A History of Afghanistan (Yuri Gankovsky)

A History of Afghanistan
Author	Yuri Gankovsky
Translated by	Vitaly Baskakov
Original language	Russian
Publisher	Progress Publishers
First published	1985
Source	https://archive.org/details/gankovsky-yu.-v.-ed.-a-history-of-afganistan-progess-1985/mode/1up
PDF	https://annas-archive.org/md5/df07c729ca9385839738c73b16dbc2c9

Foreword

This book examines the history of Afghanistan since prehistoric times. It would not have been written at all if the authors had not drawn upon the research done by their predecessors and by their colleagues in the Soviet Union and abroad, especially, in Afghanistan. Occasionally they summed up their own Afghan studies.

The first publications on Afghanistan, appearing in Rus- sia in the early 18th century, told the readers about the country and its population, the events in the Herat and Qandahar regions and their struggle against the troops of Nadir Shah Afshar. Several works on Durrani, the first sovereign state to include all the territories populated by Afghans, on Ahmad Shah Durrani, the founder of the state, and his successors, and on Russo-Afghan trade were written and published in Russia in the middle and the latter half of the 18th century.

However, it was with the publication of the works by Academician B.A. Dorn in 1829-1838 that a genuinely scientific study of Afghanistan began in Russia. B. A. Dom was the first to make research into the history of the Pash- tun people and his studies retain their value to this day.

In the middle and the second half of the 19th century prominent Russian Onentalists V. V. Grigoryev, N. V. Kha- nykov, L. N. Sobolev, M. I. Venyukov, N. A. Aristov, and S. N. Yuzhakov, to mention a few, conducted studies into the ancient and medieval history of Afghanistan, the origin of its peoples, the social make-up of the Pashtun society, its customs and traditions, the people’s struggle for freedom and independence, and Anglo-Afghan relations. At the tum of the 20th century an extensive study of Afghanistan was conducted by A. E. Snesarev, M. V. Grulev and A. A. Bob- rinsky. Academician V. V. Barthold did a great deal of research on Afghan history and culture.

The Great October Socialist Revolution in Russia marked the beginning of a new stage in Afghan studies, primarily owing to the general progress of science and culture in the Soviet Union, specifically in the former colonial backwoods of tsarist Russia. Further headway in tlie Soviet studies of Afghanistan was made when the two countries established friendly and good-neighbourly relations immediately after Afghanistan’s independence was restored in 1919, which evoked great interest among Soviet people in the historical past and the present of Afghanistan, in the rich culture of its peoples, their languages, literature, ideology and eco- nomy. This unfading interest stimulated the work of Soviet Orientalists who produced not only academic research but also books for the general readership. As a result, over 6,000 publications on Afghanistan have been published in the Soviet Union over the past six decades. Among them are monographs, collections, reference-books, articles in journals and book reviews (in Russian and other languages of the USSR).

A great contribution to Afghan studies in the USSR was made by M.S. Andreyev, M.G. Aslanov, E. E. Bertels, N. A. Kislyakov, N. D. Miklouho-Maclay, I. M. Oransky, I. P. Petrushevsky, N. V. Pigulevskaya, I. M. Reisner, A. A. Semyonov, K. V. Trever, A. Y. Yakubovsky, B. N. Za- khoder and other Orientalists who have studied the ancient, medieval and modern history of Afghanistan and the evolu- tion of Afghan society in recent times. They have also studied major aspects of the history and specifics of the transformations of the languages, culture and ideology of the peoples of Afghanistan in the past decades.

The knowledge of a nation’s past enables one to better understand the present and grasp the significance of tradi- tional views and institutions in present-day life, and the extent of their influence on the social, economic, political and cultural processes going on in the country. This, of course, pertains to present-day Afghanistan, whose people accomplished a national-democratic revolution in April 1978, the first genuine social revolution in its history.

After the April Revolution the good-neighbourly rela- tions between the Soviet and Afghan peoples rose to new heights. Their close friendship and revolutionary solidarity serve as a sound basis for the steady promotion of these relations. The interest of the Soviet public in the past and present of their southem neighbour, in the political, social, economic and cultural processes taking place in Afghanis- tan, the revolutionary changes carried out there and in its home and foreign policies has increased still more.

A History of Afghanistan has been written by M. R. Aru- nova (Chapter Two, ‘‘Afghanistan in the Middle Ages”), Yu. V. Gankovsky (‘‘The State of Durrani” in Chapter Three), V. G. Korgun (Chapter Four, “Afghanistan in Con- temporary Times”, except for the concluding part), V.M. Masson (Chapter One, “Ancient Afghanistan”), G. A. Muradov (“The Victory of the National-Democratic April Revolution and the Foundation of the Democratic Republic of Afghanistan” in Chapter Four, jointly with G. A. Polyakov), and V.A.Romodin (Chapter Three, ‘Afghanistan in Modern Times”, excluding the first part).

Ancient Afghanistan

Historical Beginnings

Much of the early history and the events in the territory of the present-day Afghan state became more or less known only in the 1960s and 1970s, when a considerable part of the territory was surveyed by archaeologists. A good deal has been done by Soviet-Afghan expeditions which dis- covered numerous Stone and Bronze Age artifacts on the left bank of the Amu Darya.

That was a time of the primitive communal system, when man’s life largely depended on natural conditions. In the Palaeolithic hunting and gathering edible plants and mol- luscs took up most of his time.

It is not as yet known if the territory of Afghanistan was one of the zones that were initially settled by man. The crude stone implements found in Dasht-i-Nawur, Ghazni province, give us reason to assert that at least 200 to 100 thousand years ago Palaeolithic hunters already lived in the territory of Afghanistan. The ancient camp discovered at Darrah-i-Kur, North-Eastem Afghanistan, where Mousterian flintwork (Middle Palaeolithic) was found in the lower layers, is believed to have existed 60 to 35 thousand years B.G. The bones of wild bulls and sheep discovered in the camp are witness of the fact that the meat of those animals made up man’s chief food then. A skull fragment found at the same site evidently belonged to Neanderthal man. A grave of a Neanderthal boy was found by Soviet archaeologists in the Teshik-Tash cave on the right bank of the Amu Darya. Finds of Middle Palaeolithic tools in the sands by the Amu Darya in Northern Afghanistan indicate the pres- ence of Palaeolithic hunters.1

The lower layers of the Kara-Kamar cave near the Haibek settlement, on the way from Pul-i-Humri to Tashkurgan, have been traced back to the Late Palaeolithic, the next period in the Stone Age.* At that time Stone Age hunters lived far and wide in the foothills of the Hindu Kush, though traces of their habitation are rare over 1,100 metres above sea-level.. The anthropological type of modem man had taken shape already in the Upper Palaeolithic, but no skeleton fragments of that time have so far been found on Afghan territory.

The descendants of the hunters who had lived in the foot- hills and open valleys were the tribes that populated Afgha- nistan in the Middle Stone Age, or Mesolithic, from 10 to 7 thousand years B.C. Some time within this period a group of people who hunted sheep, antelopes and birds found shelter in the Kara-Kamar cave. Also, two caves and one “outdoor” camp on the Balkhab River, south of Mazar-i- Sharif, with the common name of Ak-kupruk, date from the same period. Found there, apart from bulky weapons and tools, made of stone plates and chips are microliths—small flint plates. These were inserted into the slits of handles and used as knives and other tools. The handles, made of bone or wood, have not survived for the most part. This new technique helped produce work implements that were highly advanced for that time. At the late stage of the Mesolithic flint insets with regular geometric outlines— triangles, rectangules and segments (Tash-Kupruk, camp 40)—became widespread. Late Mesolithic or Early Neolithic materials of that kind were found by the Soviet-Afghan ex- pedition near Akchah where the people who had evidently inhabited this region used to hunt and fish in the deltas of small rivers and streams at the foothills. The Mesolithic flint artifacts of Afghanistan, though so far found only in the north of the country, resemble those of Central Asia of that time, primarily from Southem Turkmenia (Jebel and Dam-dam-Cheshme) and South-Westem Tajikistan (Tut- kaul, the lower layer). This most likely indicates the main directions of ancient cultural contacts.

In the Neolithic, or the New Stone Age, the economic development of communities in the territory of Afghanistan was gradually becoming dissimilar. In the north, hunting, fishing and gathering still remained the chief method of obtaining food (the so-called food-gathering stage), whereas in the south one can see evidence of transition to new forms—farming and livestock raising, i.e., food production or a producing economy. The Bactrian plain, where the climate was humid and the rivers and streams running down from the Hindu Kush mountains came close to the sand ranges, was densely populated by Neolithic hunters and fishermen. Therefore dozens of scattered Neolithic camps were located in the spot where the sand and the rivers joined. Apart from the togls and weapons made of regular thin blades, there were artifacts of geometric outlines, including trapezia and segments. Potsherds, though not numerous, have also been found there. Neolithic layers were discovered also in several caves in Northern Afghanistan where, together with flint weapons and implements, rough graters and stone hoes were found.

For some time rich natural conditions made for a fairly stable existence of Neolithic communities. But, gradually, population growth and the increasing scarcity of animals forced man to look for new sources of food which he found, as is evidenced by the flint blades of the sickles used for reaping grain plants and the bones of domestic animals discovered in the caves of Norther Afghanistan, though there is still some doubt as to their stratigraphic site. In the south the signs of a new historical epoch, that of farming and livestock breeding, were more distinct. The condi- tions for the change were on the whole favourable. Soviet botanist N.I. Vavilov established that an exceptionally wide variety of grain crops were grown in Afghanistan: about sixty strains of soft wheat and up to fifty strains of dwarf wheat. Regions like Herat, Qandahar and South- Easter Afghanistan, he pointed out, should be of great interest to those specialising in farming history.

