Aleksandr Naymark (Hofstra University, New York)

 

The Varakhsha Palace in Light of the New Chronology of the Bukharkhuda Dynasty

 

(Egy ez év márc. 28--29-én megrendezett szümpózium programlistáján a város nevét B-vel írták, ami csak literálás kérdése)

 

 

The Tarikh-i Bukhara tells us that the beauty of the Varakhsha palace “became proverbial” and that originally it “was built by a Bukhar Khudah over a thousand years ago. This palace had been destroyed and abandoned for many years until Khnk Khud~h restored it. It again fell into ruins and Bukh~r Khud~h Buny~t b. Tughsh~da once more rebuilt it in the time of Islam and held his court there until he was murdered in it [Narshakhi-Frye, 17].” The first personage of this account, Khunak Khuda, appears in another passage of the Tarikh-i Bukhara as one of the leaders of the anti-Arab coalition in 88 H/707 CE (Narshakhi-Frye, 45). Describing the same events, Ya’qubi calls him Abu Shukr Khnk the Bukhar Khuda (Yaqubi-Houtsma, 342). Tabari mentions his son, Shukr b. Khnk, under 722 CE (Tabari-De Goeje, II, 1447). We know his silver coins with inscriptions pwxr xwb xwnk and pwxr xrn xwb xwnk (Naymark 2001). It is more than likely that Khunak the Bukhar Khuda is identical with the Vardan Khuda (ruler of Vardana) who usurped the Bukharan throne between 689 and 709 CE (Naymark 2002). Our information about the second personage mentioned in the history of the Varakhsha palace, Bukhar Khuda Buniyat b. Toghshada, is limited to the two passages in the Tarikh-i Bukhara recording the succession of Bukharan rulers. The first of these passages is likely to be a later interpolation and contains chronological mistakes, contradictions, and inconsistencies (Narshakhi-Frye, 8-9). The second of these passages on the contrary bears no evident traces of later distortions. It repeats twice that Buniyat b. Toghshada directly replaced his brother, Qutaiba b. Toghshada, who was killed by Abu Muslim in Varakhsha around 753 CE (Narshakhi-Frye, 10-11). This means that Buniyat “ruled” for almost 30 years, for both of these passages of the Tarikh-i Bukhara agree that he was murdered in Varakhsha palace in 166 H/782-3 CE on the order of Caliph al-Mahdi who suspected he was sympathetic to Muqanna’s revolt.

 

The history of the Varakhsha palace as presented in the Tarikh-i Bukhara remains the only description of a Sogdian building that can be juxtaposed with the actual architectural remains. An opportunity of such a cross examination of sources was utilized already by the first explorer of the palace, V. A. Chicken, who attributed the second layer of paintings in the Red Hall to the time of Khunak and ascribed the final fundamental alteration of the ground plan, the construction of the eiwan, and the stucco decoration with the reign of Buniyat.

 

Shishkin was certainly right in attributing the latest reconstruction of the palace to the Abbasid period. Three prominent features of this structure put such a date beyond a reasonable doubt: the use of baked brick (not recorded in Sogdiana until the 740s), the massive round brick columns supporting the passages in the so-called “eiwan” (one of the standard features in the repertory of the eastern Abbasid architecture, possibly derived from Sasanian tradition, but completely unknown in pre-Islamic Soghd), and the use of decorative stucco (completely absent from the monuments of this area prior to the Arab conquest).

 

As to the earlier stages in the history of the palace, their precise dating was not yet possible at the time Shishkin published his classic study of Varakhsha. The absence of a reliable pottery chronology, the lack of numismatic materials, and deficiencies in the methods of dating Sogdian paintings resulted in the rather imprecise attribution of the early palace to a broad time span between the 5th and the 7th centuries CE.

