATION OF PAYKAND*

SÖREN STARK
NEW YORK UNIVERSITY

Abstract
The present article argues that the earliest attestation of the city of Paykand in Bukhārān Soghd is to be found in the memoirs
of the ‘Western regions’ of the Beishi and the extant Weishu (both going back to the now lost original ‘Xiyu zhuan’ of
the Weishu). This identification has so far been overlooked due to a scribal error. This earliest mentioning of Paykand goes
in all likelihood back to information gathered by the Northern Wei embassy of the years 436-437, which visited the various
countries of the ‘Western regions’ up to Chāch.
Although the passage in question is relatively short, it nonetheless provides us with important details regarding the urbanization
process in Paykand, the mercantile atmosphere already at this early stage of the development of the city, and the earliest
attestation of rice in Sogdiana. It is quite possible that these details were provided to the Chinese emissaries by an informant
from Bukhārān Sogd.

Keywords
Paykand, Sogdiana, Weishu, rice.

Résumé
Cette contribution soutient que la plus ancienne attestation de la ville de Paykand en Sogdiane boukharienne se trouve
dans les chapitres sur les ‘Territoires d’Occident’ (« Xiyu zhuan ») du Beishi et du Weishu existants (tous deux remontant
à l’original « Xiyu zhuan » du Weishu maintenant perdu). Cette identification a jusqu’à présent été ignorée en raison d’une
erreur de scribe. Cette première mention de Paykand remonte vraisemblablement aux informations recueillies par l’ambassade
des Wei du Nord qui, en 436-437, a visité les différents pays des ‘Territoires d’Occident’ jusqu’à Chāch.
Bien que le passage en question soit relativement court, il nous fournit néanmoins des détails importants concernant le pro-
cessus d’urbanisation à Paykand, l’atmosphère marchande déjà à ce stade initial du développement de la ville, et la première
attestation de riz en Sogdiane. Il est tout à fait possible que ces détails aient été fournis aux émissaires chinois par un infor-
mateur de Sogdiane boukharienne.

Mots-clés
Paykand, Sogdiana, Weishu, riz.

It is well known that Paykand, the famous “city of the
merchants” (al-Ṭabarī, Ta᾿rīkh II, 1186; Ibn Khurdādh-
bih, al-Masālik wa-᾿l-mamālik, 25; Ibn al-Faqīh,
Mukhtaṣar kitāb al-buldān, 325) in Bukhārān Soghd, is
amply attested in Arabic, Persian, and Chinese literature.
*
I am grateful to Yutaka Yoshida for his valuable comments and
suggestions on an earlier draft of this article. Special thanks are also
due to Pasha Lurje for sending me one of his forthcoming articles, to
Aydogdy Kuranvo for sending me a copy of Pilipko’s article from
1980, and to Megumi Fukushima for sending me a copy of Kuwabara’s
pioneering study. As always, all remaining errors and shortcomings are
entirely my own.
Especially Arabic and Persian historiographical and geo-
graphical works offer a wealth of data on Paykand (see
the summary in Бартольд 1963, 169-171). Most of
these attestations refer to the time of the Arab conquest
(starting with the year A.H. 54/A.D. 674: al-Ṭabarī,
Ta᾿rīkh II, 169; al-Balādhurī, Futūḥ, 410) and to the
early Islamic period. By contrast, only a few attestations
seem to mention Paykand in the context of events that
took place prior to the Arab conquest: various passages
in the Firdawsī’s Shāhnāma (Firdawsī, Shāhnāma V,
212, 219, 281; VIII, 269; IX, 794), the Abrūy story in the
Tārīkh-i Bukhārā (Tārīkh-i Bukhārā, 8-9), and a passage
Journal Asiatique 309.1 (2021): 97-105
doi: 10.2143/JA.309.1.3289429
98 SÖREN STARK
in al-Tha῾ālibī’s version of the Bahrām Chūbīn Romance
(al-Tha῾ālibī, Ghurar, 648, 653). However, all of these
early attestations in Arabic and Persian language sources
are of novelistic or outright legendary character, and
some of them – like the Abrūy story – seem to draw from
oral traditions.1 As a result, their historicity is difficult to
ascertain, as they can hardly be called ‘historical’ in a
factual sense.2
* a passage on Bi guo in the ‘Xiyu zhuan’ of the Suishu:
* *
By comparison, attestations of Paykand in Chinese
literary sources are considerably rarer. Most of them refer
to a certain Bi guo 畢國 (MC Pjiet),3 which has long been
identified with Paykand (Tomaschek 1877, 169; Kuwabara
1968, 350-351; Yao 1958, 394; Cai 1998, 74-80).4
In the ‘Xiyu zhuan’ 西域傳 (“Memoir of the Western
regions”) of the Xin Tangshu it is only briefly mentioned
in the context of the general political geography in the
Zarafshān delta:
1
The Abrūy story was not part of Narshakhī’s original History of
Bukhārā, but added (by al-Qubāwī?) from the now lost work Khazā᾿in
al-῾ulūm of a certain Abū ’l-Ḥasan ῾Abd al-Raḥmān b. Muḥammad
al-Nīshāpūrī. A. Naymark suggests that the Abrūy story stems from a
circle of narratives of a local oral history about the origins of Paykand
(Naymark 2001, 277). Unfortunately, we are still missing a truly critical
edition of the Tārīkh-i Bukhārā.
2
The attestations of Paykand in the context of the Jang-i buzurg
between Kay-Khusraw and Afrāsiyāb (including the mentioning of
Farīdūn’s fire-temple – see Semenov 1996, 35) are purely legendary. By
contrast, attestations of Paykand in the context of the supposed battle
between the Persians under Sūfarāy and the Hephthalites under
Khūznawāz, and later in the context of the murder of Yazdgird III at least
refer to historical contexts – though, of course, this does not mean that
they are ‘historical’ in a factual sense. The Abrūy story has been inter-
preted to reflect events that took place either during and after the Heph-
thalite-Türk war around ca. 558 (Markwart 1938, 147-148), during the
Türk civil war in the 580ies (Толстов 1938), or under the role of the
Western Türk Qaghan Tardu (Гумилев 1967, 58) – but all these inter-
pretations remain speculative at best. Finally, only Tha῾ālibī’s version of
the Bahrām Chūbīn Romance makes mention of Paykand as the fortress
into which Barmudha, the son of the Türk Qaghan Shaba, retreated after
his father was killed during the Persian-Türk war of 588-589 (Golden
2016). However, it seems worth noting that Firdawsī calls the same for-
tress ‘Āwāza’, as this word (apparently from Sogd. ’’wz’k – ‘lake’; see
Лурье 2004, 54, 146) reappears in connection with one of the old names
of Lake Karakul in close proximity to Paykand (Ḥudūd al-῾ālam 19:
āwaza-yi Baykand) – see Czeglédy 1958, 31; Maristo 2020, 110.