It was in the south of the country that the first artifacts of ancient farming and livestock breeding were found. In the 1970s a French expedition excavated the Mehrgarh settlement dating from the 6th-5th millennia B.C. at the Bolan mountain pass near the Afghan border. Mud-brick houses and numerous fragments of stone vessels and sickles—these cultural changes are a clear indicator that a new age had set in. Only the flint sign including microliths of geometric outlines (trapezia and segments) bear wit- ness to links with the cultures of Mesolithic and Neolithic hunters and gatherers. An interesting discovery was that almost identical types of trapezia, with a concave top line, have been found at Mehrgarh and at scattered hunters’ camps along the Amu Darya. The pottery found in the Mehrgarh settlement was decorated with painted orna- ments, a sure sign of the early farming period when consid- erable attention was attached to applied arts.2 Everything considered, the relics of the Mehrgarh type were not unique.

In the territory of modem Afghanistan the most ancient relics of settled farming and livestock breeding have been found south of the Hindu Kush (dating from the 4th-3rd millennia B.C.) in the fertile and well-irrigated Qandahar province (Mundigak, Said-kala, Deh-Morasi-Ghundai). Fair climate favoured the growth of early farming culture. The evolution of that culture in Southern Afghanistan is well studied thanks to the Mundigak excavations conducted by French archaeologist Jean-Marie Casal.3 A wide variety of earthenware, made on the potter’s wheel and decorated with painted ornaments, was found even in the lowest layers. The use of such a sophisticated appliance as the potter’s wheel is an indication of considerable technical progress and the development of specialised production.

As to the types of omament, local culture has much in common with the early farming cultures of Beluchistan and Southern Iran. The late 4th and early 3rd millennia B.C. saw an expansion of ties with the farming and livestock raising communities of Southern Turkmenia, probably caused by a migration of tribal groups to the south-east. Thus, clay figurines of women, found in the Said-kala settle- ment, were made in the same manner as those found during Southem Turkmenian excavations. There is a striking resemblance in the painted omaments on pottery. The Qandahar group of the early farming tribes had obviously made considerable headway in metallurgy, evidently due to the occurrence of copper ore in the territory of Afghanis- tan. Copper and bronze were used for making axes with holes for handles, daggers and ornaments. Casting in closed moulds was widespread.

The culture of this group of tribes was in ‘its prime in the 8rd millennium B.C., when the Mundigak settlement must have played the role of the local capital. On a hill formed by the cultural layers of an earlier period there stood a monumental structure with closed semi-pillars at the fagade, the supposed residency of a local prince. Another archi- tectural monument is a big structure, supposedly a temple, enclosed by a wall, which is decorated with sharp pilasters. Bronze compartmental seals were widespread at that time. A wide variety of them can be found also among the imple- ments of that period in Southem Turkmenia and Northem and Eastern Iran.

A number of ceramic vessels resemble some of those of the ancient Indian Harappa civilisation in shape and orna- mental design. Perhaps the Harappa centres in the Indus Valley received copper ore and lapis lazuli from Afghanis- tan; one of the largest deposits of lapis lazuli is in Badakh- shan. This beautiful stone was highly valued in the ancient Orient .for it was believed to have magic properties. Begin- ning with the second half of the 4th millennium B.C. lapis lazuli became widely popular in Mesopotamia and Egypt, and reached Troja in Asia Minor. Through multiple ex- change Afghan lapis lazuli reached far into the West. There is evidence that direct trade and cultural contacts with the Harappa civilisation existed at that time. In 1975 French archaeologists revealed the Shoturgai settlement on the Amu Darya bank, and typical samples of Harappa pottery and seals were found in the lower layers. So far, only ten- tative excavations were conducted, but there is strong evid- ence that close ties existed between the ancient cultures. It is not ruled out that Shoturgai is the remains of a Harap- pa trading station. Various specialised production which, having separated from farming, gradually tumed into crafts, and monumental architecture provide convincing evidence of an emerging civilisation. Discovered in Mundigak was an extemal wall flanked by square towers. At the late stages of its existence Mundigak was evidently tuming from an agricultural community into an urban-type settlement.

In the 3rd millennium B.C., similar changes are to be found in the culture of another group of the early farming tribes of Southem Afghanistan—the Seistan group. There the Helmand delta, which consisted of numerous streams flowing into lakes constantly varying in size (hamuns) faci- litated the growth of irrigated farming. In a few dozen early farming settlements of that period high-quality painted ware, made on the potter’s wheel, and also bronze compart- mental seals have been found. The ruins of the capital of that group of tribes, known as Shahr-i-Sohte, are now situat- ed in the territory of Iran. Excavations at Shahr i-Sohte revealed a monumental building, metallic compartmental seals, a bronze figurine of a woman, apparently brought from Mesopotamia, and a clay tablet with signs of the Proto-Elamite writing. There are reasons to believe that, like Mundigak, Shahr-i-Sohte is the remains of an early urban-type settlement.

It is more difficult to form an opinion on the culture of Northem Afghanistan in the period when early-farming settlements flourished in the south. It is possible that in the north the transition to farming and livestock breeding was greatly delayed and that the communities with archaic Neolithic culture existed simultaneously with those of the settled farmers of the south. In some caves the researchers found traces of the ‘Neolithic with the cult of mountain

oats” (3rd millennium B.C.), so called because ritual urials of these animals have been discovered in the cultural layer. The stone and flint weapons and implements found in the same layer were roushiy made and obsolete for - that time. Possibly sited here were the camps of hunters and livestock breeders whose cultural development was on a comparatively low level.

Considerable changes set in in the 2nd millennium B.C., when the culture of both groups of South Afghan farmers fell into decay for reasons not quite clear. Most of the settlements were neglected; the settled area in Mundigak shrank drastically, and hand-made ceramics prevailed, though artisans put out wheel-made pottery. In the north, by contrast, high-developed culture flourished. It has been studied by Soviet scientist V. I. Sarianidi during a Soviet- Afghan expedition there. A number of valuable artifacts, some made of gold and silver, were found during chance predatory excavations.5

On the whole, the picture of that ancient culture has become fairly clear. A few dozen settlements of farmers and livestock breeders, five or six oases along small rivers, have been discovered in a comparatively small area between Daulatabad and Mazar-i-Sharif. The settlements themselves were concentrated in river deltas, in the zones bordering on barren expanses, where high spring floods could be used for irrigation. Obviously, small’ ducts were dug to irrigate the fields. The loess soil of Northern Afghanistan is known for its fertility. Research done by Soviet archaeologists has shown that oasis farming was already practised there in the Bronze Age. The field would be tilled by something like a plough driven by oxen. Each of the oases had its centre which differed from the ordinary settlements by a small rectangular fortress nearly 2.5 acres in area. The fortress was surrounded by an adobe wall with circular towers at the comers and semi-circular ones along the wall (Dashly-I, Ghirdai)—a stable and fairly developed fortifica- tion system for that time. It is known also that the cultural level of the oasis population in the 2nd millennium B.C. was high.*

Ceramics of standard shape was made on the potter’s wheel and baked in special two-tier kilns near the settle- ments. The ceramists produced vessels of strict and refined outlines without omamentation. Painted ceramics had disappeared with the decline of early-farming traditions in applied arts. But smelters, smiths and jewellers made all kinds of axes, sickles, mirrors, and pins with elaborate tops, often portraying a goat, a ram, or a bull. The number of weapons they made was significantly large and included swords, spears and combat axe. The latter, judging by clay figurines of warriors, were normally carried tucked behind the belt. The fortresses and a large amount of standard weapons indicate that those were years of armed clashes. The making of large open-work bronze seals, often picturing people and animals, was probably a separate production branch. There were also stone seals picturing, among many” other things, winged lions, an image of a clearly Mesopo- tamian origin. Outstanding pieces of ancient art are the stone figurines of sitting women, their bodies made of dark ophite and the heads of light-coloured marble. The figurines bear obvious traces of the artistic canons of far-away Mesopotamia. :

This highly developed culture for the most part did not have local predecessors in Northem Afghanistan in the form of any kind of settlements of the early farmers. It had emerged on the Bactrian plain as something already com- plete, and evidently took the place of the archaic and largely Neolithic culture of the hunters and livestock breeders. At the same time all the chief elements of that culture are observed in the Bronze Age monuments of Southem Turkmenistan. Moreover, judging by the exca- vations: in Altyn-Tepe, they had taken shape there in a natural way, on the basis of the local cultural traditions of the early-farming stage. In the 2nd millennium B.C. the main centres of that culture of Southem Turkmenistan —Altyn-Tepe and Namazga-Tepe—fell into decay. Part of the population migrated eastwards towards the delta of the Murghab River, creating new oases, each having as its centre a rectangular fortress with semi-circular towers along the walls, Evidently, the gradual migration of those population groups with a high urban-type culture resulted in the cultivation of fertile areas in Norther Afghanistan. Si- multaneously, settlements with an identical culture ap- peared in Southem Uzbekistan, on the right bank of the Amu-Darya (Sappali, Jarkutan).

But, on the whole, that was a fairly Se) saree process. The presence of doubtlessly Mesopotamic features in Dash- ly-type settlements and of the grey ware, more typical of the regions south-east of the Caspian Sea than of Southem Turkmenia, -point to the existence of other links. In any case, it was a period when contacts expanded between various countries and different cultures, which was often caused by the migration of groups of tribes. This perhaps explains why the ruins of scattered settlements with coarse hand-made pottery, typical of the cattle-breeding tribes living in the steppes of the northern areas of Central Asia and Kazakhstan, were found not far from the Bronze Age fortresses in Norther Afghanistan.

