´=$1'$1Ū-Ū6,/.6µ7+(6725<2)$0<7+
Zvezdana Dode
Rostov-on-Don, Russia

F

RURYHUÀIW\\HDUVWKHFRQFHSWRI´=DQGDQūMūVLONVµ
set forth by Dorothy Shepherd, a textile historian,
LQ KHU  DUWLFOH ´=DQGDQūMū ,GHQWLÀHG"µ SXEOLVKHG
together with linguist Walter Henning (Shepherd andHenning 1959) has directed the study of medieval silk
textiles. A series of silks from European churches androck graves in the North Caucasus thus have been
LGHQWLÀHG DV ]DQGDQƯMƯ. Localization of the place of
those textiles’ manufacture and their dating served
as the basis for far-reaching historical conclusions:an uninterrupted development of silk weaving in
Sogdiana from pre-Islamic times; an existence of a
Sogdian school of silk weaving as early as the 6th
FHQWXU\&(SURGXFWLRQRI´]DQGDQūMūVLONVµLQ&KLQD
etc. Even though it has now been proven that the
RULJLQDO UHDVRQV IRU GHÀQLQJ ´=DQGDQūMū VLONVµ ZHUH
erroneous (Sims-Williams and Khan 2008), a number of
VFKRODUVVWLOOPDLQWDLQWKHLGHDWKDW]DQGDQūMūGHVFULEHG
by medieval authors as cotton fabrics were in factsilks. Meanwhile, the analysis of the way Shepherd
supported her concept shows that it was initially built
on rejection of the original written evidence about the
FRWWRQQDWXUHRI]DQGDQūMū7KHPDLQJRDORIWKLVDUWLFOH
is to outline how a misleading chain of argument was
created. To do so requires looking in detail at theVWRU\RIWKHQRQH[LVWHQW´=DQGDQūMūVLONVµLQRUGHUWR
stress the importance that there be a new comparative
DQDO\VLVRIDOOVRXUFHVIRUWKHVWXG\RIVLONVLGHQWLÀHGDV]DQGDQūMū
The story began when Shepherd discovered an ink
inscription on a silk piece at Huy cathedral (Belgium).
Henning’s decipherment of this inscription, which
he claimed was in Sogdian, revealed the word´=DQGDQūMūµ²WKHZHOONQRZQPHGLHYDOWH[WLOHQDPHG
after a village in the vicinity of Bukhara. Based on thiscontext, Shepherd attributed the Huy silk and textiles
from the treasuries of European churches similar to it
by technique and design (and previously considered
to be the works of Eastern Iranian workshops) to´=DQGDQūMūVLONVµ6KHGLYLGHGWKHPLQWRWZRJURXSV=DQGDQūMū , DQG =DQGDQūMū ,, DQG EHOLHYHG WKDW WKH\
were manufactured in the same center near the city
The Silk Road 14 (2016): 213–222

213

of Bukhara in the 7th century. One of her supporting
arguments for naming this place was the absence of
relevant information: “We do not have evidence of acomparable weaving industry in the other regions ofCentral Asia and we can only infer from the silence ofthe sources that it did not exist.” The dating was basedon an assumption that “in Islamic times, weaving,
including silk weaving, was an important industry
in Sogdiana, especially in the region of Bukhara, andthere is every reason to believe that it had enjoyed anuninterrupted development from pre-Islamic times”(Shepherd and Henning 1959, p. 20).
These conclusions of Shepherd’s on the nature of]DQGDQūMū WH[WLOHV WKHLU HDUO\ GDWH DQG WKH SODFH
of their manufacture were supported by Anna A.
Ierusalimskaia and received further development
in her work where she proclaimed that there was“a school of artistic silk weaving in Sogdiana” andLGHQWLÀHGDQHZJURXSRIVLONV´=DQGDQūMū,,,µDPRQJ
its products. Ierusalimaskaia included a large numberof silk pieces found at the medieval rock cemeteries
in the North Caucasus (Ierusalimskaia 1972, pp. 6, 7,
Appendix 1; Ierusalimskaia 1992, p. 13).1 Following
Shepherd, Ierusalimskaia suggested that the Sogdian
center of silk weaving appeared later than the othermajor Near Eastern and Byzantine centers, “whereas
WKH ÀUVW UHFRUGV DERXW LW DUH GDWHG RQO\ WR WKH thcentury” (Ierusalimskaia 1972, p. 5). She dated the
PDLQ ERG\ RI WKH 1RUWK &DXFDVLDQ ´=DQGDQūMū VLONVµ
within the range of the second half of the 7th WR ÀUVWhalf of the 9th centuries (Ierusalimskaia 1972, p. 7) or
the second half of the 7th – 9th centuries (Ierusalimskaia
2012, p. 100). Ieruslamskaia considered silks fromthe rock graves at Moshchevaia Balka to be essential
for determining the chronology of that site and forthe dating of textiles found at similar cemeteries(Ierusalimskaia 2012, pp. 96-97).
Despite its being repeated and still accepted today
as an indisputable truth, the statement about the
production of silks in pre-Islamic Sogdiana is notsupported by any convincing evidence. “Every
Copyright © 2016 Zvezdana DodeCopyright © 2016 The Silkroad Foundation

reason” that allowed Shepherd to talk about theappearance of silk weaving in Bukhara in that period,and Ierusalimskaia to suggest the 6th century for thefunctioning of the silk weaving center in the area
remained outside of the framework of their studies. In
fact, the earliest source mentioning silks from Bukhara
cites a work written in the 9th century by the ArabKLVWRULDQ DO%DOœGKXUū WKH UHVW RI WKH PHGLHYDO WH[WV
containing evidence on the weaving industry and its
production (mainly of cotton) from Transoxiana aredated to the 10th century and later (Serjeant 1946, p.
  5HJDUGLQJ VSHFLÀFDOO\ ]DQGDQūMū DOO thcentury sources describe it as a cotton fabric, not asilk one. Notwithstanding all the known evidence
from the medieval texts, the deciphered inscription
was given precedence, and scholars either rejected
WKHFRWWRQQDWXUHRI]DQGDQūMūWH[WLOHRIIHUHGYDULRXV
explanations for such a discrepancy, or did not discuss
it at all.
From the very beginning, Shepherd herself chose to
avoid this issue. Summarizing the evidence from themedieval texts, she concluded that none of them talks
DERXWWKHQDWXUHRI]DQGDQūMūIDEULF´1RZKHUHGRZH
ÀQG D FOXH WR WKH NLQG RI FORWK WKDW =DQGDQūMū ZDVµ(Shepherd and Henning 1959, p. 16).
However, this conclusion contradicted an accountgiven by Narshakhi, the 10th-century author who in
his work, “The History of Bukhara,” described zanGDQūMū DV D FRWWRQ FORWK 6KHSKHUG·V GHVLUH WR H[SODLQ
this discrepancy resulted in her tendentious selectionof English translations of the medieval sources. While
she cited excerpts from works of Nizam al-Mulk,<œTƈWDO+DPDZLDQG$Wk0DOLN-XYD\QLLQ5REHUW%
Sergeant’s translation, she conveniently quoted a passage from “The History of Bukhara” (the earliest and,as Shepherd herself pointed out, the “main source” on]DQGDQūMū LQ5LFKDUG1)U\H·VWUDQVODWLRQ 6KHSKHUG
DQG+HQQLQJS 'HVFULELQJ]DQGDQūMū)U\H
chose to use the word “cloth”: “Zandana has a great
citadel, a large market place, and a grand mosque. Every Friday the prayers are performed there, and thereis trading (the same day). The specialty of the place
LV=DQGDQūMūZKLFKLVa kind of cloth made in Zandana>P\HPSKDVLV²='@,WLVÀQHFORWKDQGLVPDGHLQ
large quantities. Much of that cloth is woven in othHUYLOODJHVRI%XNKDUDEXWLWLVDOVRFDOOHG=DQGDQūMūEHFDXVHLWÀUVWDSSHDUHGLQWKLVYLOODJH7KDWFORWKLV
H[SRUWHG WR DOO FRXQWULHV VXFK DV ,UœT )œUV .LUPœQ+LQGƈVWœQDQGHOVHZKHUH$OORIWKHQREOHVDQGUXOHUVmake garment of it, and they buy it at the same priceas brocade” (Shepherd 1959, p. 16). Using the generDO WHUP LQ WKH GHVFULSWLRQ RI ]DQGDQūMū WKDW GRHV QRWclarify the nature of textiles, Frye nevertheless notedin comments that most New Persian “dictionaries de214