3
Schuessler 2009, 307 [29-42].
4
W. Tomaschek also suggested identifying Paykand with the city
of Badiyan 拔底延 – the capital of the Hephthalites (Zhoushu 50, 918;
from there also in Beishu 97, 3230 and Weishu 102, 2279; Tomaschek
1877, 105). However, this identification can be safely dismissed: this
Badiyan must have been situated in Tokhāristān (Balkh, Bādghīs, or
the Baghlān plain have been considered as plausible candidates – see
Chavannes 1903, 224; Kuwayama 1989, 128-130; Sims-Williams
2016, 278 n. 32; notes by E. de la Vaissière and F. Grenet in Ching and
Galambos 2020, 49-50). At some point J. Marquart speculated (with
a question mark) whether the country Wudi 戊地, mentioned in Xin
Tangshu 221b, 6243 should be identified with Paykand (Marquart and
de Groot 1915, 253), but this identification needs to be rejected as well
– see Yoshida 2003, 37 n. 4.
安者，一曰布豁又曰捕喝，元魏謂忸蜜者．東北至東
安，西南 至畢，皆百里所．
(The state of) An 安 – some call it also Buhuo 布豁,
others Buhe 捕喝, while the Yuan Wei 元魏 called it
Nuimi 忸蜜. Towards the northeast one arrives at Eastern
An 東安, and towards the southwest one arrives at Bi 畢;
both are (at a distance) of 100 li (from An) (Xin Tangshu
221b, 6245).
Slightly more informative and of an earlier date is
國之西百餘里有畢國，可千餘家．其國無君長，安國
統之．
To the west one reaches the state of Bi after traveling
more than 100 li. There are more than 1,000 households.
The state has no overlord or chief, but is controlled by
the state of An (Suishu 83, 1849; transl. Yu 2014, 734).5
An envoy from Bi is also mentioned within a long list
of envoys from the ‘Western regions’, which were received
at the Sui court on New Year’s Day of 615 (Suishu 4, 88).
Also, the same character Bi was used by Sogdian colonists
from Paykand and their descendants in China as their
surname, though this surname appears relatively late and
remains rare (Yoshida 2008, 333; Saitō 2009, 2113; Rong
2014, 101).
We know that the compilation of the Suishu by Wei
Zheng 魏徵 was completed in 636, which provides a
terminus ante quem for the above-cited Suishu passage
on Paykand. This passage almost surely goes back to
intelligence collected by the envoy Du Xingman 杜行滿
who reached Bukhārā (An guo) at some point after 605
and returned to the Sui court with an envoy from there
in 609 (Suishu 83, 1849).6 At any rate, it is highly
improbable that this piece of information pre-dates the
diplomatic push of the Sui into the ‘Western regions’
under Emperor Yangdi 煬帝 (604-618).7
All this brings us chronologically back to the begin-
ning of the 7th century – so slightly before the Arab
and Persian attestations of Paykand in the context of the
Muslim conquest, and slightly later than some earlier, yet
more ‘legendary’ attestations, such as the Abrūy story
and the Bahrām Chūbīn Romance.
*
* *
There is, however, one earlier attestation of Paykand
in Chinese literature, but as far as I can see it has remained
unnoticed – although the text itself is long known. The
5
See also the recent translation by Huber 2020, 33. This passage
is repeated in verbatim in the An guo section of the ‘Xiyu zhuan’ of
the Beishi (Beishi 97, 3234) – on the ‘Xiyu zhuan’ of the Beishi see
below.
6
Assuming that the envoy received his information directly from
the court in Bukhārā could explain why Paykand is portrayed as but a
dependency of Bukhārā although at least once it sent its own envoys to
the Sui court (Suishu 4, 88 – see above).
7
See in general Yu 2014b.
 THE EARLIEST ATTESTATION OF PAYKAND
passage in question goes back to the original ‘Xiyu zhuan’
of the Weishu (chapter 102), compiled by Wei Shou 魏收
between 551 and 554. This chapter was lost at least since
1041 (when the imperial catalogue Chongwen zongmu
崇文總目 was compiled), but an excerpt of it had been
used (together with excerpts from the Zhoushu and Suishu
Memoirs of the ‘Western regions’) by Li Yanshou
李延壽 for the ‘Xiyu zhuan’ of his Beishi (chapter 97),
completed in 659. Fortunately, Li Yanshou took a rather
additive approach, so that the different parts can be easily
identified. This enabled Liu Shu 劉恕 (1032-1078) and
Fan Zuyu 范祖禹 (1041-1098) to use those parts of the
Beishi ‘Xiyu zhuan’, which were obviously excerpted
from the original Weishu to ‘reconstruct’ the Weishu
‘Xiyu zhuan’ (chapter 102).8 Consequently, the current
text of the Weishu ‘Xiyu zhuan’ represents an early Tang
period excerpt of the original text – and that is why the
passage concerning Paykand is found verbatim both in
chapter 97 of the Beishi and chapter 102 of the Weishu.
Thus, the passage in question is long known – in fact
it has even been repeatedly translated into Russian and
English.9 It reads as follows:
早伽至國，都早伽至城，在忸密西，去代二萬三千七百
二十八里。土平，少田植，取稻麥於隣國，有五果。
The state of Zaojiazhi 早伽至: Its capital is located in the
town of Zaojiazhi to the west of Niumi 忸密, and it is
23,728 li from Dai. The terrain is flat. Because there are
few cultivated fields, they take rice and wheat from
neighboring states. There are the five fruits (Weishu 102,
2273; Beishi 97, 3225; transl. Yu 2014a, 624).