So far, no large monuments of the Bronze Age, which could be regarded as remains of urban-type settlements, have been found in Northem Afghanistan. Probably at the early stages of the opening up of new lands concentration of inhabitants proceeded at a slow pace; therefore the com- munities were small and scattered, not far from one another, each being a separate social organism. Notable are fairly large structures of monumental architecture detached from other buildings, obviously serving specific purposes common to a group of settlements (and perhaps the whole of Northem Afghanistan). Two such buildings were excavat- ed in Dashly-3. One of them is square-shaped, each side being 130 to 150 metres long. In the centre there stands a round fortress with rectangular towers slightly protruding from the walls. Within the fortress there is a shrine-type structure with an altar at the wall, which means it was a cult centre, most probably a temple having various services, depositories, granaries, and dwellings for the priests and servants. The ancient temples of Mesopotamia are known to have been not only the symbols of the ideological unity of communities, by whose joint efforts they had been erected, but also administrative and economic centres, as it were. ;

The other structure is rectangular, 84 by 88 metres in area. It has a courtyard where various storehouses were sited and a small building with altar recesses. The outer walls of the building are decorated with numerous pilasters. It is supposed that the building was a kind of palace or temple but, judging by its lay-out, it lacks the dwelling space a palace is expected to have. Probably it was a temple, after all, but for a different deity. In Mesopotamia, for instance, there often were temples for the supreme god and his divine wife built close to one another. Whatever, the case, it was a Bronze Age religious, administrative and economic centre. Although among the dozens of excavated burial mounds archaeologists have not yet found any containing riches that would allow them to be classed among the tombs of the secular or clerical elite, among the accidental finds in Northern Afghanistan there are quite a few valuable articles of the Bronze Age, including golden vessels with relief omaments—a clear indication that they originated either from rich burial mounds or from temple treasure rooms. It is therefore safe to maintain that in the 2nd millennium B.C. an ancient Oriental type of civilisation was taking shape in Northern Afghanistan, though in conditions and a cultural environment that differed from what they were in the 3rd millennium B.C. in the south of the country. It appears that during this period a process of social and property differentiation was taking place and social ine- quality was beginning tosetin. __ ; ;

The ethnic and linguistic affinity of the ancient tribes which had created these wonderful Bronze Age cultures 1s not quite clear. Already in the early-farming period the area was inhabited by long-headed people of the European type who by their anthropological characteristics are close to the present-day population of Afghanistan. However, a similar anthropological type existed in most of the other early-farming cultures in the areas from Southern Turk- menistan to the north-western regions of South Asia, and

‘ also among the people of the Harappa civilisation. Analysis of inscriptions on Harappa seals gives reason to suppose that their language can be classed among the proto-Dravi- dian ones which were rather widespread in ancient times. A seal bearing a similar inscription was found in Southern Turkmenia during excavations in Altyn-Tepe. It is possible that various groups of early-farming tribes in Southern Turkmenia, Northern Iran and a considerable part of Afghanistan also spoke the languages and dialects of the proto-Dravidian group. While in the south of Iran, numerous ancient settlements have been found bearing traces of the Elamite language which is, in some respects, close to proto- Dravidian.

In the 2nd millennium B.C. the situation began to change. There is reason to believe that part of the popula- tion in the territory of Afghanistan spoke the languages of the Indo-Iranian group, as most of the country’s present- day population does. The ancient Iranian and ancient In- dian languages originated from one common language from which they had adopted the fundamentals of grammar and the bulk of the vocabulary. The Indo-Iranian common elements (or Aryan, according to their self-identificati- on) were not confined to the language alone: there was much in common also in religion, mythology and epic legends.

Analysis of the terms dating back to the Indo-Iranian community allows us to maintain that they were tribes that knew agriculture, but that cattle was their main wealth and it was the criterion of welfare. During this period a military elite had emerged: chariot warriors called ratayshtars (literally, standing in the chariot). Power was in the hands of the chiefs who were gradually tuming into sovereign kinglings. The tribes that spoke ancient Indian languages were settling in Norther India, possibly in two flows, in the general direction from the north-west to the south- east. They mixed with the local Dravidian-speaking popula- tion, a fact witnessed by the strong Dravidian influence on the Aryan languages of Northern India. The Rigveda, the most ancient relic of these languages, is dated by many authors between the 12th and 10th centuries B.C., but they are supposed to have spread in the first half of the 2nd millennium B.C. These developments, naturally, affected the territory of Afghanistan and many historians believe that the ancestors of the Indo-Aryans lived for a certain time in the territory of Central Asia and Afghanistan toge- ther with the ancestors of Iranian tribes.®

The appearance in the Middle East of Aryan proper names and specific terms associated with the Iranian linguistic group, is traced back to the mid-2nd millennium B.C.” In any case, early in the 1st millennium B.C. the areas of present-day Afghanistan and the greater part of Central Asia were already populated by Iranian speaking tribes. The names they gave to some regions stuck for centuries. All this prompts the conclusion that during the latter half of the 2nd millennium B.C., and perhaps even earlier,-Iranian-speaking tribes settled in Afghanistan and in nearby regions; they assimilated with the local population whose language had quite possibly already been Indianised. The initial regions inhabited by Indo Iranian livestock breeding tribes were most likely the steppes between the Danube and the Urals. Everything considered, these tribes migrated in different directions: some reached the Middle East via the Caucasus, while others moved to the east of the Caspian Sea. These data are comparable, to some extent, with the evolution and spread of ancient cultures in accord- ance with archaeological evidence.

It appears that there existed three types of these cultures and archaeological complexes. The first one includes the cultures promoting the development of local traditions of settled farming. These traditions gave rise to the formation of ancient Oriental civilisations. Such are the complexes of the Namazga-5 and Namazga-6 type in a section of the foothills in Southern Turkmenistan and in the Murghab delta and also the artifacts found along the middle rea- ches of the Amu Darya, on both of its banks (of the Ghir- dai, Dashly and Sappali type). While the local traditions continued in those cultures, in the 2nd millennium B.C. there appeared some features and phenomena related to the culture of Mesopotamia and a number of regions in Western Iran. This was reflected in certain artistic images (winged lions, or a hero fighting wild beasts), and in cer- tain types of bronze artifacts, specifically battle axes and daggers.

The second type includes artifacts of the steppe bronze of Central Asia and Kazakhstan, mostly coarse hand-made pottery ornamented with simple scratched-on designs. They have been found also in Southern Turkmenia and in the south of Central Asia, and some articles of that kind have turned up on the left bank of the Amu Darya. The third type of the archaeological complexes of that period is marked by a pone syncretism of features, though in a somewhat rougher version, and of elements that go back to the zone of the Bronze Age steppe tribes. Monuments of this kind have been studied well in South-Western Taji- kistan (the early Tulkhar burial mound, and the cemetery “Tiger Gorge’’) and can, evidently, be found on the left bank of the Amu Darya (the upper layers of the Shoturgai settlement).

This intricate picture reflects the process of the settle- ment of the tribes of new ethnos, genetically related to the steppe zone of Eurasia, which had absorbed in the process of migration certain cultural elements of West Asia. Simul- taneously, linguistic assimilation of the local proto-Indo- Iranian population was under way. In the cultural area highly developed local traditions of settled farming pre- vailed. It is obviously not accidental that Indo-Iranian myths are reflected in the intricate patterns on the seals of that time. Whatever the case, this period was most im- portant in the history of the ancient tribes and ethnic groups of Afghanistan, a time when the direct ancestors of the present-day population emerged.

Early Class Society

The ancient history of Afghanistan, beginning from the late Bronze Age, has been studied on the basis of archaeo- logical evidence as well as written sources. The most im- portant source on the ancient history of Afghanistan and neighbouring countries is the Avesta, a remarkable sample of ancient Iranian writings from which we have leamt the names of a number of historical-cultural areas in the terri- tory of Afghanistan dating to the Ist millennium B.C. The Qandahar region, for instance (where an isolated group of early-farming tribes lived in the 4th-3rd millennia B.C.) is called Harahwati in the Avesta, which in Greek stands for Arachosia. The Seistan area, the homeland of the second group of early-farming tribes, is called Haitumanta (after the name of the Haitumant River, now Helmand). Since in ancient Iranian “‘haitu’”? means bridge, it may be supposed that there was an important river crossing. The area is better known under the name Drangiana (ancient Persian Zrarika).

In Northem Afghanistan too there existed two major historical cultural areas. The territory of the present-day Herat oasis is named Haroiva in the Avesta (Areia in Greek), which eventually became Herat. The regions along the middle reaches of the Amu Darya, together with the south- em regions of Uzbekistan and Tajikistan, formed Bactria

Bahdi in the Avesta and Bakhtrish in ancient Persian).

ordering on Bactria, and at certain periods becoming part of it, was Margiana (Mouru in the Avesta and Margush in ancient Persian), an area in the fertile low reaches of the Murghab in South-Eastem Turkmenia.

The version of the Avesta, which has come down to us, is by far incomplete. The most interesting part that has survived intact is ‘“Yasna’’, which literally means “reverence, sacrifice”. It contains various texts that were recited during specific religious ceremonies. Among them are 17 chap- ters whose author is said to be Zoroaster (Zarathustra), the famous founder of one of the world religions. Zoroaster’s preachings known under the title ‘“The Gathas’’, are very archaic as to language, but very emotional and passionate. The ‘“Videvdat’”’ (a law against devs), another important part of the Avesta, contains texts describing quite ancient tradition. And, last but not, ‘least, the Avesta also includes 22 hymns, so-called yashts, dedicated to different deities. Their language is still more archaic than that of Zoro- aster’s preachings.

The oldest parts of the Avesta contain enough data to describe the social set-up of the East-Iranian tribes, at least those that lived in the first third of the 1st millennium B.C. The primary social unit was the nmana-(haus), a big patriarchal family, including slaves, dwellings and the entire household. The next unit was the vzs, or clan, which was followed by the zantu, the tribe or the region inhabited by the tribe. And the fourth unit in the social hierarchy was the dahyu, the country or area that was headed by the dahyupati, the ruler. Apparently the dahyus were the main economic and political organisms of that time, which presented oases with urban-type settlements in the centre. Such oases grouped round a large settlement with a citadel resting on a thick raw-brick platform, are known to have existed in ancient Margiana, in the delta of the Murghab in the 9th-7th centuries B.C. Most likely Nadi-Ali in Seistan was such a centre of ancient Drangiana. In the middle of Nadi-Ali is a hill, 31 metres high, and on the hill-top are the remains of a structure resembling a palace. It was built in the 7th or the 6th century B.C. Found during the Nadi-Ali excavations were, apart from pottery, fragments of cop- per and gold omaments. Possibly this was the residency of a local dahyupatt. The yashts make mention of the rulers’ dwellings, evidently the oldest palace-type buil- dings. Monumental structures resting on high raw-brick platforms and dating from the first third of the Ist mil- lennium B.C. (Tilla-Tepe) have. been discovered in left- bank Bactria.