scribe it as a coarse white cloth usually made of cotton” (Narshakhi 1954, p. 115).
6HUMHDQWRIIHUHGDGLIIHUHQWYHUVLRQRI]DQGDQūMū·VGHscription, but it was not discussed by Shepherd, whomerely commented in a footnote: “Serjeant, op. cit.,p. 123, translates this passage with slight variations”(Shepherd and Henning, 1959, p. 16). Such a wording left the impression that differences were so smallthat they were not even worth mentioning. In reality,
6HUMHDQW LQGLFDWHG WKDW ]DQGDQūMū ZDV D IDEULF PDGH
of cotton. In his translation, textile from the village of=DQGDQDZDV´FDOOHG]DQGDQūMūZKLFKLVWRVD\PXVOLQNLUEœV µ 6HUMHDQWS 2 Thus, for the word
GHVFULELQJ ]DQGDQūMū 6HUMHDQW FKRVH ´PXVOLQµ EXWhe also included transliteration of the Persian term,
where the Persian text of “The History of Bukhara”
that served as the only source for English translations
XVHV WKH ZRUG ´NLUEœVµ ፗ ቲ኎ ጳᐣ) (Nerchakhy 1892, p.
14).3Thanks to Serjeant, who thoroughly analyzed
medieval written sources mentioning Islamic textiles,
LW LV NQRZQ WKDW NDUEœV NLUEœV  ZDV ZRYHQ IURPFRWWRQ ,EQ ,VIDQGL\œU th century) wrote that balesof silk “were sold in Baghdad and the money spent
RQ FRWWRQ FORWK NLUEœV  ZKLFK ZDV GLYLGHG DPRQJthe poor”; an anonymous author of “Hudǌd al-Alam”(compiled at the end of the 10th century based on
writings of the 9th century) mentioned “cotton textiles
NLUEœV µ PDQXIDFWXUHG LQ WKH FLWLHV RI 5D\\ .œWKand Bust (Serjeant 1946, p. 103, 106, 129, 134).
Early religious Islamic texts also provide evidence
that karbƗs was made of cotton yarn. A hadith of the 10th
century compiled by ash-Shaykh al-Kulayni describes
WKH ELRJUDSK\ RI $Oū LEQ DO+DVDQ LEQ 0XKDPPDG
FDOOHGDW7mWXUū´+HZDVFDOOHGDW7mWXUūEHFDXVHKH
VROGDFORWKNQRZQDVDW7mWXUū,Q0LVU>(J\SW@DQG
Damascus they called someone who sold karbƗs DÀQHFRWWRQFORWK DQGZKLWHFORWKDW7mWXUūµ $O.œIū
S  $VLVZHOOHVWDEOLVKHGWKHWHUP´NDUEœVµLWVHOI
is connected with the widespread usage of the word
karpasi, the Indian name for cotton clothes, a wordthat is traced back to the Sanskrit root “karpasa”,
i.e. “cotton” that was passed into many languages
with the same meaning (Pelliot 1959, I, pp. 433, 435;
Mazzaoui 1981, pp. 9-10).4 Obviously, the term “NLUEœV”
WKDWLGHQWLÀHG]DQGDQūMūDVFRWWRQWH[WLOHVUHMHFWHGWKH
GHÀQLWLRQ RI ]DQGDQūMū DV VLON RQHV5 For centuries,]DQGDQūMū SUHVHUYHG LWV DVVRFLDWLRQ ZLWK FRWWRQ -
A. Vullers’ Lexicon Persico-Latinum Etymologicum
GHVFULEHG ´]DQGDSūĀūµ D YDULDQW RI ]DQGDQūMū DV ´Dwide robe of white cotton” (Serjeant 1946, p. 124). But
6KHSKHUG XQDEOH WR SURYH WKDW ]DQGDQūMū ZHUH VLON
textiles, doubted both Vullers’ explanation and Frye’s
FRPPHQW 6KH ZURWH ´7KHVH GHÀQLWLRQV VHHP QRW WRbe supported by the evidence in the texts and perhaps
are derived, by inference, from the reference in the
6L\œVDW1œPHµZKHUHLWVDLGWKDW]DQGDQūMūZDV´XVHG
for the clothing of slaves of the lowest rank at the
Samanid court.” She suggested that over time, from
1DUVKDNKL ZKHQ ´=DQGDQūMū ZDV DQ LPSRUWDQW DQGYDOXDEOHIDEULF²ÀWIRUDNLQJµWR1L]œPDO0XON KLV
6L\œVDW1œPHwas written at the end of the 11th century),
fashion could have changed or the quality of this fabricdiminished, because 6L\œVDW1œPHGHVFULEHV]DQGDQūMūas being “used for the clothing of slaves of the lowest
rank at the Samanid court” (Shepherd and Henning
1959, p. 16). At the same time, Shepherd ignored
WKH FOHDU LQGLFDWLRQ RI WKH FRWWRQ QDWXUH RI ]DQGDQūMū
provided by Narshakhi, and she based her conclusion
RQ WKH DOOHJHG SRRU TXDOLW\ RI ]DQGDQūMū PHQWLRQHG
in 6L\œVDW1œPH on an incorrect interpretation of thesocial status of people who wore clothes made from
LW6ODYHVZKRZRUH]DQGDQūMūUREHVZHUHWKHJKXOœPthe soldiers who served as caliphs’ guards and who
were directly subordinate to them. Caliphs paid
DWWHQWLRQWRFORWKHVIRUWKHJKXOœPQROHVVWKDQWKH\
GLGIRUWKHPXIULGWKHJKXOœPQRWWKHVODYHVRIWKH
low rank, as stressed by Shepherd, were eligible for]DQGDQūMū UREHV Siaset-name 1949, pp. 99-100). From
the text of 6L\œVDW1œPHLWIROORZVWKDW]DQGDQūMūZDV
less prestigious than other textiles which were usedWR PDNH FORWKLQJ IRU WKH JKXOœP ´7KHUH ZDV D UXOH
that was followed from the days of the Samanids: theJKXOœPZHUHSURPRWHGLQUDQNVJUDGXDOO\DFFRUGLQJ
to the years of service, achievements, and merits”; theJKXODPRIWKHÀUVW\HDURIVHUYLFH´ZRUHJDUPHQWVRI
Zandani cloth,” and after a while received richer andmore luxurious dresses (Siaset-name 1949, pp. 110 $OVRDFFRUGLQJWR1L]œPDO0XONWKLVUXOHZDV
already in force at the time when Narshakhi wrote“The History of Bukhara.”
7U\LQJ WR SURYH WKH VLON QDWXUH RI ]DQGDQūMū 6KHSherd appeals to Narshakhi’s evidence that this fabric
was bought to make clothes for the rulers and nobility, and that “they paid as much for it as for brocade.”
However, his text tells us only that the cost of zanGDQūMū FRPSHWHG ZLWK JROGZRYHQ WH[WLOHV ZKLOH WKHfact that they were in demand by the privileged straWDRIWKHSRSXODWLRQFRQÀUPVWKHLUKLJKTXDOLW\7KH
cost comparison of the two types of textiles, the cottonand brocade, is understandable: the processing of raw
materials and manufacturing of cotton fabrics wastime-consuming, and for this reason labor costs for the
PDQXIDFWXULQJRIFRWWRQWH[WLOHMXVWLÀHGLWVKLJKSULFH
As is known from the medieval texts, Central Asian
workshops produced rather a wide assortment of cotton fabrics. Some of them were not inferior to silks
in quality or price. Perhaps, this explains why Shepherd disregarded an excerpt cited by Serjeant from a215