An anchor point for the location of this country
Zaojiazhi and its homonymous capital town is given by
its location relative to Niumi 忸密 (MC ṇjuk-mjet).10
Although the identification with the city of Bukhārā
itself, suggested by ancient and modern commentators,11
is by no means certain,12 there can be no doubt that this
8 18
On the original text of the Weishu ‘Xiyu zhuan’ and its recompi-
lation see Enoki 1955, 45-46; Uchida 1970, 1971, 1972.
9
See for example Бичурин (Иакинф) 1950, II 264; Uchida 1972,
60; Боровкова 2008, 192; Yu 2014a, 624-625.
10
Schuessler 2009, 180 [13-50], 304 [29-41].
11
Cf. the identification by the Song period editors of the Xin Tangshu
(where Niumi is written 忸蜜; see above). As for modern commenta-
tors see, for example, already Tomaschek 1877, 171 and (based on a
somewhat different argumentation) Markwart 1938, 161-163 n. 1.
12
Yu. Yoshida suggested that the toponym Niumi is a miscopied
form of Nami 那密 (MC nâ-mjet after Schuessler 2009, 215 [18-12],
304 [29-41]), which later, in the Suishu, designates the Zarafshān River,
but might originally have stood for Rāmītān – another old capital town
of the oasis (Yoshida 2003, 41 n. 9). However, it is easier to simply
assume that from the very beginning Nami rendered nothing but one of
the original Sogdian names of the Zarafshān, namely *Nāmīk or Nāmīč
(see the Greek calque Πολύτιμητος), as suggested long ago by
W. Tomaschek 1877, 82-83; see now Лурье 2015, 131. Instead of
hypothetically emending Niumi to Nami, the newly discovered and ear-
lier Kultobe inscriptions suggest a connection with the name nwkmytn
(Nōk-mētān – lit. “the New Residence”), for which Niumi (MC ṇjuk-mjet;
LHC ṇuk-mɨt) could well be a fairly close rendering (Sims-Williams
99
country of Niumi must be sought in the region of Bukhārā
in the delta area of the Zarafshān River. This is clear
from three observations. First, it is explicitly stated that
Niumi was situated somewhere to the west of Samarkand
(Beishi 97, 3221; Weishu 102, 2270). Second, Niumi
is mentioned as an anchor point for several itineraries,
so it must have been a sufficiently important region at
an important crossroads. And third – and most impor-
tantly – these itineraries give the location of several iden-
tifiable regions relative to Niumi (see table): to the south
of Niumi was the country Nuoseboluo 諾色波羅 (MC
Nâk-ṣjək-pwâ-lâ)13, which is clearly Nakhshab; to the
southwest was the country Mouzhi 牟知 (MC Mjəu-tje),14
to be identified with Āmul/Āmūya, Sogdian *Āmuδ;15
to the west was the country Bosi 波斯 (MC Pwâ-sje)16,
obviously Sāsānian Ērānshahr beginning in Marw;17 and
also to west was the country Afu-Taihan 阿弗太汗 (MC
ʔÂ-pjwət-Tʰâi-ɣân)18 – apparently the oasis of Darghān
along the Amū-daryā between Āmul/Āmūya and the
oasis of Khwārizm (the latter being mentioned as Husimi
呼似密 / MC Xuo-zɨ-mjet19 beyond Afu-Taihan). All of
the above fits only with the Bukhārā region (see map).
and Grenet 2006, 101; Sims-Williams forthcoming). N. Sims-Williams
suggests a connection with *Nūmijkath, Nūmushkath, etc. – the name
of a city in the Bukhārā oasis (as a shortening of *Nō(k)-mē(θan)-č–
ka(n)θ “the city of Nōk-mētan” – see Sims-Williams and Grenet 2006,
110 n. 35). At any rate, from the content of the Kultobe inscriptions
it appears that this Nōk-mēthan was a major Sogdian principality, on
a par with Samarqand, Nakhshab, and Kesh – which speaks for its
localization in the only remaining metropolitan region of Sogdiana:
the Bukhārā oasis.
13
Schuessler 2009, 71 [2-30], 112 [5-31], 215 [18-10], 217 [18-16].
14
Schuessler 2009, 124 [7-13], 184 [13-77].
15
On this identification as well as the reconstruction of the Sogdi-
ana form see Lurje forthcoming. An early, though abbreviated attesta-
tion of this toponym also appears on coins struck in Āmul/Āmūya in
the 5th century – see Schindel 2006, 682-683; Shavarebi 2019.
16
Schuessler 2009, 127 [7-26], 217 [18-16].
17
See in detail Thierry 2007.
Schuessler 2009, 211 [18-1], 233 [21-12], 251 [24-1], 307 [30-14].
Today Dargan-ata in Turkmenistan. On the name see Лурье 2004, 69.
According to Muqaddasī, Darghān was “the biggest town in the area after
al-Jurjānīyya. It has a beautiful mosque, without compare in the area,
magnificently decorated with precious stones. Important, riverine, this
town has five hundred celebrated vineyards, and the site of the vineyards
stretches for two farsakhs along the shore; it produces raisins”
(al-Muqaddasī, Aḥsan al-taqāsīm, 289; transl. Collins 2001, 256). During
this period, it was considered to be the southernmost town of Khwārazm,
in ‘Khwārazmian’ Khurāsān, as it was on the left bank of the Amū and
about a three-day’s journey south from the main oasis of Khwārazm,
which began at Hazārasp (al-Iṣṭakhrī, al-Masālik wa-᾿l-mamālik, 189).
Note that the main route from Bukhārā to Darghān and further on to
Khwārazm first runs roughly westwards through the Kyzyl-kum desert
before it hits the Amū-daryā and turns northwestwards. Medieval Darghān
has been identified with Kunya-kala (Old Dargan), ca. 6 km to the south-
east of present-day Dargan-ata (Массон 1966, 217-232; Пилипко 1980,
79-80; Бурханов 2015, 178-179). Perhaps, Darghān is this “one of the
towns in Khorāsān beyond which Khwārazm begins” where the “kings
of Khorāsān” (i.e. Soghd and Khwārazm) used to gather and to settle
disputes between each other (al-Ṭabarī, Ta᾿rīkh II 394).
19
Schuessler 2009, 49 [1-17], 98 [4-30], 304 [29-41].