Available archaeological data indicate that certain chan- ges had taken place in the culture of the North Afghanistan oases in the first 300-350 years of the 1st millennium B.C. The amount of artisan-made pottery decreased, and nearly half of all the clay ware consisted of coarse hand-moulded vessels, often decorated by a simple design. (Some of the cultural traditions, however, were preserved, notably in construction). The large number of bronze arrow-heads show that arms played a big role in the life of the ancient tribes. During this period iron began to be used, enabling the warriors and farmers to manufacture weapons and tools of unprecedented strength and durability. A similar culture had spread at the time also on the right bank of the Amu Darya (Kuchuk-Tepe), and in the lower reaches of the Murghab (complexes of the Jaz-Depe 1 type). The causes of the changes are not quite clear. Most probably they reflect the process of cultural assimilation which was linked with the adoption of languages and dialects of the East- Iranian linguistic group by the population of Afghanistan and neighbouring countries. Early in the 1st millennium B.C., as the settled oases began to develop, the nomad tribes, who also spoke East-Iranian languages and descended from the Bronze Age steppe livestock breeders, began to merge. When the nomads mastered horse riding, they began to cover long distances. Mounted warriors became a power- ful military force in the ancient world. Most known among those tribes were the Sakas, dwelling mainly in Northem Kirghizia and Southern Kazakhstan. However, some groups of nomads often lived close to oasis settlers. There is reason to believe that nomad tribes rather early came as far as the south of Afghanistan.

Economic development, accumulation of riches, the growing threat of war, and the continuing division of society into rich and poor served to promote the striving to establish large political amalgamations with stable centra- lised leadership. The heroic epic tradition of the East- Iranian tribes, partially preserved in the Avesta, sheds light on some aspects of that process. One of the yashts, entitled ‘Mihr-Yasht’’? and devoted to Mihr, or Mithra, an ancient Iranian god, makes mention of a dahyu pati of all dahyus, or the ruler of not merely one but of several oasis-countries.8 The very appearance of the term points to the tendency for political centralisation, for unification of several oases under one ruler. Some of those amalgamations were fairly large. It is said in the “Mihr-Yasht”’ that riding a fast horse, Mithra was the first to reach mountain tops from where he viewed the rich ‘‘Aryan’’ land, comprising Sogd, Margi- ana, Areia, Khwarizm and the regions lying, evidently, in the mountains of Afghanistan. Historians have enough in- formation to suggest that it was one of the quite ancient political amalgamations without fixed borders or stable power.

The heroic epic tradition of the family of Vishtaspa, a patron of Zoroaster, describes the dramatic events accom- panying such amalgamations. Kavi Khusraw, a remote an- cestor of Vishtaspa, had fought against Frangrasyan, the leader of the nomad tribes called the Turas in the Avesta. Initially Frangrasyan conquered the country of Kavi Khusraw who apparently ruled Drangiatia in South-Western Afghanistan. The nomad chief, however, lost a severe battle and was captured. Bound hand and foot, he was brought before Kavi Khusraw who then killed him “at Chaichasta, a deep lake with salt water’? (most probably the Aral Sea). Soviet historian I. M. Dyakonov maintains that the Aryan land described in the ‘Mihr-Yasht” was a confederation formed by the ruler of Drangiana. In any event, it was one of the temporary amalgamations that were formed under the rule of lucky kinglets and were based on military strength. However, the power of the kinglets was limited by a “council of superiors”. The religious elite, a priestly caste, played a major role, too.

Whatever the case, the struggle for unifying the separate oases in the conditions of constant clashes, when the coun- try was often attacked by nomads, became the chief pro- gressive trend at that period. It was in that historical con- text that Zoroaster emerged on the scene. Stylistical analy- sis of his preachings, the Gathas, shows they had been written by one and the same person and reflect the author’s vivid personality, impetuous character, passion and intol- erance. He was obviously a reformer.rejecting the previous beliefs and denouncing the priests behind them.

Zoroaster was fervently opposed to mendacious gods and their advocates, and also to the rulers under whom the “bad preachers’ functioned. In his religious views he gave priority to Ahura-Mazda (the wise deity). He also laid the foundations of the dualistic system dividing the world into the kingdom of good and truth (Arta) and the king- dom of evil and falsehood (Drug). Thus Zoroaster put it in so many words: “I want to say about the two Spirits at the beginning of life, and of them the bright one told the evil one: ‘There is no accord between our views, teachings, will, convictions, words, deeds, our faith or our souls.’ The two primordial spirits appeared as twins, kind and evil

in thoughts, words and deeds. And when the two met, they first established life, on the one hand, and destruc- tion of life, on the other.”’ Man, theoretically at least, is free to choose between good or evil. Zoroaster himself never doubted his choice and was a champion of Arta. But beyond Zoroaster’s abstract notions and vague, though poetic, visions, one can discem quite real and earthly aspi- rations. 0

The conditions in which this ideological phenomenon emerged and took shape, in particular the uncompromising dualism with eternal conflict between good and evil on a cosmic scale, are quite definite. Thus, Zoroaster mentions time and again, and in various combinations, livestock breeding and various domestic animals, most often oxen and cows. Speaking about livestock and animal breeding, the prophet showed great interest in their well-being and flourishing, in their being guarded against evil forces, against * large-scale slaughter at offerings and, most important, against rapaciousness and plunder. It is known that at a certain stage of social development, when social groups became distinctly divided and transformed into classes, the number of cattle owned was what determined one’s social standing. Cattle, as an easily alienable property, was the first to become the object of ownership, for cattle owner- ship meant prosperity. It is noteworthy in this respect that the noble family, one of the first to back up Zoroaster’s teaching, was called Hvagva, originally meaning “having a good ox” or “good cattle”. The name of one of the prophet’s followers, Frashaoshtra, means “having good camels”, and that of another was Jamaspa, “leading ahorse”’. Even the pro- phet’s name means “owner of yellow camel” or ‘“‘cameleer’’.

But Zoroaster was not in the least a passive advocate of protecting welfare and wealth, of which prosperous lives- tock breeding was a symbol. He argued that society could be protected from misfortune and plunder and that prin- ciples of truth and light on earth could be established by means of khshatra, the strong power of earthly rulers. In his 17 discourses that have survived this idea is mentioned 63 times. A good ruler, Zoroaster said, brings death and destruction to the camps of enemies and thus enthrones peace to joyful settlements. In this respect Zoroastriism was a doctrine to a great deal in accord with the historical situation of the time, providing ideological grounds for setting up large state amalgamations under “righteous kings”. This, in turn, was one of the causes of the rapid spread of the new doctrine which served as an ideological platform for the nobility which opposed their own power to society. ; is

The founder of the doctrine himself was active in the political struggle for setting up stable state formations. Zoroastrian tradition maintains that Zoroaster appeared on the scene 258 years before Alexander the Great, but it is not clear whether it is the Seleucid era, which originated in 312 B.C., that is meant or some other period. The life and activities of the prophet can approximately be dated the 7th century B.C. The name of his mother was Dugh- dova (“milking cows’) and his father’s name was Puru- sh spa (“one who owns grey or spotted horses’’). At the age of about thirty Zoroaster began to preach a new doctrine but was: no success in his country. The opposition was especially vigorous on the part of traditional priests and Zoroaster was fOrced to flee his homeland. He found re- cognition, however, at the court of ruler Vishtaspa. The new doctrine was supported by many from among the nobility, including the -ruler’s chief adviser Jamaspa. With this strong support Zoroaster angrily exposed other rulers who heeded the voices of “false prophets’. Zoroaster is believed to have achieved that success at the age of forty- two. But Vishtaspa’s struggle for creating a large domain was hard indeed and he ultimately lost. His main adversary Arjataspa, chief of the Hiauna tribe, conquered Vishtaspa’s kingdom. As for Zoroaster, he was killed at the age of seventy-seven by a nomad from the Tura tribe.

But this is only an instance of the military and political struggle for creating bigger state formations. Judging by what we know, most successful were the rulers of Bactria, where rich and prospering oases had taken shape by the 2nd millennium B.C. In the Avesta Bactria is described as “a wonderful land with banners raised high’’, which obvi- ously implies valour. !

According to stable tradition of ancient historiography, traced back to Ctesias of Cnidus, ancient Bactria was a strong political amalgamation. This tradition has it that Bactria was a large kingdom with a number of cities. Then it w s attacked by Assyrian troops led by king Ninus and queen Semiramis. As the capital Bactra (now Bala-Hissar near Mazar-i-Sharif) was well fortified (apart from fortifi- cation walls there was a citadel), it was conquered only by a ruse. After the fall of the capital the attackers seized a large amount of gold and silver. Much of this story resem- bles a legend. Semiramis was the actual ruler of Assyria since 810 B.C. At the time of her rule her troops sometimes penetrated far into the East, though obviously no further than the central regions of Iran. Possibly in a record of events ancient authors proceeded from both recollections about these long expeditions to the East by Assyrian troops and from the tradition which held that there existed a fairly strong political amalgamation in pre-Achaemenian Bactria. One thing is certain, however: in the 8th and 7th centuries B.C. urban-type settlements with strong citadels existed in Afghanistan and in the south of Central Asia. It is indicative that after the defeat of Media, the Achaeminian king Cyrus regarded Bactria a major rival, along with Babylon, Egypt and the Saka nomads. Some Graeco-Roman authors mista- kenly named Zoroaster as king of Bactria during the Bactri- an-Assyrian war: the ancient world knew Zoroaster as an outstanding personality who lived far away in the East. Perhaps Bactria and neighbouring areas were being drawn increasingly into the orbit of the political history of the ancient Orient.