work of the Arab geographer of the 12th century al,GUūVū ZKHUH WKH GHVFULSWLRQ RI ]DQGDQūMū HFKRHG WKH
one given by Narshakhi. In it, the author tells about
splendid cotton textiles manufactured in the village
RI :LGKœU QHDU 6DPDUNDQG WKDW ZHUH YHU\ SRSXODUDPRQJ WKH HOLWH RI .KXUœVœQ ´7KH\ PDNH WKHUH LQ:LGKœU VWXIIVFDOOHG:LGKœULZRYHQRIFRWWRQDQG
made with an astonishing art; they are employed raw
and without being cut. There is not a prince, minister,
RUFDGLLQWKHZKROHRI.KXUœVœQZKRGRHVQRWZHDU
one in winter over his clothes. The beauty of thesestuffs is evident and their splendor is famous. They
are of color approaching yellow saffron, soft and lightto the touch, but nevertheless very thick, excellent intheir wearing qualities, and durable. The price of arobe varies from three to twenty dinars according to
WKHTXDOLW\,QVKRUWLWLVLPSRVVLEOHWRÀQGDQ\WKLQJ
better, whether as regards beauty, whether as regards
solidity” (Serjeant 1946, pp.125-26). Earlier than thisDFFRXQW1DUVKDNKLZURWHWKDW]DQGDQūMūRIJRRGTXDOLW\ ZDV H[SRUWHG IURP WKH YLOODJH RI 9DUGœQD 1DUVKDNKLS +HDOVRQRWHGWKDW]DQGDQūMūZDV
more popular than similar textiles produced in KhuUœVœQZRUNVKRSV´,WLVVXUSULVLQJWKDWZHDYHUVIURP%XNKDUDOHIWIRU.KXUœVœQWRRNZLWKWKHPDOOQHFHVsary staff for weaving these fabrics, set up workshops
there and produced textiles, but in both appearance
and quality they were far inferior to those woven
LQ %XNKDUD 7KHUH ZDV QR WVDU DPLU UDLV RU RIÀFLDO
who would not wear clothes made out of this fabric.
It was made in red, white, and green colors. PresentO\]DQGDQūMūLVPRUHIDPRXVLQDOOUHJLRQVWKDQWKHVH
textiles” (Narshakhi 1897, p. 30). It seems from the
HYLGHQFHRIFRQWHPSRUDULHVWKDW]DQGDQūMūIDEULFVLQdeed were so popular and well known that none of
the authors considered it necessary to describe them
LQGHWDLOWKRXJKWKHFRORUUDQJHRI.KXUœVœQWH[WLOHV
woven by the Bukhara craftsman was indicated by
1DUVKDNKL DQG DO,GUūVū OHIW WKH GHWDLOHG GHVFULSWLRQ
RI:LGKœULFRWWRQIDEULFV
Soon after Shepherd and Henning published theirarticle, Russian scholars Aleksandr M. Belenitskii andIlona B. Bentovich, generally accepting their conclusions, drew the readers’ attention to the fact that theGHÀQLWLRQRI]DQGDQūMūDVDVLONIDEULFFRQWUDGLFWVWKH
evidence of written sources, where it is described asa cotton one. They suggested the following explanation: “As it is obvious from the cited descriptions[“The History of Bukhara” – Z.D.], at least from theend of the 10thFHQWXU\]DQGDQūMūZDVDFRWWRQIDEULF
Meanwhile, they inform us that it was valued highly.
Unfortunately, the texts known to us do not provide a
reason for changing the raw material or any indication
when it could happen. We assume that delivery of theraw silk from China, if did not stop completely, cer-

WDLQO\GHFUHDVHGVLJQLÀFDQWO\,WLVYHU\SRVVLEOHWKDW
it was a reason for the switching the mass weaving tocotton” (Belenitskii and Bentovich 1961, p. 77).
The problem brought out by the Russian scholars
made Shepherd admit twenty years later, in her article´=DQGDQūMū UHYLVLWHGµ WKDW WKH ZRUG ´]DQGDQūMūµ
LQ 1DUVKDNKL·V ZRUN ´VSHFLÀFDOO\ UHIHUV WR FRWWRQµ
but with a question, “whether the term had been
applied to silks before the tenth century and only
later transferred to cottons from the same region, or
if the author of the inscription on the Huy silk used
the term in error.” However, this consideration did
not change Shepherd’s conclusions about the datingof the Huy silk to the 7th century and its Sogdian origin(Shepherd 1981, p. 109). Defending the usage of the
WHUP´]DQGDQūMūµVKHZURWH´:KHWKHUULJKWRUZURQJthe adoption of this term in the extensive Russian
literature on this group of silks since the publication of
P\DUWLFOHLQKDVE\QRZÀUPO\HVWDEOLVKHGLWDVD
pseudonym, at least, which may serve as a convenientdesignation for this particular group of silks from
Sogdia” (Shepherd 1981, p.109).
Up to 1981, when Shepherd published this article,“the extensive Russian literature” consisted only ofseveral articles authored by Ierusalimskaia and few
other Russian scholars, who relied on her studies.
Shepherd herself continued to refer to the medieval
VLONV DV ]DQGDQūMū WH[WLOHV ZLWKRXW DQ\ H[SODQDWLRQ
of how this term should be treated, as a pseudonymor as a real identity. Anyway, she had no doubt that
VKHDQG,HUXVDOLPVNDLDKDGLGHQWLÀHGDVSHFLDOJURXS
of silks from Sogdiana, as Shepherd continued toinsist some two decades after her initial article: “Theoriginal bases for attributing these silks to Sogdia
were the presence of a Sogdian inscription on one ofthem and the fact they had been found both to the east
and west of Sogdia and would seem logically to havebeen exported from there. The large number of thesetextiles now recorded as having been found in thegraves of Alan tribesmen in the northern Caucasus,
directly astride the northern silk route between Sogdia
and Byzantium, would seem to provide conclusive
proof” (Shepherd 1981, p.108).
I would emphasize here that an ink inscription,
given its possible chance appearance on any stuff, isa weak argument for the attribution of a single textile
piece, much less for the attribution of a large groupof silks. The argument for the localization of a textile
manufacturing center based on the places of thepieces’ discovery also sounds more than strange. It is
not clear at all how silks found in the North CaucasusGHÀQHGE\6KHSKHUGDQG,HUXVDOLPVNDLDDV]DQGDQūMū
“would seem to provide conclusive proof” of theirweaving in Sogdiana.
216

In her writings Ierusalimsakaia does not discuss
WKH LVVXH RI WKH LQFRQVLVWHQF\ EHWZHHQ ´]DQGDQūMū
silks” and the written sources. She states that
Narshakhi in “The History of Bukhara” related that
´DWWKHVDPHSULFHDVEURFDGHµ]DQGDQūMūWH[WLOHVZHUH
bought at European courts (Ierusalimskaia 1972, p.
6). Though Ierusalimskaia claims that she quotes
Narshakhi’s work in the translation done by Serjeant(Ierusalimskaia 1972, p. 44, endnote 17), she usesFrɭɟ’s version of the text that was obviously borrowed
from Shepherd’s article. Moreover, these quotes are
distorted: Narshakhi did not specify the nationality of
QREOHVZKRERXJKW]DQGDQūMūEXWVDLGWKDW´$OORIWKH
nobles and rulers make garments of it, and they buy itat the same price as brocade.” As already mentioned,
Frye and Serjeant translated the second part of thissentence slightly differently (cf. Shepherd and Henning
1959, p. 16 with Serjeant 1946, p.123). Obviously, sheread neither the original work of Serjeant on Islamic
textiles, nor the Russian translation of “The History of
Bukhara” done in the late 19thFHQWXU\ZKHUH]DQGDQūMū
are described as cotton textiles.
6FKRODUV ZKR UHFRJQL]HG WKH FRQÁLFW EHWZHHQ WKH
WH[WV GHVFULELQJ ]DQGDQūMū DV FRWWRQ WH[WLOHV DQGLGHQWLÀHGPHGLHYDOVLONVDOVRWULHGWRÀQGHYLGHQFHRQWKHVLONQDWXUHRI]DQGDQūMūWH[WLOHVLQPHGLHYDOVRXUFHV
Thus James C.Y. Watt and Anne E. Wardwell quoted
the evidence left by the 13th-century Persian historian
Ata-Malik Juvaini in his story about three persons
who went to the Mongols with “gold-embroideredfabrics, cottons, zandanichi and whatever else they
thought suitable” (Juvaini/Boyle 1958, p. 77). Whenone of these persons tried to defraud Genghis Khanwith overpricing, he was detained but later he waslet go, and “for each piece of gold-embroidered fabricthey should be paid a balish of gold and for every
two pieces of cotton or zandanichi a balish of silver(Ibid.). According to Watt and Wardwell, Juvaini’s
GHVFULSWLRQV FRQÀUPV WKDW ]DQGDQūMū ZHUH QRW
cotton textiles, for the reason that “Juvaini mentions
Zandaniji along with gold-embroidered textiles andcotton,” and the amount Genghis Khan “was willingto pay for the merchants’ textiles. Clearly, Zandaniji
textiles were valuable and, by implication in Juvaini’s
text, were not cotton” (Watt and Wardwell 1997, p.
28). Later, the same conclusion was reached by the
Chinese scholar Shang Gang. He pointed out that
Juvaini and Rashid al-Din (who retold this story after-XYDLQL E\QDPLQJ]DQGDQūMūLQGLYLGXDOO\LQWKHVDPH
list with other cotton textiles, provide evidence that
]DQGDQūMū ZDV QRW ZRYHQ IURP FRWWRQ ´,Q WKLV FDVH
cotton fabrics are mentioned alongside Zandaniji,
which clearly shows that these are different cloths”(Shang Gang 2007, p. 35).