100 SÖREN STARK

Name of the Country Identification Distance and Direction from Niumi

Nuoseboluo 諾色波羅 (MC Nâk-ṣjək-pwâ-lâ) Nakhshab 600 li to the south
Mouzhi 牟知 (MC Mjəu-tje) Āmul/Āmūya (Sogd. *Āmuδ) 92 li to the southwest
Bosi 波斯 (MC Pwâ-sje) Sāsānian Ērānshahr 1400 li to the west
Afu-Taihan 阿弗太汗 (MC ʔÂ-pjwət-Tʰâi-ɣân) Darghān 892 li to west
Husimi 呼似密 (MC Xuo-zɨ-mjet) Khwārazm 1892 li to the west (via Afu-Taihan)
Zaojiazhi 早伽至; emend to Bijiazhi 畢伽至
Paykand 900 li to the west
(MC Pjiet-ga-tśi) or Beijiazhi 卑伽至 (MC Pije-ga-tśi)
Table: Countries relative to Niumi (Weishu 102, 2270-2273; Beishi 97, 3222-3225)

Consequently, there can be no doubt that the country/
town of Zaojiazhi 早伽至 must be sought somewhere in
the neighborhood of Bukhārān Soghd. But as this topo-
nym does not seem to fit readily with any known topo-
nym in this area, previous scholarship either left it unex-
plained, or sought to place it somewhere in the Kara-kum
desert (Uchida 1972, 60; Yu 2014a, 625). The latter is
apparently based on the directions and distances given in
the text – yet this is simply impossible, as we know of no
such mysterious country in the middle of the Kara-kum
Desert.
Upon closer inspection, however, one notices that the
initial character zao 早 is very close to the character bi 畢
– the same character with which Paykand was designated
 THE EARLIEST ATTESTATION OF PAYKAND
beginning in the Sui period. Indeed, the form Bijiazhi
畢伽至 of this toponym is actually attested in the Cefu
Yuangui (Cefu Yuangui 958, 11276).20 In addition, a close
variant is attested in the Taiping Yulan (Taiping Yulan
797, 3540) as Beijiazhi 卑伽至. Judging from their Middle
Chinese pronunciations, both forms – MC Pjiet-ga-tśi 21
for Bijiazhi 畢伽至 and MC Pije-ga-tśi22 for Beijiazhi
卑伽至 – turn out to be fairly close renderings of the
well-known toponym Paykand. Thus, in all likelihood,
the enigmatic Zaojiazhi 早伽至 is nothing but a distorted
rendering of Paykand. Unfortunately, the Sogdian form of
the toponym is not securely attested, so it is difficult to
know which of the two variants is closer to the underlying
Sogdian original.23
It is true that both variants are attested in relatively
late sources,24 while the form Zaojiazhi appears already
in Beishi 97.25 However, we only hear about the loss of
the Weishu chapters in 1041 (see above). Thus, it is quite
possible that the editors of the Taiping Yulan or the Cefu
Yuangui still had some parts of the original chapter 102
of the Weishu (or perhaps some derivative) at their
disposal.
At first glance, our interpretation seems to be contra-
dicted by the direction and the distance describing the
location this country Zaojiazhi / Bijiazhi / Beijiazhi:
namely 900 li 里26 (ca. 450 km) to the west of Niumi 忸密
20
Already noticed by Uchida 1972, 60 who, however, did not see
the connection with Paykand (see below).
21
Schuessler 2009, 307 [29-42], 212 [18-4], 299 [29-15].
22
Schuessler 2009, 127 [7-29], 212 [18-4], 299 [29-15].
23
V. A. Livshits and P. B. Lurje suggested an original pt-knδ based
on the reading of the Sogdian legend on a type of Chinese cash coins
with Bukhārān tamgha and on the Middle Chinese pronunciation of the
character Bi 畢 – MC Pjiet (Лившиц and Луконин 1964, 167 n. 91;
Lurje 2003, 189; see already Markwart 1938, 163 n. 1). At first glance,
this seems to favor the variant Bijiazhi 畢伽至 from Cefu Yuangui.
However, better-preserved examples of the legend on the same type
of coins (see for example www.zeno.ru nos. 8178, 13748, 20199, 31594,
60328, 63496, 175722, 253076, 253077 253083, 256207, 253215,
261941, 262380; Торгоев and Мирзаахмедов 2008, fig. 103/3;
Мирзаахмедов and Омельченко 2018, fig. 129/17) rather support the
reading prn-knδ as suggested by A. Naymark (Naymark 2001, 225). In
addition, the Middle Chinese pronunciation of the character bi 畢 might
carry less weight, because most of the Sui-Tang period Sogdian country
names were apparently based on existing Chinese surnames which were
somewhat comparable with (one syllable of) the original country name
(and not the other way round) – as convincingly argued by T. Saitō (Saitō
斉藤 2009). Thus, it is equally possible that the variant Beijiazhi 卑伽
至 from Taiping Yulan represents the original form, given the fact that
the Taiping Yulan is about a generation older then the Cefu Yuangui.
24
On the compilation history of the Taiping Yulan and the Cefu
Yuangui see Kurz 2007.
25
Perhaps the distortion of the original toponym to Zaojiazhi hap-
pened when the content of the original Weishu 102 content was
excerpted for the compilation of Beishi 97.
26
This number results from the difference between Zaojiazhi /
Bijiazhi / Beijiazhi’s distance from Dai (23,728 li) and Niumi’s distance
from Dai (22,828 li).
101
(i.e. Bukhārā or Rāmītān) – while Paykand is situated
ca. 42 km to the southwest of Bukhārā. But as for the
direction, this actually corresponds with what is said
about the location of Paykand in Suishu 83, namely that
it is located to the west of Bukhārā (see above). And as
for the distance, one needs to keep in mind that the dis-
tances given in Beishi 97 and Weishu 102 for the various
principalities in Sogdiana are hopelessly inconsistent and
impossible to reconcile with a modern map. Perhaps they
go back to different layers of information (see below)
and there was always plenty of room for errors and mis-
understandings27 – not to speak of errors caused by later
editors and copyist.