Late in the 7th century B.C, Media, which had inflicted a crushing defeat on Assyria, became the leading power in Westem Asia. At some point Media’s influence must have extended also to the southem regions of Afghanistan. But Media’s domination in the Orient was shortlived and its place was soon taken by the Persian Achaemenian empire. In 550 B.C., Cyrus, the founder of the new dynasty, cap- tured the last Median king and seized Ecbatana, the capital of Media. The new state began to flourish and expanded enormously, having incorporated Areia, Bactria, Dran- giana, Arachosia and Gandhara. These areas had most likely been conquered by Cyrus during his eastem campaign be- tween 539 and 530 B.C. Some details of those events were recorded in ancient sources and it is known, for instance, that the Persians had entered into an alliance with the tribe of Ariaspa that lived in Drangiana. For their noble be- haviour they were called Evergets (noble). According to another ancient source, Cyrus was assisted in his eastem campaigns by the Sakas of King Amorg, particularly in combats against the tribe of Derbiks supported by Indian detachments with combat elephants.

The stories about the Evergets and the Derbiks obviously describe one and the same event, when during the struggle against the tribes of Eastem Iran and Southern Afghanistan Cyrus managed to win over to his side a group of tribes. No details are known about how Cyrus conquered Bactria. But it is known that the first battles were not decisive and that only later the Bactrians voluntarily submitted them- selves to the founder of the Achaemenian state. Any resist- ance was ruthlessly suppressed. Thus, Cyrus destroyed Kapisa (located in the vicinity of present-day Bahram). In the conquered countries he set up satrapies headed by Persian vicegerents who had armed forces and an administra- tive apparatus for collecting taxes. But not all of Cyrus’ eastern campaigns were successful. In August 530 B.C. the Persian army was routed in a clash with nomads and Cyrus himself killed. According to some sources, in that battle Cyrus was opposed by the Massagets. Other sources name the Derbiks, and still others assert they were the Dais or Dachs. However we do know that they were nomads from Central Asia. The Persian army was most likely defeated between the rivers Amu Darya and Syr Darya.

After the death of Cyrus his son Cambyses succeeded him as “king of kings’ ae the Achaemenian empire (530-522 B.C.). He set out to conquer Egypt, which his father had failed to do. During the last year of Cambyses’ rule the Achaemenian state was hit hard by a severe socio-political crisis. Behind the dynastic struggle going on at the time one can easily discem the intemal contradictions tearing apart the empire Cyrus had built. The empire comprised many countries and peoples which had once been independent and would not reconcile themselves to their subordinate position. The Persian and Median tribes enjoyed a privileged position in the Achaemenian empire, with property and social differentiation growing more distinct; the nobility was getting richer while ordinary community members found themselves ever deeper in bondage. Similar processes of class differentiation were also going on in the eastern satrapies of the Achaemenians, where the local nobility in some cases took the side of the conquerors and turned against their own people.

Mass movements were triggered off by a dynastic coup. In a bid to secure for himself one-man rule, Cambyses secretly murdered his brother Bardiya. As Cambyses was away on an expedition to Egypt, one of the priests (a magus), Gaumata by name, taking advantage of the fact that the murder was secret, declared himself Cyrus’ son and seized power in Persia. Cambyses hurried back home but died on the way from a wound received under unknown circumstances. Gaumata assumed the title of “king of kings” and the vast empire was now completely in his hands. But the disturbances that had started under Cam- byses were mounting. To remain in power, pseudo-Bardiya suspended for three years both tax payment and supply of troops to the Persian army from the conquered countries. Soon after, a plot was hatched among the Persian aristo- cracy against Guamata and he was killed. Darius I (522- 486 B.C.), of the younger Achaemenian line, became “king of kings’. The new coup worsened the political situation still more and Darius I had to promptly suppress insurrec- tions in many parts of his empire, including the eastern satrapies.

Opposition swelled most in Margiana where the insurg- ents chose Frada, a Margian, as leader. Dadarshish, a Bac- trian satrap, was sent to quell the uprising and the Margians suffered a heavy defeat in a battle on December 10, 522 B.C. It was reported that 55,000 insurgents were killed and 6,500 were taken prisoner. V. V. Struve has contended that the Margian insurrection can be interpreted as a broad popular movement that was particularly dangerous to the social foundations of the Achaemenian empire. He argued that this accounted for the speed and severity of its sup- pression.11

Another uprising that was no less dangerous to Darius swept across Persida and some other regions. It was led by Vahyazdata, who announced himself to be Bardiya, a son of Cyrus. He was supported by the whole of Persida. Ac- cording to an official version, the rebels were defeated in the very first battle at Kapishkanish fortress (supposedly identified with Kapisa) on December 29, 522 B.C. But the movement was not put down, and the insurgents mustered forces once again, which shows that they had support among the local population. They were utterly defeated in the second battle on February 21, 521 B.C., at Gandutava. There are all grounds to see these insurrec- tions as a result of increased class differentiation which evoked protest on the part of the ever more deprived ordinary members of the community.12

Having won in the intensive struggle, Darius I conducted certain reforms and altered the state administrative system, instituting secret surveillance over the satraps. The roads were improved; and so was money circulation. ;

¢-However, the tendency to isolate some of the satrapies, particularly those most developed economically and politic- ally, remained. Indicative in this respect was the role of Bactria, whose satraps were usually appointed from among the ruling dynasty. The satraps tended to use their rule in order to make higher political claims. Thus, at the start of his rule Xerxes (486-465 B.C.) was opposed by his brother Aryamen, who headed a Bactrian satrapy. Later, still under Xerxes, another Bactrian satrap, Masista, who enjoyed broad support among Bactrians and Sakas, rose in rebellion. Under Artaxerxes I (465-423 B.C.) his brother Hystaspes, ruler of Bactria, claimed the throne, and that sparked off a protracted internecine war in which the Bactrians fought vigorously on the side of the claimant. During this period the Achaemenian state was on the decline, which was largely due to the unsuccessful Greek campaigns, incessant palace coups and the weakening of the Persian army in which the number of mercenaries was increasing.

Meanwhile the remote satrapies were growing more in- dependent, some becoming individual states. In the East, for instance, Khwarizm broke away and a number of Indian lands, annexed under DariusI, became independent. Besus, the last Achaemenian satrap of Bactria, did not limit his domain to Bactria alone. Sogdians and Indians (evident- ly the inhabitants of Westem Gandhara) were subordinate to him (at least they supplied troops for his army), while the Saka tribes were his ‘‘allies’”’. This vast domain, which would later become the Graeco-Bactrian kingdom, could not fail to influence the political ambitions of Besus, who tried to form an independent state when the Achaemenian empire was defeated by Alexander the Great.

The lists of the regions taxed by the Achaemenian state and records of events in the 6th and 5th centuries B.C, mention the names of various tribes and peoples, thus be- coming a valuable palaeo-ethnographic source. Among the multi-lingual population of the Achaemenian empire men- tion is also made of the Paktyes who lived somewhere in the eastern satrapies. Some historians believed that Paktye was a version of a name assumed by the Afghan tribes, now known as the Pashtuns or the Pakhtuns.!3 Records by Greek authors make it possible to approximately outline the territory where the Paktyes lived. Within this territory was the city of Caspatura, or Caspapura, from which a flo- tilla of Darius I set out down the Indus to explore the new territories of his domain.

There is also evidence that the lands of the Paktyes bordered on the territory populated by the “Scythians’’, that is, a group of nomad tribes ancient authors often called by the name of the nomads better known to them. More likely they were the Sakas from the Pamirs, where their burials have been discovered, or the Sakas who also lived in mountain valleys and on mountain plateaus but some- what more southerly. Rivers in the area inhabited by the Paktyes were navigable and, possibly, their lands were in the mountains north of the Kabul River.!4 But there is no linguistic evidence of a merger between the Paktyes and the Pashtuns.

The toponymy of Bactria, Arachosia, Drangiana and other regions, now fully or partially incorporated in Afgha- nistan, has shown that the population living in those areas in the middle of the 1st millennium B.C. spoke mainly the dialects of the East-Iranian group of languages. One of the numerous indications of this is the element aspa (horse) in the names of tribes and peoples: Zariaspa, a nickname of the Bactra, and also Ariaspas, Aspasians, etc. It was these ancient East-Iranian tribes that made up the basis on which the Iranian-speaking peoples populating present-day Afgha- nistan were developing. There exist definite links between the Bactrian and modern Afghan languages. A considerable role in the development of the Afghan languages was also played by the Saka languages. The people who spoke them had moved far to the south at a rather early period and their ranks were replenished by inflows of nomad tribes. Obvi- ously the interaction between the settled population of Arachosia and Drangiana, who spoke East-Iranian dialects, and the nomads of the Saka group marked an important phase in the ethnic evolution of the ancestors of the Afghan people. However that was along and complex process.

Though in the period between the 6th and 4th centuries B.C. there were numerous uprisings and disturbances, for Bactria and neighbouring areas it was, on the whole, a time of certain stabilisation. The relative peace, Zoroaster had called for in his preachings, came to the “joyful settle- ments’. There was definite progress in the economy, pri- marily in irrigated farming and in the handicrafts, The Achaemenian government built irrigation installations, though it laid additional taxes on the community members using the water. There also existed a kyariz system in which water-collecting galleries gradually brought subterranean waters up to the surface. Encouraging irrigated farming, the Achaemenians exempted from taxation, for a certain period, each person who built a kyariz. Quite probably, the first kyarizes in Afghanistan, known to be in a number of regions in the country, in particular in Farakh-Girishk, date back to the middle of the 1st millennium B.C.’

The population was gradually concentrating in urban- type settlements, which were becoming major centres of economic and cultural development. The ruins of the Bac- trian capital studied by archaeologists occupy an area of 120 hectares, not counting the suburbs. Many cities had a fortified citadel, apart from fortress walls. Thus, Altyn Dilyar-Tepe, a major centre of that oasis, was circular in shape with a rectangular citadel in the centre. Towns were the seat of handicrafts, exchange of goods, and trade. In- dian sources have made it possible to draw up a long list of the trade items of the time: woollen blankets; various iron tools, including sickles, spades, ploughshares; pottery; gold and silver adomments; boats, carts and chariots—all mostly made by craftsmen. As for farming, there are many signs that it was little affected by commodity relations: from among the farming products various wines, including a wine variety from Kapisa, were for sale. There was a growth of international trade, which was patronised by the Achae- menian government, and there existed a trade route from Asia Minor to Bactria and further on to India.