+RZHYHU WKH IDFW WKDW ]DQGDQūMū DUH PHQWLRQHG
separately from other cotton textiles in fact does notprove that they were other than cotton.6 =DQGDQūMū
textiles deserved a special mention for their special
qualities that distinguished them from other cotton
IDEULFV$VSRLQWHGRXWE\<œTƈWDO+DPDZLLQWKHÀUVWhalf of the 13th FHQWXU\ ]DQGDQūMū ZHUH ZHOO NQRZQ(Serjeant 1946, p. 124). Moreover, the argument of:DWWDQG:DUGZHOOWKDWWKHSULFHSDLGIRU]DQGDQūMū
distinguished it from cotton fabrics simply contradicts
Juvaini’s account. The Mongol ruler ordered to pay
WKH VDPH SULFH IRU ]DQGDQūMū DQG FRWWRQ WH[WLOH EXWthis price was less than for gold-embroidered fabrics.
Besides that, the price, which would be paid by
Genghis Khan to merchants, should not be treated as afact. In Juvaini’s story the amount that was many times
higher than the real cost of the fabrics emphasized thegenerosity of the Mongol ruler.
,QWKHLUDWWHPSWWRVXSSRUWWKHH[LVWHQFHRI]DQGDQūMū
silks, Watt and Wardwell combine two opposite
VWDWHPHQWV´$VVXPLQJWKDWLQWKHEHJLQQLQJ]DQGDQūMū
textiles were silks,” “Zandaniji may eventually
have come to designate cotton cloth (Belenitskii andBentovich, 1961, c. 77-78), but that does not seem tohave happened until after the Mongol period” (Wattand Wardwell, 1997, p. 28). Not doubting Narshakhi’sevidence, they nevertheless question his work written
in the 10th century.
Watt and Wardwell’s technical analysis of silks
UHYHDOHG VLJQLÀFDQW GLIIHUHQFHV LQ JURXSV FODVVLÀHGDV ]DQGDQūMū +RZHYHU WKHLU DFFHSWDQFH RI WKH
inscription on the Huy silk as documented evidence
prevented them, despite their own observations (seeEHORZ  IURP UHMHFWLQJ WKH H[LVWLQJ FODVVLÀFDWLRQ RI
the early medieval silks. They continued to treat]DQGDQūMū WH[WLOHV DV VLONV ZRYHQ LQ 6RJGLDQD DQGeven considered sa-da-la-qi fabric mentioned in theYuanshiWREHDWUDQVOLWHUDWLRQRIWKHZRUG´]DQGDQūMūµ
This, despite the fact, as they stressed, that there
is no information on sa-da-la-qi in other Chinesesources, and there is “no means of telling whether it
is anything like the Sogdian silks which have beencalled zandaniji” (Watt and Wardwell 1997, p. 140).
Faced with the apparent inconsistency between
WKH LGHQWLÀHG ´]DQGDQūMū VLONVµ DQG WKH HYLGHQFH RI
medieval authors, rather than undertaking criticalanalysis of Shepherd’s “discovery,” these scholars fellback on rather shaky arguments and explained the
LVVXH E\ WKH VSHFLÀFLW\ RI WUDQVODWLRQ RI WKH ZULWWHQ
sources. They noted: “The earliest historical reference
to Zandaniji textiles occurs in al-Narshakhi’s history
of Bukhara, which dates from the tenth century (alNarshakhi, 1954, p. 15-16). Narshakhi’s use of theword NLUEœV in reference to Zandaniji textiles has
217

sometimes been translated as ‘muslin’ (e.g., Serjeant1972, p. 99), leading some scholars to conclude thatby the tenth century, at least, Zandaniji was a type of
cotton (Belenitskii and Bentovich 1961, c. 77; Shepherd S   7KLV KRZHYHU PD\ EH WRR VSHFLÀF D
translation of the term NLUEœV which Richard Fryetranslates more generically as ‘cloth’ (al-Narshakhi
1954, pp. 15, 16)” (Watt and Wardwell, 1997, p. 28).
There is no question that Richard Frye is right inunderstanding NDUEœV as cloth. However, the term
“cloth” by itself does not indicate a raw material
and therefore cannot attest to either the cotton or the
VLON QDWXUH RI ]DQGDQūMū 7KLV VKRXOG EH REYLRXV IRUspecialists in textiles. The preference for the general
WHUPLQVWHDGRIWKHVSHFLÀFQDPHRIWKHIDEULFWKHUDZ
material for which is well known, is a deliberate denial
RIWKHFRWWRQQDWXUHRI]DQGDQūMūDQGFRQWUDGLFWVWKH
evidence of the source.
7KH DUWLÀFLDO FRQFHSW RI ´=DQDQūMū VLONVµ VNHZHG
the direction of their study. Arguments based on
secondary sources and speculative conclusions“materialized” the non-existent textiles. As a result,
WKHP\WKDERXW]DQGDQūMūVLONVSURGXFHGQHZYHUVLRQV
of itself. For example, Remo Faccani extrapolated theGHÀQLWLRQ ´]DQGDQLML VLONVµ RQ ´7DUWDU FORWKµ IURPpapal inventory books. He states that silk “turcheschi”
cloths or hangings brought to the West in the late
Middle Ages, were characterized as zandaniji, as
though Wardwell had indicated as much (Faccani,
1995, p.155). However, Wardwell, who compiled thelist of records regarding textiles from these books,
QRZKHUHLQKHUSXEOLFDWLRQLGHQWLÀHVWKHPDV]DQGDQūMūand does not indicate “Tartar cloth” is a synonym forit.
In the last decade, some Chinese scholars have triedWR ÀQG LQIRUPDWLRQ RQ ]DQGDQūMū LQ &KLQHVH VRXUFHV
from different periods and looked for names oftextiles that, in their opinion, are transliterations of
WKHZRUG´]DQGDQūMūµ6R6KDQJ*DQJVXJJHVWHGWKDWsuch could be “sa-da-la-qi” and “zan-tan-ning” (Shang
Gang 2007, pp. 26, 30, 34), even though nothing
could be said about them except that these cloths
are mentioned in written sources.7 Shang Gang also
widened the chronological span and geographic areas
RIPDQXIDFWXUHRI´]DQGDQūMūVLONVµEH\RQGPHGLHYDO
6RJGLDQD+HDWWULEXWHGWR]DQGDQūMūVLONVWH[WLOHVZLWK
different weaving technique and stylistic elementsof décor, and came to the conclusion that “zandanƯMƯproduction lasted nearly 800 years in Central Asia as
well as in China. Over such a long period of time andacross such vast spaces in its development, design
elements as well as techniques changed from time totime and place to place” (Shang Gang 2007, p. 33). This
statement is based solely on “circumstantial evidence”