There can be no doubt that the passage in question
goes back to the original Weishu, because the distance to
China is given relative to Dai 代 – the inner royal domain
of the Wei Dynasty with the capital Pingcheng 平城
at its center (Pearce 1994). More difficult to answer is the
question of the original source of information for this
passage. In fact, we might deal here with two layers of
information. The first one probably belongs to the report
of the Northern Wei envoy Dong Wan 董琬. We know
that Dong Wan himself travelled as far west as Ferghāna,
from where he sent his assistant Gao Ming 高明 further
on to Chāch (Beishi 97, 3206; Weishu 102, 2260).28 Most
likely, most of the information about Paykand was gath-
ered by Gao Ming during his sojourn in Chāch. This
must have happened at some point in 437.29
However, there might be a ‘second’ layer of informa-
tion: as mentioned above, the passage in question refers
not only to the distance to Dai, but also to Niumi – as is
the case with a number of other localities, namely Bosi
波斯 (Ērānshahr), Mouzhi (Āmul/Āmūya), Afu-Taihan
阿弗太汗 (Darghān), and Nuoseboluo (Nakhshab). Inter-
estingly, for these localities, as well as Niumi itself, the
number of li for the distance from Dai is almost double
that for other localities in Sogdiana.30 It is therefore
27
Chinese authors sometimes seem to have misunderstood local
units of measurement as li 里 (Marshak 2002).
28
From the rubbing of a Northern Qi 北齊 stele, dating to the year
570 we also know of a certain Liu Jie 劉桀 who was supposedly sent
as Northern Wei envoy to Samarqand Soghd (Sute 粟特) in 435 (Yan
顏 2008, 234-235). However, this information is problematic and finds
no corroboration in the official histories. Perhaps this Liu Jie (who is
not mentioned in any other extant source) was simply a member of
Dong’s embassy which left China only one year later (see below). As
for Sute 粟特 – this might stand here simply for ‘Greater Sogdiana’
(including Chāch).
29
As shown by Yu ²2013, 282-283, Dong and Gao left Pingcheng
in September 436 and returned with envoys from Chāch (Zheshe 者舌),
Farghāna (Poluona 破洛那), Wusun 烏孫, and other states in December
437.
30
‘Bukhārā itinerary’: Niumi = 22,828 li; Mouzhi = 22,920 li;
Nuoseboluo = 23,428 li; Afu-Taihan = 23,720 li; Zaojiazhi / Bijiazhi /
Beijiazh = 23,728 li; Bosi = 24,228 li. Compare to the ‘Samarqand
itinerary’: Xiwanjin 悉萬斤 (Samarqand) = 12,720 li; Jiabudan 伽不單
102
likely that these numbers come from a different itinerary,
using a different unit of measurement (misunderstood
by the Chinese as li) – one might call it the ‘Bukhārā
itinerary’ as opposed to the ‘Samarqand itinerary’ (see
map). In principle it is possible that these numbers come
from an entirely different source, such as an embassy
from Niumi. However, the only embassy from Niumi
mentioned in the Weishu (Weishu 8, 207) was received
at the Northern Wei court only during the first month of
the second year yongping 永平 (February or early March
509), that is 15 years after the court had been moved
from Dai to Luoyang. Yet, the distances of the ‘Bukhārā
itinerary’ are still given relative to Dai, so this informa-
tion must have been gathered before 494. Considering
this and the uniformity with which the information about
the various Sogdian principalities is presented in the
extant Beishi 97 / Weishu 102 it seems more likely that
the entirety of the Paykand passage stems from the envoy
report of 437, but that it is based on an informant from
Bukhārān Soghd.
Thus, this earliest and clearly historical attestation of
Paykand is about 170 years older than the information
found in the Suishu, and close to 240 years older than the
earliest attestations of Paykand in the context of the Arab
conquest.
* Kashka-daryā and in the Samarqand region and that its
* *
Being the earliest clearly historical attestation of
Paykand lends particular historical interest to this passage.
And although it is rather brief, it nonetheless contains
several important details.
First of all, the passage provides us with a terminus ante
quem for the formation of Paykand as a real city. As shown
by four decades of archeological investigation, the growth
of Paykand into a city started during the fifth century or
slightly earlier (Омельченко 2017, 779).31 The fact that in
this short passage Paykand is explicitly called a “city”
(cheng 城) suggests that by 437 the process of urbanization
was already well on its way. By contrast to what Suishu 83
says about Paykand some 170 years later, there is nothing
in this passage to suggest that there was any dependency
of Paykand from Bukhārā. It appears on a par with all the
other Sogdian principalities.
Second, one of the few details specifically mentioned in
this short passage is the scarcity of fields and agricultural
produce in this principality, which stands in stark contrast
to what we read in the same source about many other
(Kabūdhanjakath) = 12,780 li; Jiaseni 伽色尼 (Kesh) = 12,900;
Sezhixian 色知顯 (Ishtīkhan) = 12,940 li.
31
See also the comprehensive excavation reports, appearing since
1999 on an annual or biannual basis: Материалы Бухарской
Археологической Экспедиции. Выпуски I-XIV (Санкт-Петербург
1999-2018).
SÖREN STARK
Sogdian principalities.32 Interestingly, this information cor-
responds exactly with Iṣṭakhrī’s statement that in
Mawarannahr “each (town with a) minbar (i.e. a Friday
mosque) has villages and farms, except Paykand, for it is
alone” (al-Iṣṭakhrī al-Masālik wa-’l-mamālik, 175).
Indeed, the agricultural hinterland of Paykand, watered by
the Kyz-aryk, was comparatively small – totaling only
between 400 and 1,100 ha (Наймарк 1992, 175-176). As
argued by Naymark, the basis for the unprecedented
growth of Paykand into a city was trade, resulting from
Paykand’s location in a contact zone with nomads and on
an important crossroads between Marw and Samarqand,
and between Khwarīzm (via Amdīza) and Nakhshab (via
Kum-sovtan) (Наймарк 1992, 175-176). This mercantile
atmosphere is hinted at in this passage, as it mentions
wheat and rice being brought in from neighboring regions,
suggesting that there must have been a lively and substan-
tial caravan trade.
Finally, one of these agricultural products transported
to Paykand deserves special attention: rice. In fact, this is
the earliest attestation of rice in Sogdiana. The Beishi 97/
Weishu 102 mentions rice, or more precisely its cultivation,
also in Nakhshab/Nuoseboluo and in Kabūdhanjakath/
Jiabudan (Weishu 102, 2273; Beishi 97, 3225). This means
that by 437, rice was cultivated at least in the lower
consumption was apparently well enough established to
warrant its transport between micro-regions.33 Given that
there was a direct route from Paykand to Nakhshab (namely
via Kum-sovtan) it is quite possible that the rice consumed
at Paykand was imported from the lower Kashka-darya.