The development of money circulation reflected the pro- gress of commodity relations and showed that at the time the limits of the natural economy were overgrown. Sources mention taxes levied in various satrapies, with Bactria paying 360 talents annually (one talent equalling about 30 kilograms of silver), It was most probably a monetary equivalent of various natural deliveries, but it cannot be ruled out that taxes were paid in part with money. In the territory of Bactria, Gandhara and Arachosia coins of Achaemenian mintage—gold dariks (8.4 grams) and silver sikles (5.5 grams) are found comparatively rarely. More widespread were the coins issued by various Greek towns, above all, Athens. Local coins were also minted in Gand- hara, in the shape of elongated or square silver bars with various imprints. A large treasure-trove of silver coins was found in Kabul, but only a small part of it was stored in a museum.!5 Apart from Achaemenian, Greek and Gand- haran coins, it contained 29 peculiar coins resembling Greek ones in mintage and Gandharan ones by the impressions on some of the coins picturing a bird, coupled rams, the head of an elephant and a hyena (?). It is believed that the coins were minted in Kapisa or even in Bactria itself.16

It may be concluded, on the whole, that during the polit- ical rule of the Achaemenians, whose domains also included the lands of present-day Afghanistan, the development of class relations completed in that society. On the one hand, the local aristocracy, which represented the power of the central government in the provinces, strengthened their privileged position and, on the other, stratification of the community and enslavement of its rank-and-file members increased giving rise to large-scale popular movements in Margiana and Arachosia. The members of the Achaemenian dynasty and Achaemenian noblemen had in their personal possession vast lands and all kinds of workshops with slaves and the poorest members of the community, who lived as slaves, working there.17 The slave-owning elite of the eastern satrapies sought to follow the way of life of the Achaemenian capitals. This explains why palace-type buildings of this period were discovered in Drangiana and Bactria.18

The middle of the ist millennium B.C. saw the further flourishing of culture and the arts. Works of art not only of Mesopotamia but also of the Greek part of Asia Minor were already known in the region, which may be judged by the artifacts of the so-called Amu Darya treasure-trove chanced upon in the 19th century in Northem Bactria.!9 Quite a few articles had obviously been brought from other parts. Some were samples of the court art of Achaemenian Iran and even of Hellenic art. Others, in particular those picturing animals in swiff movement, resemble the art of nomad tribes, the so-called Scytho-Siberian animalistic style. There were also pieces of local Bactrian art. It is thought that it was in Bactria that the local version of Achaemenian glyptics—golden rings with various represen- tations resembling the gems of Asia Minor though differing from them in certain respects—had taken shape.2°,

Major economic and cultural achievements largely stimu- lated separatist tendencies in the eastern satrapies which sought political independence. The local elite was not inclined to endlessly share with the Achaemenian dynasty the profits gained by the exploitation of their tribesmen. Their aspirations were realised only later, when the Achae- menian empire, hit by an internal crisis, fell under the onslaught of the armies led by Alexander the Great.

The Flowering of Ancient Civilisations

The Graeco-Macedonian army dealt a finishing blow at the decrepit Achaemenian empire. The struggle between Greece and Achaemenian Iran, which had begun under Darius I, ended in a complete rout of the Persians. The last battle was fought on October 1, 331 B.C., at Gaugamela in Mesopotamia. The persons close to DariusIII, the last of the Achaemenians, contrived a plot led by Besus, a satrap of Bactria, and killed their ruler. Besus immediately pro- claimed himself “king of Asia”. Apart from Bactria, his power extended to Areia and Drangiana. He tried to es- tablish his influence in Parthia, too, but Alexander, who considered himself the natural heir to the Achaemenians, did not wish to inherit a diminished country and in 330 B.C. moved his armies to Areia. There he was initially re- ceived with honours by the local satrap Satibarzanes, but as soon as the main forces of Alexander marched further south, Satibarzanes fomented an uprising and destroyed the Graeco-Macedonian garrison left in the town of Arta- coana, the capital of Areia. Alexander retumed and dealt ruthlessly with the rebels, some of whom were killed and others made slaves.

In Drangiana Alexander’s troops met with no significant resistance. Its satrap Barsaentes fled to a nearby region, but was betrayed and killed. While in Drangiana’s capital, Alexander was faced with a conspiracy in his own retinue: not all shared his Oriental policy. Alexander executed several army commanders, including Philotes, one of his closest friends. Soon his troops advanced further to the east and quite easily conquered Arachosia, after which they headed north, towards Bactria. Besus could neither stop the enemy at the distant approaches nor prepare a strong and efficient army. Employing passive tactics he ravaged the regions lying on the way of the enemy. This, however, did not stop the great Macedonian. In a swift march his troops crossed the Hindu Kush and reached the Bactrian plain. Besus fled beyond the Amu Darya and burt the ships he had used for crossing the river. But the fate of the ill-starred “king of Asia’? was as sad as that of Darius III whom he had betrayed: his own men gave him up to Ale- xander. After a long absence, during which the Graeco- Macedonians had to fight the freedom-loving Sogdians in Central Asia, they returmmed to Bactria for a winter stay in 329-328 B.C. There they encountered a new wave of anti- Macedonian rebellion and in the process of quelling it several cities were destroyed. Pursuing a policy of winning over the local population, Alexander set to forming detach- ments of Bactrian and Sogdian horsemen. An impressive feature of that policy was his marrying Roxane, a daughter of Oxyartes, an eminent Bactrian, next winter. Though the ancient sources are unanimous in extolling the beauty of Roxane (her name in Bactrian means “radiant”), it was for the most part a political move. In 327 B.C. the army, rein- forced with local contingents, moved from Bactria to the south, across the Hindu Kush, and reached the vicinity of Kabul, conquering the local tribes of the Aspasis, Gureys and Assacenians en route. In a battle for one of the cities Alexander was wounded and the city was totally destroyed and its population exterminated. Roxane’s father, Oxyartes, was appointed ruler of the mountainous Paropamisus area. After his not very successful campaign to the Indus valley, Alexander returned to Babylon where he died in 323 B.C. at the age of thirty-three.

The Graeco-Macedonian conquest of the Achaemenian empire was of immense significance. To a great extent it was the victory of more developed forms of the slave-own- ing economy over backward ones. The political organisa- tion of the Achaemenian empire no longer conformed to the interests of the ruling class of the countries it com- prised, which aspired towards the continued development of the slave-owning economy, particularly of trade and large-scale commodity circulation, and correspondingly; towards an extensive town construction policy.2! A new state was emerging on the ruins of the empire.

Alexander and the men close to him perceived the motley make-up of the new monarchy they were creating and attempted to smooth it over by drawing the Oriental no- bility into running the country, and even encouraged mixed marriages. Many new towns and settlements were built during this period. A town named Alexandria was built in almost every satrapy.?2 Thus, in the territory of Afgha- nistan Alexandrias were built in Areia, Drangiana and Ara- chosia (evidently in the vicinity of Ghazni); there was also a Caucasian Alexandria at the foothills of the Hindu Kush (most likely in the vicinity of Charikara) and Alexandropol also in Arachosia (obviously in the vicinity of Qandahar). Simultaneously, there was a fresh growth of trade: the Macedonian phalanxes were followed by Greek and Phoe- nician merchants. Enslavement of the population of the cities that offered resistance could not but strengthen the slave-owning system. However, for the population of the eastern satrapies of the Achaemenians the conquests by Alexander the Great merely meant a change of foreign conquerors. Destruction of cities and the killing of their inhabitants kindled the struggle for political independence which, in fact, had got underway in the Achaemenian period. |

After the death of Alexander the Great the forces rending to pieces the new world power, that was being formed, came into the open: uprisings flared up in the conquered countries, the Graeco-Macedonian garrisons insisted on coming back home, and the fellow-fighters of the great

Macedonian were engaged in a severe internecine struggle.

After a swift succession of battles, conquests, collusions and assassinations, the outlines of large new states were beginning to take shape. One of them was ruled by Alexan- der’s military commander Seleucus who, with a thousand warriors, captured Babylon in 312 B.C. and eventually created a state extending from the Mediterranean Sea to India. Bactria was annexed to the new state in 306 or 305 B.C., after which Seleucus moved south where he engaged in battles with Chandragupta, founder of the powerful Indian empire of the Mauryas. Seleucus was evidently not very successful in those battles and, having concluded “friendship and a conjugal union”, he was content with 500 combat elephants, ceding in return a number of regions of the Graeco-Macedonian domain, in particular Arachosia. This is confirmed by the fact that an inscription of one of the heirs of Chandragupta, Ashoka (273-236 B.C.), was recently found in this region.

In the vast state of the Seleucids local traditions were being revived in various areas of political and cultural life. The new state attempted to win over the upper crust in the conquered lands by promoting the development of local . culture. Cuneiform literature was flourishing in Babylon and local temples were being restored. The Seleucids pursued the very same policy in the East, where since 293 _ B.C. official co-ruler of Seleucus was his son Antiochus. He

took up residence in Bactra. Antiochus launched several military campaigns. He also built new towns and reinforced the old ones, in particular Artacoana, the capital of Areia. During his rule silver coins were issued at Greek face-value . featuring, on the reverse side, Athene in a chariot drawn by two or four elephants. The coins were made according to local weight standards, evidently with the purpose of winning over to.the government’s side the local elite con- nected with trade. When Seleucus died, his son Antio- chus became the king of the empire (280-262 B.C.). The Seleucids were paying increasing attention to the West as they engaged in a protracted war against Ptolemaic Egypt for the Eastern Mediterranean. At one time Bactria supplied the central government with combat elephants, but soon even these feeble ties were disrupted.

About 250 B.C. the Bactrian satrap Diodotus broke away from the Seleucids and proclaimed himself king. The new state (it came to be known among historians as the Graeco-Bactrian kingdom) comprised, apart from Bactria proper, Areia and, evidently, Sogd and Margiana. Initially the Seleucid coins minted in Bactria portrayed a Bactrian vicegerent and not the head of the dynasty, and then the official portrait went together with an official inscription: **King Diodotus”. Simultaneously, Parthia, too, broke away and became an independent state. Diodotus tried to extend his power to Parthia as well, but failed. The successor to Diodotus was his son, also called Diodotus. But the new dynasty did not last long. In c. 230 B.C. Diodotus II was dethroned and his lineage was exterminated by Euthyde- mus. Euthydemus’ coins are particularly numerous among the finds on the sites of ancient settlements and in museum collections, which suggests that his rule was long and rela- tively stable. Under Euthydemus the state had to hold out against the onslaught of the Seleucids.