consisting of an unproven assumption based only on
another unproven assumption (Shang Gang 2007, p.
34). Since Shang Gang discusses only silk textiles that,
DVQRZKDVEHHQSURYHQFDQQRWEHWUHDWHGDV]DQGDQūMū
textiles, there is no need to comment on his reasoning.
Feng Zhao, the specialist in the history of Chinese
textiles, maintains that documents he discovered at
Dunhuang from the late Tang period to the era of theFive Dynasties include the word sha-sha-na-jin (⋉⋉䛓䭖) and suggests that it represents the transliterated
ZRUG ´=DQGDQDµ $QRWKHU WHUP IRU ]DQGDQūMū zandan-ning (䌺ѩሌ), also the transliterated form of zanGDQūMūDSSHDUVLQWKH&KLQHVHKLVWRULFDOVRXUFHVIURP
the Liao dynasty (Zhao 2012, p. 300).
Since the documents are not published, it is as yet
unclear what was the context in which the terms shasha-na-jin and zan-dan-ning were used and whether
there is any real basis for seeing them as equivalents
IRU]DQGDQūMū%XWZKLOH)HQJ=KDRDGPLWVWKHVWULFWO\hypothetical character of his suggestion for these two
names, he has no doubt that sa-da-la-qi LV ]DQGDQūMū
“With the beginning of the Yuan period, Chinese
historical sources especially note a type of textiles
called sa-da-la-qi. It is generally accepted that this is]DQGDQūMūµ =KDRS It is hard to agree with such an argument. The useof terms sa-da-la-qi and ]DQGDQūMū as synonyms bysome specialists is not a proof of the identity of these
two textiles known from the medieval texts. As Wattand Wardwell noted (1997, p. 140), “According to
the Yuanshi, in the year 1287 a Jamal al-Din (Zhama-la-ding) directed (or arrived with) artisans to
weave sa-da-la-qi in the same workshops as those forsilks. A separate superintendency was subsequently
established for the production of sa-da-la-qi.” This
information, even indirectly, does not connect Chinese
WH[WLOHVZLWK]DQGDQūMū$QGWKHUHDUHQRJURXQGVWR
discuss the similarity of weaving techniques of thesetextiles, since there is no information about sa-da-la-qi
DQGDERXW]DQGDQūMūIn sum then, this brief outline shows that theDUWLÀFLDOO\FUHDWHGP\WKRQWKHH[LVWHQFHRI]DQGDQūMū
silk weaving in early medieval Sogdiana was built
upon biased interpretations of the historical evidencewith the aim of buttressing a refusal to recognize that
]DQGDQūMū WH[WLOHV ZHUH RULJLQDOO\ PDGH RI FRWWRQ8
That said, a majority of scholars recognized the work
RI 6KHSKHUG RQ ]DQGDQūMū DV KHU JUHDW DFKLHYHPHQW
at the same time that her conclusions (and those of
Ierusalimsakaia) were already beginning to be met
with some criticism from specialists in historic textiles.

RI VLONV WKHLU FODVVLÀFDWLRQ DQG ORFDOL]DWLRQ RI WKHcenters of their manufacture. Soon after the publication
RI ´=DQGDQūMū ,GHQWLÀHG"µ 'RQDOG .LQJ UHMHFWHG WKH
dating of the Huy silk based on the character of theinscription. He noted that the early date (7th century) is
at odds with other features of the silk, and dated it to
the 8th–9th centuries, the same as other similar textiles
in the groups of Central Asian silks he discussed(King 1966, p. 48-49). While accepting the name of]DQGDQūMū IRU D JURXS RI WKH HDUO\ PHGLHYDO VLONV$QQD 0XWKHVLXV GRXEWHG WKHUH ZDV MXVWLÀFDWLRQ IRUGHÀQLQJDVHSDUDWHJURXS=DQGDQūMū,,,ZKLFKLQIDFWZDVQRWVLJQLÀFDQWO\GLIIHUHQWIURP=DQGDQLML,,$OVR
she considered them as products of several Central
Asian workshops, not one (Muthesius 1997, ɪɪ. 94-98).
Citing numerous differences in technical and stylisticfeatures of silks Sherpherd believed had come fromthe same workshop, Hero Granger-Taylor argued thatthey were manufactured in different weaving centers.
She also challenged Shepherd’s dating of the silks inquestion (Granger-Taylor 2002, pp. 314-16).
Watt and Wardwell indicated there are serious
GLVWLQFWLRQVEHWZHHQWKHJURXSVGHÀQHGE\6KHSKHUG
and Ierusalimskaia, which might be explained by thelatters’ different approaches to the analysis of thesesilks: Shepherd had based her study of silk textiles
on technical characteristics, while Ierusalimskaia
considered the silks’ style and dating. Admitting thatboth approaches are not free of controversy, Watt and:DUGZHOO GHPRQVWUDWHG VLJQLÀFDQW GLVFUHSDQFLHV LQ
WKHLU FODVVLÀFDWLRQ RI WKH VLONV 2QH RI WKHP LV WKDWShepherd and Ierusalimskaia included in the samegroup textiles of different weaving traditions, withz-twisted warps and untwisted warps: “z-twisted
warps are characteristic of weft-faced compound
twills produced in Iran and Byzantium, while lighter
fabrics woven with untwisted warps occur in silksof the same structure produced in China” (Watt andWardwell 1997, p. 22). This fact puts into question
not only systematization of silk textiles offered by
Shepherd and Ierusalimskaia, but their attribution as
well.
In 2006 Boris I. Marshak and Valentina I.
Raspopova published their thorough analysis of
6RJGLDQ DUW LQ UHJDUG WR ´=DQGDQūMū VLONVµ LQ ZKLFKthey demonstrated that the proclaimed style and
LFRQRJUDSK\ RI ´]DQGDQūMū WH[WLOHVµ DUH FRPSOHWHO\alien to the Sogdian cultural tradition (Marshak
2006; Raspopova 2006). In his article, Marshak also
expressed the possibility of a different reading of the
ink inscription on the Huy silk.
Despite the conclusive results presented by Marshak
and Raspopova, there have been attempts, based solely
on assumptions, to explain the discrepancy between

The critiques paid less attention to the contradiction
between the attribution of the Huy silk and evidenceof the written sources, but focused instead on dating
218

WKH ZULWWHQ VRXUFHV ZKHUH ]DQGDQūMū DUH GHVFULEHG
as cotton fabrics) and the speculative concept of“Zandaniji silks.” In attempting this, Richard FryeOLVWHG VHYHUDO K\SRWKHVHV 7KH WHUP ´]DQGDQūMūµ
could be applied to different fabrics woven in similar
techniques or to fabrics with similar design or coloring.
,Q RUGHU WR H[SODLQ WKH DEVHQFH RI ]DQGDQūMū VLONV RQ
the territory of Sogdiana and lack of any information
DERXW WKHP LQ WKH PHGLHYDO WH[WV ZKHUH ]DQGDQūMū LV
described as cotton textiles, Frye suggested that “thesilk cloths of ZandanƯMƯ were generally sent abroad
IURP 6RJGLDQD ZKLOH WKH ÀQH FRWWRQ DQG RWKHU
textiles were the ZandanƯMƯ of the home population”(Frye 2006, p. 80). Other scholars still accepted theDWWULEXWLRQRIWKH+X\VLONDV]DQGDQūMūWKRXJKWKH\also suggested a possibility of Central Asian and(DVWHUQ ,UDQLDQ FHQWHUV ZKHUH ]DQGDQūMū DQG VLPLODU
silks could be manufactured (Otavský 2011, pp. 15,327). Ierusalimskaia completely disregarded theresults presented by Marshak and Raspopova in her
monograph whose analysis of medieval silks from theNorth Caucasus constitutes the core of her discussionof the artifacts found there (Ierusalimskaia 2012).
2QH ZRXOG WKLQN WKDW WKH ODVW QDLO LQ WKH FRIÀQ RI
Shepherd’s erroneous conclusion was driven when,ÀQDOO\WKH+X\LQVFULSWLRQUHFHLYHGDFRUUHFWUHDGLQJ
This was the work of Nicholas Sims-Williams andGeoffrey Khan, who established beyond any doubtthat the inscription on the silk piece is written in Arabic,
LWGRHVQRWFRQWDLQWKHZRUG´=DQGDQūMūµDQGLQIDFW
has a very different meaning, It translates: “Belonging
to ‘Abd al-Rahman, the commander, (acquired) for
thirty-eight dinars less a third” (Sims-Williams andKhan 2012, p. 210). The style of script allowed themto date the inscription to the 9th century, which lies
within the range obtained by the radiocarbon analysis,
780–980 CE (Sims-Williams and Khan 2012, pp. 209 –
11). This incontrovertible evidence notwithstanding,the term zandanƯMƯ continues to be applied to the early
medieval textiles found at sites along the Silk Road
(Zhao and Wang, 2013; Rtveladze 2015, p. 357). Evenin cases when the initial erroneous reading of theinscriptions has been admitted, researchers continue
WRIROORZWKHFODVVLÀFDWLRQRI´=DQGDQƯMƯ silks” (Schorta
2016, p. 59, 62; Muthesius 2015, p. 78; Muthesius 2016,p. 59-63) or attempt to tie both cotton and hypotheticalsilk production to the same workshops (Compareti
2015, p. 40).
Conclusion
Critical observations and conclusions made by Wattand Wardwell, Marshak and Raspopova attest to
WKH IDOODF\ RI WKH FODVVLÀFDWLRQ RI ´=DQGDQūMū VLONVµ,W LV QRZ ÀUPO\ HVWDEOLVKHG WKDW WKH VLON SLHFH IURP+X\ KDV QR UHODWLRQ WR ]DQGDQūMū WH[WLOHV DQG ZDV
219