To summarize, this short passage on Paykand, pre-
served in Beishi 97 and Weishu 102, is not only the oldest
attestation of this important Sogdian city, it also contains
a number of interesting details suggesting that by 437
Paykand was a thriving trading town. Interestingly, some
of this information – namely the lack of a sizeable
32
Ishtikhan (Sezhixian): “there is an abundance of the five fruits”;
Kesh (Jiaseni): “there is an abundance of the five fruits (i.e. peach, plum,
apricot, chestnut, and date)”; Nakhshab (Nuoseboluo): “the
terrain is … suitable for rice and wheat; there is an abundance of the five
fruits”; Kabūdhanjakath (Jiabudan): “the land is flat and suitable for rice
and wheat; there are the five fruits” (transl. Yu 2014a, 621, 624-625).
33
Outside of Sogdiana rice is earlier attested both in Farghāna
(Shiji 123, 3160; Gorbunova 1986, 176) and in Bactria (Strabo XV, 1,
18 = Aristobulus, FGrHist 139 F 35; Chen et al. 2020). Reported finds
of rice from old Marw (Массон 1963) have recently been cast into
doubt (Nesbitt, Simpson, and Svanberg 2010). See in general Spengler
et al. in review. The consumption of rice at Paykand is now well
attested for the Qarakhanid period: (Mir-Makhamad et al. in review).
It remains unclear if this agricultural innovation reached Sogdiana from
the east or from the south – although the fact that rice is mentioned in
various micro-regions in Sogdiana, but not in Chāch (Zheshe 者舌),
might rather hint at an introduction from the south. There are more
indications suggesting the movement of entire communities from Bactria
into Sogdiana during the 4th–5th centuries (Stark in preparation).
 THE EARLIEST ATTESTATION OF PAYKAND
agricultural hinterland – turns out to be a surprisingly accu-
rate description of specific local conditions that closely
corresponds with what later, 10th century sources tell us
about Paykand. Far from being a generic description, this
passage, as well as the other passages of the ‘Bukhārā
itinerary’ of the original Weishu ‘Xiyu zhuan’, might well
go back to an eyewitness account, likely gathered by Gao
Ming in Chāch.
Literature
al-Balādhurī, Futūḥ al-Buldān, ed. M. J. de Goeje as Liber
expugnationis regionum (Leiden: Brill, 1866).
Beishi 北史, by Li Yanshou 李延壽 (Beijing: Zhonghua shuju,
1974).
Cai Hongsheng 蔡鸿生 1998: Tangdai Jiuxing Hu yu Tujue
wenhua 唐代九姓胡与突厥文化 (Beijing: Zhonghua shuju).
Cefu Yuangui 冊府元龜 by Wang Qinruo 王欽若 et al.
(Beijing: Zhonghua shuju, 1960).
Chavannes, E. 1903: Documents sur les Tou-kiue (Turcs) occi-
dentaux (= Сборникъ трудовъ Oрхонской экспедиціи 6)
(Санкт-Петербургъ: Типографiя Императоркой
Академiи Наукъ).
Chen, G.; Zhou, X.; Wang, J. et al. 2020: “Kushan Period rice
in the Amu Darya Basin: Evidence for prehistoric exchange
along the southern Himalaya”, Science China Earth Sciences
63: 841–851.
Ching, C. and Galambos, I. 2020: “Chinese Sources”, in
Hunnic Peoples in Central and South Asia. Sources for
their origin and history, ed. D. Balogh (Groningen:
Barkhuis Publishing/Groningen University Library), 2–112.
Collins, B. A. 2001: The Best Divisions for Knowledge of
the Regions: a translation of Ahsan al-Taqasim fi Ma῾rifat
al-Aqalim (Reading: Garnet).
Czeglédy, K. 1958: “Bahrām Čōbīn and the Persian Apocalyptic
Literature”, Acta Orientalia Academiae Scientiarum Hunga-
ricae 8: 21–43.
Enoki, K. 1955: “Sogdiana and the Hsiung-nu”, Central Asiatic
Journal 1: 3–62.
Firdawsī, Shāhnāmah, ed. Bertel’s et al. (= Фирдоусӣ, Шāх-
нāме. Критический текст. Томы I-IX. Под редакцией Е.
Э. Бертельса et al., Москва: Издательство восточной
литературы, 1960-1971).
Golden, P. B. 2016: “The Great King of the Türks”, Turkic
Languages 20: 26–59.
Gorbunova, N. V. 1986: The Culture of Ancient Ferghana.
VI century B.C. - VI century A.D (= BAR International Series
Oxford 281) (Oxford: British Archaeological Reports).
Huber, M. 2020: Lives of Sogdians in Medieval China (= Asia-
tische Forschungen 160) (Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz).
Ibn al-Faqīh, Mukhtaṣar kitāb al-buldān, ed. M. J. de Goeje
as Compendium libri Kitāb Al-Boldān (= Bibliotheca Geo-
graphorum Arabicorum 5) (Leiden: Brill, 1885).
Ibn Khurdādhbih, Al-Masālik wa-᾿l-mamālik, ed. M. J. de Goeje
as Liber Viarum et Regnorum (= Bibliotheca Geographorum
Arabicorum 6) (Leiden: Brill, 1889).
al-Iṣṭakhrī, Al-Masālik wa-᾿l-mamālik, ed. al-Ḥīnī (Cairo: Dār
al-qalam, 1961).
103
Kurz, J. L. 2007: “The Compilation and Publication of the
Taiping yulan and the Cefu yuangui”, Extrême-Orient,
Extrême-Occident 1: 39–76.
Kuwabara Jitsuzō 桑原隲藏 1926: “Zui Tō jidai ni Shina ni
raijū shita Saiikijin ni tsuite 隋唐時代に支那に来住した西
域人に就いて”, in Naitō hakushi kanreki shukuga shinagaku
ronsō 内藤博士還暦祝賀支那学論叢 (Kyoto: Kōbundo
shobō), 565–660.
Kuwayama, S. 1989: “The Hephthalites in Tokharistan and
Gandhara”, Zinbun 4: 89–134.
Lurje, P. B. 2003: “The Element of -kaθ/-kand in the Place-
Names of Transoxania”, Studia Iranica 32: 185–212.