Antiochus III, the last outstanding king of that dynasty, made a desperate attempt to restore the former might of the state. His eastern campaign was a major effort to this end. In a battle with the Parthians he emerged victorious and made them recognise Seleucid sovereignty. In 208 B.C. he approached the borders of Bactria. The severe battle near Herat, close to the border, was followed by a two-year siege of Bactra. Protracted negotiations ensued with Antio- chus III represented by Telei. A vivid account of the argu- ments put forth by Euthydemus during the negotiations, evidently in response to accusations of betraying the Se- leucids, has been preserved. It was not he, Euthydemus continued, who rose against the king first. On the con- trary, he acquired power over Bactria by annihilating the offspring of several other traitors. Euthydemus spoke thus at length and in the end he asked Telei to do him a favour and act as peace mediator and convince Antiochus to leave him his royal name and dignity; and if Antiochus would not do as he bid, their position would not be secure. On the border, he said, there stood hordes of nomads threatening both of them, and should the barbarians cross the border, the country would most likely be conquered by them.

The siege of Bactra, which lingered on, did not leave Antiochus III any alternative, and he signed a peace treaty, after which the royal position of Euthydemus was recog nised, and his son Demetrius married a Seleucid princess. The agreed amount of food and combat elephants were handed over to Antiochus III, after which he tumed south, to India. Thus, the achievements of Antiochus III were not so great: both Parthia and Graeco-Bactria retained their independence and soon began to increase in strength.

Graeco-Bactria focussed all attention on the south where beyond the Hindu Kush mountains there lay the gradually weakening Mauryan empire. After Antiochus III was defeat- ed at Magnesia by Roman legions, the treaties concluded by him in the East became still more unreliable. At that time Demetrius, the son of Euthydemus, set out on his campaign to India. He captured Arachosia, where he founded the towns of Demetria and Gandhara. Demetrius issued coins in two languages, with a Greek text on the front side and an Indian inscription (in the Kharoshthi script) on the reverse, which suggests that an Indic-language population existed among his subjects. Proud of his victo- ries, Demetrius assumed the title of “invincible king”. On the coins he was portrayed in a combat helmet shaped as an elephant’s head.

But the extension of borders did not mean that Graeco Bactria was politically stable. While Demetrius was away in India, Eucratides seized power in Bactria. He was evidently an energetic and ambitious military commander. His coins are fairly numerous; some bear Greek inscriptions and others are bilingual, indicating that his power had spread rather far to the south. Eucratides waged a fierce struggle against Demetrius and held out against the onslaught of the Parthians to whom he nevertheless was compelled to make territorial concessions. His activities, vigorous as they were, did not bring tranquillity to his country. Returning from a campaign, he was killed by his own son whom he had appointed co-ruler. Judging by the coins, the son was Heliocles. According to ancient authors, he rode a chariot over his father’s blood and ordered that his dead body be left unburied. He then assumed the title of “‘fair king”.

Political stability was inconceivable in such conditions. There are indeed coins of at least 20 rulers. Numismatists call them Graeco-Bactrian if they bear only Greek inscrip- tions, and Graeco-Indian if the inscriptions are in two languages. Many of the rulers, invariably calling themselves kings, were most probably lucky generals or political adventurers whose power was shortlived. And, correspond- ingly, their coins were few. Among such Graeco-Bactrian rulers were, probably, Antimachus I and Plato.

The coins of the Graeco-Indian rulers Antialcidas, Anti- machus IJ, Apollodotus and Menander are more numerous. A great number of them were found in Arachosia which, evidently, was part of their domains. It is known, for in- stance, that Menander was born in a settlement not far from Caucasian Alexandria. He proved to be a far-sighted politician. Having united a considerably large territory under his rule, including the lower reaches of the Indus, Menander relied not only on the Graeco-Bactrian armed forces, but also on some sections of the local population. It was most likely for this motive that he adopted Bud- dhism. Still, the contradictions between the Graeco-Mace- donian elite and the local population remained a source of internal weakness for Graeco-Bactria. The Graeco-Bac- trian rulers also failed to build a‘stable state system that would ensure internal stability. The mounting pressure from the nomads, unable to be contained by the united and powerful armed forces, brought about the inevitable: between 140 and 130 B.C. Heliocles was deposed and Graeco-Bactria was conquered by nomads. They were initially stationed mostly on the right bank of the Amu Darya where numerous burial mounds have been excavat- ed, though there is evidence that they are to be found in Southern Bactria too.

The Graeco-Bactrian kingdom, which existed only slightly more than 100 years, left a bright trace in the his- tory of Bactria and a number of neighbouring countries. That was a period of the further flourishing of urban life and the spread of money circulation, which had begun under the Seleucids. Ancient sources mention a number of cities built under Graeco-Bactrian rulers and bearing their names. The population of the cities often consisted of colonists from Hellas as well as of Hellenised population of the East Mediterranean countries. There was a rapid process of cultural assimilation of the local population, its upper stratum at any rate, so effectively inaugurated by the marriage of Alexander and Roxane. Greek culture and the Greek language played an immense role. Ashoka in his inscription for the people of Arachosia used two languages: Aramaic, the language of the Achaemenian officialdom, and Greek, which had been introduced by Alexander and the Seleucids.

French archaeologists have unearthed the ruins of a city which had been populated by Graeco-Macedonian colonists on the bank of the Amu Darya, at the place where the Qonduz River runs into the Amu Darya.44 The ruins of the city are now called Ai-khanum, but in ancient times the city was obviously called Alexandria-Oxiana (after the Oxus, the ancient name of the Amu Darya). With steep precipices on three sides, the city was a veritable fortress. Its Hellenic character is beyond doubt. The city had a centre for the physical and intellectual training of young people. Archaeologists have discovered inscriptions devoted. to Hermes and Heracles. A man named Kineas, buried in a special tomb, was believed to be the founder of the city. The tomb (temenos of Kineas) was rebuilt times and again, and later some other people, possibly high-ranking officials, were buried near the sarcophagus of the city founder.

The main part of the city was the administrative centre. Found during excavations was a peristyle courtyard, 137 by 108 metres, and four porticos having 116 stone columns with capitals, in a style closely resembling the Corinthian order. Nearby stood a “southern ensemble” which most likely was the ruler’s residency. In one of its main halls at least 15 statues, 1 to 1.5 metres tall, were mounted in the recesses along the walls. In another hall there stood a sculptural group with the statues two or three times larger than life size. The administrative centre also had an 18- column hall built in the traditions of Achaemenian palace architecture. The main street ended with a temple in which stood a huge statute of a male god, most likely Zeus. The Greek features of that culture are all too obvious: the Greek architectural decor, Greek inscriptions, including copies of Delphic aphorisms, typical Greek sculptures and household articles, a bronze figure of Heracles, and a relief with scenes from the Ikad. The thick raw-brick fortress walls, however, were built in the tradition of local monu- mental architecture. Though the vast peristyle courtyard of the administrative centre is of the Rhodes style, peristyle courtyards as such, though with a different architectural decor, were built in Achaemenian Bactria (Altyn-10).

Apart from marble sculptures, archaeologists also discov- ered in Ai-khanum plaster and clay figures, with parts of the figures often made of various materials. Some scholars believe that clay sculpture was not a Greek but a purely Oriental phenomenon. The fusion of the traditions of local Bactrian civilisation and Hellenic culture was typical of the Seleucid and Graeco-Bactrian periods. The coins of Graeco- Bactrian kings are remarkable samples of the medallion portraits of the time.

The decline of the Graeco-Bactrian kingdom marked the beginning of a new period in the history of Bactria and neighbouring countries. It was the time when numerous nomad tribes appeared in Bactria; Arachosia, Drangiana and Gandhara. Their leaders not only became owners of the agricultural oases but carried on the political traditions of Graeco-Bactrian and Graeco-Indian rulers. It is safe to say that interaction of the nomad tribes, specifically those of Saka descent, with the settled population of the oases played a significant role in the Evolution of the peoples of Afghanistan. These complex issues doubtlessly deserve closer study.

Ancient sources suggest that the decline of Graeco-Bac- tria was closely linked with the invasion of Parthia by nomads, called loosely Scythians. Parthian king Phraates II tried to use the nomad tribes in military open but, when he failed to keep his promises, they killed him in 128 B.C. His heir, Artabanus I, attempted to take over the initia- tive in the struggle against the nomad tribes by a retalia- tory blow, but was defeated and in 124 B.C. killed in com- bat. It was Artabanus’ son, Mithridates II (124-97 B.C.), who built up Parthian might and eliminated the danger the country was facing.

Ancient authors mention the Asii, Paisani, Tochari and Sacarauli as tribes that overthrew the Greek rule in Bactria. Presently attempts are underway to compare the tribal groups listed in various sources. But in general, it may be concluded that the large-scale migration of nomads had affected most different groups of tribes, basically those speaking East-Iranian languages. The dominating role was played by the Yiteh-chi—this tribal group occupied the ter- ritory of Bactria. The Sacas penetrated the regions lying further south: Drangiana, Arachosia and Gandhara. The greater part of Drangiana, which had been occupied by the nomads, was now called Sacastene, which was transformed into what is today known as Seistan.

Initially nomad incursions were accompanied by fire and destruction. Clear evidence of this is offered by the Ai-kha- num excavations: the greater part of the administrative centre had been burnt down. The city dwellers used the stone slabs of the neglected ruins as construction material, disassembling the exquisite colonnade. On the ruins of the penny honoured tomb of the city founder ordinary

ouses were built. But that period obviously did not last long and was soon followed by a degree of stability. The rulers of the invading nomads soon understood that it was far better for them to get good profit out of rich cities rather than to burn and destroy them. So, in some of the conquered regions new city centres were built, the existing ones were developed, canals dug and agricultural oases created.25 To maintain money circulation, coins were issued, minted in the manner of those used by the last Graeco-Bactrian kings. Most widespread in Northern Bactria were large bronze coins resembling the tetradrachmas of Heliocles. The gradually distorted portrait of Heliocles was replaced by that of a local ruler, most likely a Ytieh-chi, and on the reverse side the representation of Zeus was replaced by that of the true companion of the nomads— the horse.