produced in the 9th century in a workshop at a notyet determined location, more likely than not, assuggested years ago by Otto von Falke, in one of the(DVWHUQ ,UDQLDQ ZRUNVKRSV )DONH  S  ÀJ110). The systematization of silk textiles offered by
Shepherd and Ierusalimskaia – already subjected towell-grounded criticism by specialists from various
angles – is mistaken and requires re-evaluation.
The cultural and chronological attribution of silks
discussed by Shepherd and Ierusalimskaia has turned
out to be baseless as well. An analysis of artistic andtechnical characteristics of silk textiles included in
JURXSVRI=DQGDQūMū,,,DQG,,,KDVUHYHDOHGWKDWWKH\
were woven in different workshops. The detailed
localization of these workshops should be a topic offuture investigations (Mackie 2015, p. 64).
7KH VWRU\ DERXW ]DQGDQūMū VLONV VKRZV KRZinaccurate conclusions, accepted and used by scholars
without any critical reasoning, created a myth that
dominated despite their iincompatibility with thehistorical evidence. It is not Shepherd’s fault that
KHU ´GLVFRYHU\µ RI ´=DQGDQūMū VLONVµ ZDV EDVHG RQ
Henning’s mistaken deciphering of the inscription. But
from the very beginning she preferred to circumventthe problematic issue by using Frye’s loose translation
RI WKH GHVFULSWLRQ RI ]DQGDQūMū LQ ´7KH +LVWRU\ RI
%XNKDUDµ DQG SHUVLVWHG ZLWK KHU LGHD RI ]DQGDQūMū
silks, which was unconditionally supported anddeveloped by Ierusalimskaia. The myth about the
H[LVWHQFHRI]DQGDQūMūVLONVWKULYHGGXHWKHWHQGHQWLRXV
interpretation of written sources in order to reject
WKH IDFW WKDW ]DQGDQūMū IDEULFV ZHUH PDGH RI FRWWRQ
This fact had been established in the 10th century byNarshakhi, who lived in Bukhara and provided aÀUVWKDQGDFFRXQWDERXWWKHVHWH[WLOHV7KHDGKHUHQFH
WR WKH ÀFWLWLRXV FRQFOXVLRQV DERXW ]DQGDQūMū WH[WLOHV
led to the erroneous attribution of the numerous silks
found at the North Caucasian archaeological sites
and in medieval European churches, textiles whoseplace and time of manufacture in fact has yet to be
determined. Besides the wrong attribution of thisVLJQLÀFDQWO\ODUJHFROOHFWLRQRIVLONVDQDFFHSWDQFHRI
the idea about the existence of an established schoolof art weaving in medieval Sogdiana led to the false
EHOLHIDERXWWKHSURGXFWLRQRI]DQGDQūMūVLONVLQ&KLQD
as well. In order to correct all these inconsistencies
and errors, characteristics of medieval cotton textiles,
WKH ]DQGDQūMū PHQWLRQHG LQ WKH PHGLHYDO VRXUFHVVKRXOGEHIUHHGIURPDQ\P\WKRORJLFDOLGHQWLÀFDWLRQ
with silk textiles, and the cultural and chronological
DWWULEXWLRQRI´=DQGDQūMūVLONVµUHFRQVLGHUHGABOUT THE AUTHOR
Zvezdana DodeLVDVHQLRUVFKRODUDWWKH6RXWKHUQ6FLHQWLÀFCenter of the Russian Academy of Sciences (SSC RAS),
Rostov-on-Don. Her area of expertise is mediaeval costumeand textiles of the North Caucasus and Central Asia. She
has held a fellowship at the Metropolitan Museum of Art in
New York and recently was able to study the collections of
the National Silk Museum in China.

Ierusalimskaia 1992

REFERENCES_____. Moshchevaia Balka. Neobychnyi arkheologicheskii
pamiatnik na Severokavkazskom shelkovom puti [Moshchevaia
Balka. An unusual archaeological site on the North Caucasus Silk
Road]. Sankt-Peterburg: Izd-vo. Gos. Ermitazha, 2012.

_____. Kavkaz na Shelkovom puti. [The Caucasus on the Silk
Road]. Sankt-Peterburg: Gosudarstvennyi Ermitazh, 1992.
Ierusalimskaia 2012

$O.DÀ
$VK6KD\NK DEX -D·)DU 0XKDPPDG LEQ <D·4ƆE LEQ ,VKmT DO
.XOD\QX $U5m]L $O.DÀ  9RO , $O8VƆO 3DUW 2QH 7KH
ERRNRI'LYLQH8QLW\ , -HKUDQ:RÀV :RUOG2UJDQL]DWLRQ
for Islamic Services), 2007.
Arberry 1995
Arthur J. Arberry. Review of: Frye Richard N: The History of
Bukhara. Translated from a Persian Abridgment of the Arabic
Original by Narshkhi. Cambridge, Mass.: The Mediaeval
Academy of America. In: Bulletin of the School of Oriental andAfrican Studies 17/3 (1955): 605.

Inostrantsev 1901
.RQVWDQWLQ $ ,QRVWUDQWVHY ´,] LVWRULL VWDULQQ\NK WNDQHŭ
Altobas. Dorogi. Zenden’. Mitkal’. Mukhoiar” [On thehistory of ancient textiles. Altobas. Dorogi. Zenden’.
Mitkal’. Mukhoiar]. Zapiski Vostochnogo Otdeleniia Russkogo
Arkheologicheskogo obshchestva XIII, vyp. IV (1901): 83 - 85.
Juvaini/Boyle 1958
Juvaini. 7KH KLVWRU\ RI WKH :RUOG&RQTXHURU E\ ¶$ODDG'LQ
¶$OD0DOLN -XYDLQL. Tr. from the text of Mirza Muhammad
Qazvini by John Andrew Boyle. 2 vols. Cambridge: Harvard
Univ. Pr., 1958.

Artsikhovskii and Borkovskii 1958
Artemii V. Artsikhovskii and Viktor I. Borkovskii.
Novgorodskie gramoty na bereste ,] UDVNRSRN  JJ
[Novgorod documents on birch bark (from excavations in1953 – 1954)]. M.: Izd-vo. AN SSSR, 1958.

King 1966

Belenitskii and Bentovich 1961
Aleksandr M. Belenitskii and Ilona B. Bentovich “Iz istorii
VUHGQHD]LDWVNRJR VKHONRWNDFKHVWYD N LGHQWLÀNDWVLL WNDQL
‘zandanechi’)” [From the history of Central Asian silk
ZHDYLQJ RQWKHLGHQWLÀFDWLRQRIWKHIDEULF¶]DQGDQHFKL· @µ
Sovetskaia Arkheologiia 1961/2: 66-78.
Compareti 2015
Matteo Compareti. “Ancient Iranian Decorative Textiles.
New Evidence from Archaeological Investigations andPrivate Collections.” The Silk Road, 13(2015): 36 – 44.

Donald King. “Patterned Silks in the Carolingian Empire”
In: CIETA Bulletin de Liaison 23 a (1966): 47-52.
Klein 1925
Vladimir Klein. “Inozemnye tkani, bytovavshie v Rossii do
XVIII veka, i ikh terminologiia” [Foreign textiles existingin Russia before the 18th century and their terminology].
In: Sbornik Oruzheinoi palaty. Moskva, n. p., 1925: 11-70.
Mackie 2015
Louise W. Mackie. Symbols of Power: Luxury Textiles from,VODPLF /DQGV th–21st Century. Cleveland: The Cleveland
Museum of Art, 2015.