 

Later, a comparison between the Zandaniji fabrics depicted in the sacrificial scene in the Eastern Hall and the textiles in the paintings of Panjikant allowed Belenitskii and Marshak (1979, 35; 1981, 48-9) to date these earliest paintings of Varakhsha to the beginning of the 8th century. The same scholars also pointed out that Chinese silks or their imitations decorated with complex rosettes, like those which served as the “horse-cloths” and “saddles” on elephants in the later paintings of the Red Hall, became popular in Soghd only in the first half of the 8th century (1979, 35; 1981, 48).

 

It should be added that there is no stratigraphic evidence for any significant chronological gap between the initial erection of the palace walls, on one hand, and the remodeling of the gala section of the palace, on the other. In fact, the new walls stand on the very same floor which is connected to the earliest walls of the edifice.

 

The new date of the paintings and the stratigraphic observations confirm the statement of the Tarikh-i Bukhara that the original construction of the palace dates to the time of Khunak; this in turn means that the first remodeling of the palace’s gala section and the related paintings with the blue background (Eastern Hall and first layer of paintings in the Red Hall) should be attributed either to the latter part of his reign or, more likely, to the reign of his rival and successor, Bukhar Khuda Toghshada b. Bidun.

 

The depiction of a fire ritual in front of a Sogdian god in the Eastern Hall seemingly contradicts the statement in the Tarikh-i Bukhara that Toghshada accepted Islam from the hands of Qutaiba b. Muslim. We know, however, that Toghshada asked the Chinese Emperor for help against the Arabs in 719 soon after the death of Quitaiba b. Muslim (Chavannes 1903, 203; 1904, 39; Bartol’d 1964, 381-2). Toghshada’s copper coinage with the scene of the fire ritual on the reverse apparently belongs to this time (Naymark 1999). Although in the 720s and 730s Toghshada acted as a faithful ally of the Arabs, we know that upon his death in 738 CE this prince was buried according to local version of Zoroastrian burial rites (Tabari-De Goeje, II, 1693; Narshakhi-Frye 1954, 60-2). In other words, the conversion of Toghshada was only part of a political deal while in reality he retained the old faith. Yet such an open display of his actual religious affiliation as we see in the paintings of the Eastern Hall was unlikely to take have taken place during his close affiliation with the Arabs and most probably was connected with the temporary “apostasy” of Toghshada around 719.

 

The stratigraphy shows that fairly soon after its first remodeling the Eastern Hall was once more rebuilt so that no paintings remained visible, while in the Red Hall a new layer of paintings with red backgrounds covered the original paintings which had blue backgrounds. The recently proposed “religious” interpretation of the paintings of the Red Hall seems to be reasonable: the elephant rider is Adbag, the supreme divinity of the Sogdian pantheon; the row of saddled animals (lions, deer, goats, etc.) which occupy the second register represents the animal supports of the thrones of different Sogdian deities; and the upper tier with gryphons beside trees represents paradise (Belenitskii and Marshak 1981, 32-3). Yet the artistic methods by which these religious subjects are introduced is very uncharacteristic of Sogdian art. While the vast majority of the paintings in the gala halls of Sogdian houses and palaces are narrative in nature (mythological, historical, etc.), the Red Hall of the Varakhsha palace clearly draws on the principles of the decorative genre. It appears as if the patron wanted to hide the religious content of the paintings under the neutral cover of the permitted decorative genre. This could have happened during the later part of Toghshada’s reign or during the reign of his son, Qutaiba b. Toghshada (738-753 CE).

 

In summary, the original building of the palace was erected during the reign of Khunak (689-709 CE); the first remodeling took place during the reign of Toghshada; the paintings on the blue background (the Eastern Hall and early layer of paintings in the Red Hall) most likely belong to the period of his “apostasy” around 719 CE; the new paintings of the Red Hall belong either to the later part of Toghshada’s reign or to the reign of his son, Qutaiba b. Toghshada (738-753 CE); and Buniyat b. Toghshada (753-782) was responsible for the final reconstruction of the palace.