— forthcoming: “Cisoxanian Cantons of Sogdiana”, in
Festschrift for Ja’fari Dehaghi.
Maristo, J. 2020: Bahrām Čūbīn in Early Arabic and Persian
Historiography – Why so many stories? (PhD Thesis Uni-
versity of Helsinki) (Helsinki: Unigrafia).
Markwart, J. 1938: Wehrot und Arang. Untersuchungen zur
mythischen und geschichtlichen Landeskunde von Ostiran
(Leiden: Brill).
Marquart, J. and de Groot, J. J. M. 1915: “Das Reich Zābul
und der Gott Žūn vom 6.-9. Jahrhundert”, in Festschrift
Eduard Sachau. Zum siebzigsten Geburtstage gewidmet von
Freunden und Schülern, ed. G. Weil (Berlin: Georg Reimer),
248–292.
Marschak, B. I. 2002: “Panjikant”, Encyclopaedia Iranica,
online edition, available at https://iranicaonline.org/articles/
panjikant (accessed 1 October 2020).
Mir-Makhamad, B.; Mirzaakhmedov, S.; Rahmonov, H. et al.
in review: “Archaeobotanical research in Paykend: entrepôt
city during the Qarakhanid reign”, Vegetation History and
Archaeobotany.
al-Muqaddasī, Aḥsan al-taqāsīm fī ma῾rīfat al-aqālīm, ed.
M. J. de Goeje as Descriptio Imperii Moslemici (= Biblio-
theca Geographorum Arabicorum 3) (Leiden: Brill, 1877).
Naymark, A. 2001: Sogdiana, its Christians and Byzantium.
A study of artistic and cultural connections in Late Antiquity
and Early Middle Ages (PhD Thesis Indiana University)
(Bloomington).
Nesbitt, M.; Simpson, S. J.; and Svanberg, I. 2010: “History
of Rice in Western and Central Asia”, in Rice. Origin,
Antiquity and History, ed. S. D. Sharma (Boca Raton, FL:
CRC Press), 308–340.
Pearce, S. 1994: “The Land of Tai: The origins, evolution and
historical significance of a community of the Inner Asian
frontier”, Opscula Altaica: Essays Presented in Honor of
Henry Schwarz, eds. E. H. Kaplan, and D. W. Whisenhunt
(Bellingham: W. Washington), 465–498.
Rong Xinjiang 荣新江 2014: Zhonggu Zhongguo yu Sute
wenming 中古中国与粟特文明 (Beijing: Sanlian Shudian).
Saitō Tatuya 斉藤達也 2009: “Hokuchō zui tō shiryō ni mieru
sogudo sei no seiritsu ni tsuite 北朝・隋唐史料に見えるソ
グド姓の成立について”, Shigaku zasshite 史学雑誌 118:
2106–2131.
Schindel, N. 2006: “The Sasanian Eastern Wars in the 5th Century:
the Numismatic evidence”, in Proceedings of the 5th Conference
of the Societas Iranologica Europaea, held in Ravenna, 6-11
October 2003. Volume 1: Ancient and Middle Iranian Studies,
eds. A. Panaino, and A. Piras (Milano: Mimesis), 675–690.
104 SÖREN STARK
Schuessler, A. 2009: Minimal Old Chinese and later Han Chinese.
A companion to Grammata serica recensa (Honolulu: Univer-
sity of Hawai’i Press).
Semenov, G. L. 1996: Studien zur sogdischen Kultur an der
Seidenstraße (= Studies in Oriental Religions 36) (Wies-
baden: Harrassowitz).
Shavarebi, E. 2019: “Āmul/Āmū(ye): die nordöstlichste Münz-
stätte des Sasanidenreiches im 5. Jahrhundert n. Chr.”, in
Sammlungen und Sammler. Tagungsband zum 8. Österrei-
chischen Numismatikertag, ed. M. Stermitz (Klagenfurt:
Landesmuseum für Kärnten), 173–179.
Shiji 史記 by Sima Qian 司馬遷 (Beijing: Zhonghua shuju,
1959).
Sims-Williams, N. 2016: “Bactria – Balkh: Variations on a Place-
Name”, in Études de Linguistique Iranienne. In Memoriam
Xavier Tremblay (= Acta Iranica 57), ed. É. Pirart. (Leuven/
Paris/ Bristol: Peeters), 273–281.
— forthcoming: “The proto-Sogdian inscriptions of Kultobe:
New fragments and new reconstructions”, in Iran and
Central Asia in the First Millenium: Continuity and Change
from the Pre-Islamic to the Islamic Period, eds. D. G. Tor,
and M. Inaba. Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame Press.
Sims-Williams, N. and Grenet, F. 2006: “The Sogdian Inscrip-
tions of Kultobe”, Shygys 2006/1: 95–111.
Spengler, R. N. I.; Zhou, X.; Stark, S. et al. in review: “Rice:
A journey to the west”. Rice.
Strabo, ed. S. Radt as Strabons Geographika, Band 4: Buch
XIV-XVII. Text und Übersetzung (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck
& Ruprecht, 2005).
Suishu 隋書 by Wei Zheng 魏徵 et al. (Beijing: Zhonghua
shuju, 1973).
Taiping Yulan 太平御覽 by Li Fang 李昉 et al. (Beijing: Zhon-
ghua shuju, 1960).
Tārīkh-i Bukhārā, ed. M. Riḍawī (Tehran: Intishārāt-i Ṭūs,
²1984).
al-Tha῾ālibī, Ghurar akhbār mulūk al-furs wa-siyarihim, ed.
and transl. H. Zotenberg as Histoire des rois des Perses, par
Aboû Mansoûr ῾Abd al-Malik Ibn Moḥammad Ibn Ismā῾īl
Al-Tha῾âlibî (Paris: Imprimerie nationale, 1900).
Thierry, F. 2007: “À propos des monographies du Weishu
(554) et du Beishi (659) sur le royaume de Perse”, in Des
Indo-Grecs aux Sassanides. Données pour l’histoire et la
géographie historique, ed. R. Gyselen (= Res Orientales 17)
(Bures-sur-Yvette: GECMO), 141–157.
Tomaschek, W. 1877: “Centralasiatische Studien I: Sogdiana”,
in Sitzungsberichte der kaiserlichen Akademie der Wissen-
schaften, phil-hist. Classe. LXXXVII. Band I. Heft (Wien:
Karl Gerold’s Sohn), 67–184.