Faccani 1995
Remo Faccani. Iscrizioni novgorodiane su corteccia di betulla.
Udine: Dipartimento di lingue e civilta dell’Europa centroorientale, 1995.

Marshak 2006
Boris I. Marshak. “The So-called Zandaniji Silks: Comparison
with the Art of Sogdia.”
In: Central Asian Textiles andTheir Contexts in the Early Middle Ages, Regula Schorta, ed.
Riggisberger Berichte, 9. Riggisberg: Abegg-Stiftung, 2006:
49-60.

Falke 1935
Otto von Falke. Decorative Silks, 3rd ed. New York: William
Helburn Inc., 1935.

Mazzaoui 1981

Frye 2006
Richard N. Frye “Bukhara and ZandanƯjƯ” In: Central Asian
Textiles and Their Contexts in the Early Middle Ages, Regula
Schorta, ed. Riggisberger Berichte, 9. Riggisberg: AbeggStiftung, 2006: 75-80.

Maureen F. Mazzaoui. The Italian Cotton Indastry in the Later
0LGGOH$JHV². Cambridge: Cambridge Univ. Pr.,
1981.
Muthesius 1997
Anna M. Muthesius. Byzantine Silk Weaving AD 400 to AD
1200. Ewald Kislinger and Johannes Koder, eds., Vienna:
Fassbaender, 1997.

Granger-Taylor 2002
Hero Granger-Taylor. “The Weft-patterned Silks and their
Braid: The remains of an Anglo-Saxon Dalmatic of c 800?”
In: St. Cuthbert, his Cult and his Community to AD 1200. G.
Bonner, D. Rollason and C. Stancliffe, eds. Woodbrige: The
Boydell Press, 2002: 303-28.

Muthesius 2015_____. “Cultural and Economic Exchange across Continents:
Silk Road Silks and the Western Church (7–15 centuries).”
In: The Silk Road: a Road of Silk. Hangzhou: China National
Silk Museum, 2015: 74–85.

Ierusalimskaia 1972
Anna A. Ierusalimskaia. “K slozheniiu shkoly
khudozhestvennogo shelkotkachestva v Sogde” [On theformation of the school of artistic silk weaving in Sogdia].
In: Sredniaia Aziia i Iran: Sbornik statei. Leningrad: Avrora,
1972: 5-58.

Muthesius 2016_____. “Central Asian (Sogdian?) Silks in Europe (7–11&HQWXU\  7UDGH 5RXWHV 7\SHV DQG &XOWXUDO 6LJQLÀFDQFHµ
In: “A World of Silks”. International Symposium. Hangzhou:

220

China National Silk Museum, 2016: 51–76.
Narshakhi Mukhammad. Istoriia Bukhary [The History of
Bukhara]. Nil Lykoshin, tr.; V. V. Bartol’d, ed. Tashkent:
7LSR/LWRJUDÀLDWG´ࣝ. i G. Br. Kamenskie,” 1897.

Vizantiiskogo posol’stva Zimarkha po Srednei Azii i.DYND]Xµ >ƦƣƳƧƯƩƴ ƣғƵƳƱƲƱғƯ 7KH 5RXWH RI WKH
Byzantine Embassy of Zemarchos in Central Asia and theCaucasus]. In: 3UREOHP\ LVWRULL ÀORORJLL NXO·WXU\ 1DXFKQ\L
retsenziruemyi zhurnal. Moskva, Magnitogorsk, Novosibirsk.
Ɋ    

Narshakhi 1954

Schorta 2016

Narshakhi 1897

The History of Bukhara. Narshakhi, Abu Bakr Muhammad Ibn-D·IDU  Richard N. Frye, tr. and ed. Cambridge,
Mass.: Mediaeval Academy of America, 1954.

Regula Schorta. “Central Asian Silks in the East and Westduring the Second Hsalf of the First Millennium.” In:
Oriental Silks in Medieval Europe. Riggisberger Berichte, 17.
Riggisberg: Abegg-Stiftung, 2016: 47-63.

Nerchakhy 1892
Description Topographique et Historique de Boukhara par
Mahammed Nerchakhy suivie de textes relatifs a la Transoxiane.
Texte Persan Publie par Charlus Schefer. Paris: Librairede la Société Asiatiqe de L’Ecole des Langues Orientales
Vivantes, etc., 1892.

Serjeant 1943
Robert B. Serjeant. “Islamic Textiles. Material for a History
up to the Mongol Conquest.” Ars Islamica 10 (1943): 71-104.
Serjeant 1946_____. “Islamic Textiles. Material for a History up to the
Mongol Conquest.” Ars Islamica 11/12 (1946): 99-145.

Otavský 2011
Karel Otavský. “Frühmittelalterliche Stoffe zwischen Persien
und China. Einführung: Der postsasanidische Stil.” In: KarelOtavský and Anne E. Wardwell. Mittelalterliche Textilien II.
Zwischen Europa und China. Abegg-Stiftung, 2011:13-18; 32530.

Serjeant 1951_____. “Islamic Textiles. Material for a History up to the
Mongol Conquest.” Ars Islamica, 15/16 (1951): 29-85.
Serjeant 1972

Pelliot 1959_____. Islamic Textiles. Material for a History up to the Mongol
Conquest. Beirut: Librairie du Liban, 1972.

Paul Pelliot. Notes on Marco Polo. Vol. 1. Paris: Imprimerie
Nationale Librairie Adrien-Maisonneuve, 1959.

Shan Gang 2007

Polo 1824

Shang Gang. “Zandanechi v Kitae”. In: 6KHONRY\LSXW·
let iskusstva shelka. – Sankt-Peterburg: Slaviia, 2007: 28-38.

Marco Polo. Voyage de Marco Polo. Premiére Partie.
Introduction, Texte, Glossaire et variants. Recueil de Voyages
et de Memoires, T. 1. Paris: La Société de Géographie, 1824.

Shepherd 1959
'RURWK\ * 6KHSKHUG DQG :DOWHU % +HQQLQJ ´=DQGDQūMū
,GHQWLÀHG"µ,QAus der Welt der Islamischen Kunst: Festschrift
IU (UQVW .KQHO ]XP . Geburtstag am 26.10.1957. Berlin,
1959: 15-40.

Polo 1903
The Book of Marco Polo the Venetian Concerning the Kingdoms
and Marvels of the East. Tr. and ed., with notes by Colonel Sir
Henry Yule. In two volumes. Vol. I. London: Murray, 1903.

Shepherd 1981

Polo 1955_____. “Zandaniji Revisited.” In: Documenta Textilia.
Festschrift für Sigrid Müller-Christensen Mechthild FluryLemberg and Karen Stolleis, eds. Munchen: Deutscher
Kunstverlag, 1981: 105-22.

“Kniga” Marko Polo [The Book of Marco Polo]. I. P. Minaev,tr.; I. P. Magidovich, ed. and introd. Moskva: Geografgiz,
1955.
Rashid-ad-Din 1952

Siaset-name 1949

Rashid-ad-Din. Sbornik letopisei. [Compendium ofchronicles]. Vol. I, Kn. 2. O. I. Smirnova, tr.; B. I. Pankratov
and O. I. Smirnova, annot.; A. A. Semenov, ed. MoskvaLeningrad: Izd-vo. AN SSSR, 1952.

Siaset-name. Kniga o pravlenii vazira XI stoletiia Nizam al0XO·ND>%RRNRI*RYHUQPHQWE\1L]œPDO0XONWKHYL]LHU
of the 11th century]. B. N. Zakhoder, tr., introd. and notes.
Moskva- Leningrad: Izd-vo. AN SSSR, 1949.

Rashiduddin 1998-1999

Sims-Williams and Khan 2012

Rashiduddin Fazlullah’s Jami’u’t-tawarikh [Compendiumof Chronicles]. Wheeler Thackston, ed. and tr. Vol. 1.
Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University, Dept. of Near
Eastern Languages and Civilizations. 1998-1999.

1LFKRODV 6LPV:LOOLDPV DQG *HRIIUH\ .KDQ ´=DQGDQūMū0LVLGHQWLÀHGµ Bulletin of the Asia Institute N.S., 22(2008/2012): 207-13.

Raspopova 2006

Veselovskii 1897

Valentina I. Raspopova. “Textiles Represented in Sogdian
Murals”. In: Central Asian Textiles and Their Contexts in the
Early Middle Ages, Regula Schorta, ed. Riggisberger Berichte,
9. Riggisberg: Abegg-Stiftung, 2006: 61-73.

Nikolai Veselovskii. Review of: “Mukhamad Narshakhi.
Istoriia Bukhary. Perevel s persidskogo N. Lykoshin
pod redaktsiei V.V. Bartol’da [Review of: Muhammad
Narshakhi. The History of Bukhara. Translated from Persian
by N. Lykoshin, edited by V.V. Bartold]. Tashkent, 1897.”
Zhurnal Ministerstva narodnogo prosveshcheniia 314 (Dec.
1897): 466-68.

Rtveladze 2015
(GYDUG 9 5WYHODG]H ´ƦƣƳƧƯƩƴ ƚƵƳƱƲƱғƯ 0DUVKUXW221

Watt and Wardwell 1997
James C.Y. Watt and Anne E. Wardwell. When Silk Was Gold.
Central Asian and Chinese Textiles. New York: Metropolitan
Museum of Art, 1997.
Zhao 2012
Zhao Feng. 䥖〻: ѝ഻㎢㏒㠷㎢㏒ѻ䐟 [Brocade production:
Chinese Silk and the Silk Road]. City University of Hong
Kong Press, 2012.
Zhao and Wang 2013
Feng Zhao and Le Wang. “Glossary of Textile Terminology(Based on the Documents from Dunhuang and Turfan).”
Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society 23/2 (2013): 349-87.

NOTES
1. Kept in the collections of the State Hermitage Museumin St Petersburg and the State Historical Museum in Moscow.
´7KDWZKLFKFRPHVIURPLWLVFDOOHG]DQGDQūdjūZKLFKLV
WRVD\PXVOLQ NLUEœV IURPWKHYLOODJHRI=DQGDQDZKLFKLV
both good and plentiful, but many of the villages of Bokhara
ZHDYHEHWWHUFORWKDQGWKH\FDOOLW]DQGDQūGMLEHFDXVHLWÀUVWmade its appearance in that town. This cloth is exported to
all the provinces such as Iraq, Fars, Kerman, and Hindustan.
All the nobles and kings make robes (djœPD RILWDQGEX\
its brocade at a high price” (Serjeant 1946, p.123). The lastpart of the sentence in Serjeant’s translation differs from theversion done by Lykoshin and Frye. Dr. Maya Petrovich,
ZKRP , DVNHG IRU FRQVXOWDWLRQ FRQÀUPHG WKH FRUUHFWQHVV
of the latter authors,, i.e.: “and buy it at the same price as
brocade”.
3. I would like to thank Dr. Maya Petrovich and Dr. George
Malagaris for checking the textile terms used in the Persian
version of Narshakhi’s work.
$FFRUGLQJWR6HUMHDQWNDUEœVZDVHTXDWHGZLWKPXVOLQ
(Serjeant 1943, pp. 91, 88, 89; Serjeant 1946, pp. 119, 121,
123, 124, 139; Serjeant 1951, p. 83). These cotton muslins
should be distinguished from “mosulins” made from silkand gold manufactured in Mosule that was mentioned in“The Travels of Marco Polo” (Polo 1824, p. 20); I.M. Minaev
suggested that those mosulins were named after the city butthat the term did not always refer to the same textile (Polo
1955, p. 253).
5. In the more detailed Russian translation done by Nil/\NRVKLQ]DQGDQūMūKDVEHHQGHVFULEHGSUHFLVHO\DVDIDEULF
PDGH RI FRWWRQ ´)URP WKHUH WKH VRFDOOHG ¶]DQGDQūMū· LH
cotton textiles called so because they are made in this village, are exported … Cotton textiles are exported from there
to all regions” (Narshakhi 1897, pp. 23-4)
6. There are similar cases, when textiles of the same naturerecorded in the same list could be found in medieval sources
as well. For example, treatise “Hudud al-’Alam” recorded´FRWWRQVWXII NLUEœV µDQG´FRWWRQµ 6HUMHDQWS 
7. The article “Zandaniji in China” by Shang Gang is published in the catalog of the exhibition “Road of Silk. 5000
years of the Art of Silk” in Chinese, English, and Russian.
The English and Russian versions of the catalog use the
ZRUG]DQGDQūMū7KH&KLQHVHYHUVLRQRIWKHFDWDORJXVHVWKH

222

word sa-da-la-qi. The sentence, “It is generally believed thatzandanƯMƯ textiles had already been transformed to cotton
products before the arrival of the Mongol empire” (Shang
Gang, 2007, ɪ 35) clearly shows the extrapolation of NarVKDNKL·VLQIRUPDWLRQDERXW]DQGDQūMūWH[WLOHVRQVDGDODTL
textiles, though there is no evidence about the latter but for
its being named in Yuanshi and the above-mentioned baseless assumptions.
8. It should be mentioned that as early as the beginning of
the 20th FHQWXU\ 5XVVLDQ VFKRODUV LGHQWLÀHG ]DQGDQūMū ZLWKzenden’ of historical texts. In his work on some historicaltextiles, Konstantin A. Inostrantsev expressed an idea
about the similarity of zenden’ of the late medieval sources
with ]DQGDQūMū mentioned in Narshakhi’s work. Though,QRVWUDQWVHYZDVDZDUHWKDW1DUVKDNKLGHVFULEHG]DQGDQūMū
as a cotton fabric, he considered a possibility that Old
Russian zenden’ could be silk. He borrowed this notion
from P. I. Savvaitov, though the latter did not provide any
proof for it, as Inostrantsev noted (Inostrantsev 1901, p.
84). Meanwhile, Vladimir K. Klein, who examined clothes
kept in the Kremlin Armoury and inventory books which
describe the textiles of these clothes as zenden’, was able
to prove that zenden’ was cotton (Klein 1925, p. 69). Also,
Artemii V. Artsikhovskii stated that the word zenden’ in abirch bark document (found in a layer of the late 14th - early
15th century in Novgorod) meant the cotton fabric. He
concluded that this fact supported Narshakhi’s evidence
RQWKHFRWWRQQDWXUHRI]DQGDQūMūWH[WLOHV $UWVLNKRYVNLLDQG
Borkovskii 1958, p. 60). All these scholars used the Russian
version of “The History of Bukhara” where, as mentioned
above, Lykoshin had translated NDUEœV as cotton textiles.
However, the idea that zenden’/zandaniji were silk textiles
has been revived by Remo Faccani (Faccani 1995, p. 156).
In his opinion, the usage of “cloth” chosen by Frye is morecorrect than Lykoshin’s “cotton,” and cast doubt on thequality of the latter’s work. He cited Frye’s opinion that theRussian translation “leaves much to be desired” and (again
with reference to Frye) the opinion of Nikolai Veselovskii,
who, in his review written soon after the publication of
Lykoshin’s translation, warned readers to be cautious in
using this work (Faccani 1995, p. 154). Probably Faccani
did not check the text of Narshakhi in Persian, and also did
not read Veselovskii’s review, which in fact expressed apositive opinion of Lykoshin’s work. Commenting on someincorrectly understood words in a story about the coinage
in Bukhara, Veselovskii wrote: “We believe, however,
WKDW RQH FDQ ÀQG IHZ VXFK H[DPSOHV RQ D ZKROH ZH
must recognize the work as conscientious, and comments
placed in footnotes as extremely useful for understanding
Narshakhi’s story” (Veselovskii 1897, p. 468). In its turn,the English version of “The History of Bukhara” done by)U\HKDVEHHQVRPHZKDWFULWLFL]HG,QKLVUHYLHZǮUWKXU-
Arberry wrote: “Unhappily Dr. Frye’s knowledge of Persian
is not always as impressive as his bibliographical erudition
and the version is marred by some inaccuracies” (Arberry
1955, p. 605). It is obvious that the evaluation of translationsof ancient texts is not a way to clarify some questionable
places in these translations, for which one should address
the original sources.