Uchida Gimpū 内田吟風 1970: “Gisho saiiki den genbun
kōshaku (jō) 魏書 域傳原文考釋 (上),” Tōyōshi kenkyū
東洋史研究 29: 83–106.
— 1971: “Gisho saiiki den genbun kōshaku (chū) 魏書⻄域傳
原文考釋 (中)”, Tōyōshi kenkyū 東洋史研究 30: 82–101.
— 1972: “Gisho saiiki den genbun kōshaku (ge) 魏書⻄域傳
原文考釋 (下)”, Tōyōshi kenkyū 東洋史研究 31: 58–72.
Weishu 魏書 by Wei Shou 魏收 (Beijing: Zhonghuia shuju,
1974).
Xin Tangshu 新唐書 by Ouyang Xiu 歐陽修 et al. (Beijing:
Zhonghua shuju, 1975).
Yan Juanying 顏娟英 2008: Beichao fu jiao shike tapian bai
pin 北朝佛敎石刻拓片百品 (Taipei: Zhongyang yanjiu
yuan lishi yuyan yanjiu suo).
Yao Weiyuan 姚薇元 1958: Beichao hu xing kao 北朝胡姓考
(Beijing: Kexue chubanshe).
Yoshida, Y. 2003: “On the Origin of the Sogdian Surname
Zhaowu 昭武 and Related Problems”, Journal Asiatique
291: 35–67.
— 2008: “Die buddhistischen sogdischen Texte in der Berliner
Turfansammlung und die Herkunft des buddhistischen
sogdischen Wortes für Bodhisattva”, Acta Orientalia Aca-
demiae Scientiarum Hungaricae 61: 325–358.
Yu, T. ²2013: A History of the Relationship between the
Western & Eastern Han, Wei, Jin, Northern & Southern
Dynasties and the Western Regions (= Sino-Platonic
Papers 131) (Philadelphia, PA: Department of East Asian
Languages and Civilizations).
— 2014a: A Concise Commentary on Memoirs on the Western
Regions in the Official Histories of the Western and Eastern
Han, Wei, Jin, and Southern and Northern Dynasties (Beijing:
The Commercial Press).
— 2014b: The Sui Dynasty and the Western Regions
(= Sino-Platonic Papers 246) (Philadelphia, PA: Department
of East Asian Languages and Civilizations).
Zhoushu 周書 by Linghu Defen 令狐德芬 (Beijing: Zhonghua
shutu, 1971).
Бартольд, В. В. 1963: Туркестан в эпоху монгольского
нашествия (=Сочинения 1) (Москва: Наука).
Бичурин (Иакинф), Н. Я. 1950: Собрание сведений о
народах, обитавших в Средней Азии в древние времена.
Том II (Москва/Ленинград: Издательство АН СССР).
Боровкова, Л. А. 2008: Народы Средней Азии III–VI веков
(по древним китайским и западным источникам)
(Москва: Институт востоковедения РАН).
Бурханов, A. A. 2015: “Города и поселения Дарганского
оазиса левобережья Амударьи в системе древних и
средневековых торгово-караванных путей (по мате-
риалам археологических исследований в Лебапском
велаяте Туркменистана)”, Вестник Новосибирского
Государственного Университета Серия: История,
Филология 14/7: 172–183.
Лившиц, В. А. and Луконин, В. Г. 1964: “Среднеперсид-
ские и согдийский надписи на серебряных сосудах”,
Вестник древней истории 1964/3: 155–176.
Лурье, П. Б. 2004: Историко-лингуистический аналыз
Согдийской топономии (диссертация на соискание уче-
ной степени кандидата филологических наук)
(Санкт-Петербург).
— 2015: “Топонимические данные о бухарском диа-
лекте согдийского языка”, in Бухарский оазис и его
соседи в древности и средневековье, eds. А. В. Омель-
ченко, and Д. К. Мирзаахмедов (Санкт-Петербург:
Издательство Государственного Эрмитажа),
127–142.
Массон, М. Е. 1963: “К вопросу об истории появления
культуры риса в странах Среднего Востока”, in Архе-
ология Средней Азии VI, ed. M. E. Массон (Ташкент:
ТГУ), 28–38.
 THE EARLIEST ATTESTATION OF PAYKAND
— 1966: Средневековые торговые пути из Мерва в Хорезм
и в Мавераннахр (в пределах Туркменской ССР)
(= Труды Южно-Туркменской археологической ком-
плексной экспедиции 13) (Ашхабад: Туркменистан).
Материалы Бухарской Археологической Экспедиции.
Выпуски I-XIV (Санкт-Петербург: Издательство Госу-
дарственного Эрмитажа, 1999-2018).
Мирзаахмедов, Д. К. and Омельченко, А. В. (eds.) 2018:
Отчет о раскопках в Пайкенте в 2015-2016 гг.
(= Материалы Бухарской археологической экспедиции
14) (Санкт-Петербург: Издательство Государствен-
ного Эрмитажа).
Наймарк, A. И. 1992: “Географический фактор в исто-
рии Пайкенда”, in Социально-пространственные
струкуры в стадиальной характеристике культур-
но-осторического процесса. Тезисы Межрегиональной
конференции (Москва: Институт археологии РАН),
175–177.
105
Омельченко, А. В. 2017: “Археологические исследова-
ния Пайкенда (бухарский оазис): к истории сложения
согдийского города”, in V (XXI) Всероссийский
археологический съезд. Сборник научных трудов, eds.
А. П. Деревянко, and A. A. Тишкин (Барнаул: ФГБОУ
ВО «Алтайский государственный университет»),
779–780.
Пилипко, В. Н. 1980: “Средневековые памятники север-
ной части Чарджоуской области (новые данные)”,
in Новые исследования по археологии Туркменистана,
ed. В. М. Массон (Ашхабад: Ылым), 70–97.
Толстов, С. П. 1938: “Тирания Абруя (из истории
классовой борьбы в Согдиане и тюркском каганате в
второй половине VI в. н.э.)”, Исторические запиский
3: 3–53.
Торгоев, А. И. and Мирзаахмедов, Д. К. (eds.) 2008:
Отчет о раскопках в Пайкенде в 2007 году (= Мате-
риалы Бухарской археологической экспедиции 9)
(Санкт-Петербург: Издательство Государственного
Эрмитажа).