The general situation that obtained in Bactria and in the neighbouring countries is well characterised by the graves of the Yiieh-chi nobility, discovered by a Soviet-Afghan archaeological expedition in Tilla-Tepe in Northern Afghan- istan.26 The graves were very simple: a wooden coffin on short legs was placed in a rectangular hole 1.5-2 metres deep and covered by a counterpane decorated with golden and silver plates. There were no burial mounds or complex archi- tectural structures in the manner of the Kineas mausoleum. However, the deceased, placed in narrow coffins, were clad in extremely rich clothes embroidered with gold decorations in truly barbarian splendour. Stamped and cast golden buc- kles, plates and dagger scabbards were ingeniously and lavishly decorated with inlaid pearls, turquoise and lapis lazuli. In some cases there were three layers of clothes, each decorated in a different style. The burials are dated to around the Ist century B.C. and the first half of the 1st century A.D., i.e., the time of the Ytieh-chi rule in Bactria.

The discovered artifacts reflect several cultural traditions of that time. Thus, the scenes of the torment of animals locked in close fighting, animals full of tense expression, and winged dragons—all this can be traced to the art of Asian nomad tribes and resembles the Sarmatian style. Numerous multi-coloured inlays are also evidence of this. Another group of scenes represents the purely antique line: a warrior clad in armour, Macedonian style, women bestrid- ing a lion, or S.lenus with a rhyton in hand. Many of the representations are complex and have not yet been duly interpreted; possibly they show local, Bactrian images with a Hellenistic and Indian impact. Such, for instance, are the exquisite pendants featuring a king with two dragons on both sides. But in this splendour, that has joined various elements, one finds no stylistic discord, no eclecticism. It was the early stage of cultural integration which later pro- duced the remarkable culture of the Kushan period. There began a new and perhaps most impressive period when the ancient civilisations of Afghanistan and neighbouring coun- tries flourished.

The developments of that time in the south of Afghanis- tan and in contiguous regions have been less studied, but the general picture 1s the same: the nomads gradually began to accept local state traditions. Simultaneously, the region was undergoing an intensive process of cultural integration.

The historical situation varied from area to area: Graeco- Indian traditions were clearly followed in the South-East, in Drangiana and Gandhara; while in the South-West, partic- ularly in Sacastene, Parthian influence was strong and ultimately extended to Drangiana and Gandhara, though to a somewhat lesser extent. The nomad tribes that entered those regions did not initially create any sound political formation, as they had done in Bactria. A series of Parthian coins with the ruler’s head in a helmet embossed on them are most likely from that period. The embossment was done in such a way as to leave the head of the Parthian king on the obverse untouched. These coins are supposed to have been minted in Areia or Sacastene (formally a part of the Parthian empire, Sacastene enjoyed relative independence). It is significant in this context that Sigal, an urban centre of that region, was called the “royal city of the Sacas”.

Inthe first half of the 1st century B.C. the Saca tribes appeared in Kashmir and Gandhara (together with the Yiieh-chi tribes that invaded Bactria). A leader of the Sacas (Shacas according to Indian tradition) soon founded an independent domain and issued a coin on his own behalf. On the coin he is called Maues (Moga in Indian inscriptions), both equally resembling the Sacan name Mavak. Initially Maues modestly called himself a king but later assumed the more pretentious title of “great king of kings”. His coins were minted basically in the fashion of those issued by Graeco-Indian rulers. Later individual symbols appeared: first the representation of a horse on the reverse side, just as in the North Bactrian imitations of Heliocles’ tetradrach- mas, and then the ruler on horseback with spear in hand. That representation, typical for rulers of nomad pe was later used also by other Indo-Sacan kings. Judging by the great variety of Maues’ coins, the founder of the Indo- Sacan state ruled for quite a long time. Based on this obser- vation (and coins have been our only source so far), one can conclude that the state had flourished under Azes, Maues’ heir, who ruled in the latter half of the Ist century B.C. A vast number of his coins—nearly 1,500 pieces—have been found in Taxila, the capital of Gandhara, and about 4,000 pieces have been discovered at the bottom of the sac- red lake in Mir-Zahak, Drangiana. Portrayed on the obverse of these coins is the king himself astride a horse andin heavy armour, holding a spear or a combat axe. At the time the lands of the Indo-Sacas were enlarged somewhat at the expense of Arachosia and perhaps even Eastem Sacastene. Evidently during the life-time of Azes Azilises was appointed co-ruler. Azilises later became an independent king and, though he preserved the pretentious title “king of kings”, the number of his coins is small. Perhaps the Indo-Sacan state was on the decline. Its last ruler was Azes II. The Greek inscription on his coins is roughly made and often distorted.

The westward expansion of the Indo-Sacan rulers com- pelled the Parthian rulers of Sacastene to respond to the challenge. As a result, the Indo-Sacan dynasty of Maues had to hand over Gandhara and Drangiana to members of anoth- er dynasty possibly related to the Parthian Arshakids. The

first representative of the new dynasty was Gondophares, who issued two groups of coins. Some fully corresponded both as to weight and type to the Parthian traditions and were possibly meant for Drangiana. Others, which were Indo-Sacan in type and bore an Indian inscription on the reverse, were clearly minted for Gandhara and adjacent regions. Gondophares stayed in power fairly long. An in- scription made on his behalf is dated the 26th year of his reign and the 103rd year of a certain era. The starting date for the era is supposed to be neither earlier than 80 B.C. nor later than 55 B.C.,27 which means that the founder of what is called the Indo-Parthian dynasty ruled in the first half of the Ist century A.D.

Gondophares is known also to Christian tradition that contains a reference of him being visited in India by Apostle Thomas in 29 A.D. In 42 A.D. Greek philosopher Apollo- nius of Tyana made a trip to Taxila where he paid a visit to the Parthian king called Fraotes, which may be a distort- ed version of the name Gondophares. Like Maues and Azes, Gondophares called himself “the great king of kings”, and the presence of this title on the coins minted in a Par- thian manner makes one think that possibly he also claimed the Arshakid throne during the onset of a turbulent period in Parthia. His successors seem to have been less powerful, though they still maintained and even publicised their Parthian ties. One of the ancient sources says that the re- gions north of the lower reaches of the Indus were ruled by Parthian kings who constantly ousted one another. There are coins of a number of Indo-Parthian rulers who could well have taken part in that intemecine war. Abdagases is a most typical example. His coins bear inscriptions in another, the third, written language—Parthian, or Pahlavi.*

Other rulers were Pacores and Orthagnes (a Greek version of the Iranian name Verethragna). One of the rulers even called himself by the dynastic name Arsan (Arshak) but the coins of that ruler, or rulers, are few. The quality of the silver coins had declined sharply. The country evidently underwent a period of political turmoil and economic difficulties. This, in great measure, led to its subordination to the new powerful Kushan state which had risen due to the fusion of nomad traditions and those of the settled population, this time in ancient Bactria. Although much has been written about it, a good deal in the history of the: Kushan empire is still vague and confused, particularly when it comes to chronology.*

The early period in Kushan history was a time of inter- necine struggle between the small Yiieh-chi domains in Northern Bactria. In that struggle the Kushan domain grad- ually gained the upper hand. It is probable that it was in this period that the coins minted in the fashion of Heliocles’ tetradrachmas with a horse depicted on the reverse were issued. At any rate, in the middle or the second half of the Ist century B.C. that domain issued coins with representa- tions of the ruler on horseback on the reverse, just like on the later coins of Maues. Though the ruler Heraios, on behalf of whom the coins were issued, is called a Kushan, he did not yet have a royal title.

One of Heraios’ successors took control over the other four Yiieh-chi domains and marched south with his troops where he obviously quite easily conquered the Indo-Parthi- an state. The name of the founder of the large new state is interpreted in Chinese sources as Kiojiukiu, and in the Greek version on coins as Kujula Kadphises or Kadphises I. The rise of Kadphises took place gradually. Thus there are coins with a portrait of the Graeco-Indian king Hermaeus on the obverse, while the name of the Kushan ruler appears on the reverse with a rather modest inscription: “Kujula Kadphises, :yabgu Kushan, staunch in faith” (yabgu is the title of Yiieh-chi princelings). Having expanded his domain, Kadphises adopted the traditional Indo-Sacan and Indo- Parthian title of “king of kings”, though the number of coins bearing this title is relatively small. It is thought that Kadphises I issued the numerous coins of a so-called “name- less king”, a typical Kushan coins showing a horseman on the reverse with an inscription indicating the grandiloquent title: “great king of kings, liberator”. Evidently these coins date from the time when the powerful empire, comprising Bactria, Arachosia, Gandhara, Paropamisus and possibly some other territories, already existed under the aegis of Kadphises I. The king is known to have lived more than 80 years. The most probable period of his rule is from 40 to 90 A.D., considering that at least at the end of his rule he deposed the heirs of Gondophares in Gandhara. One of the heirs, Abdagases, ruled in the 50s-70s.

The new empire sought to expand. But in the west its rival Parthia somewhat regained strength with the coming to power of the younger Arshakids. In the 40s Parthian king Vardanes moved his camp to Bactria, which is indirect evidence of Kushan-Parthian conflicts. The Kushans tumed their gaze to the south-east where political disunity in North-Western India was very alluring. These conquests were accomplished by Vima Kadphises, or Kadphises II, son of the empire’s founder, which made the Kushans the richest and strongest state. It is not ruled out that under Kadphises II the Kushan borders in the south ran in the lower reaches of the Indus and at Benares. The Kushan state then included nearly the entire territory of present- day Afghanistan, at least the southern part of Central Asia and the whole of North-Western India. Like Parthia and the Roman empire, it was one of the largest states of the ancient world.

Kadphises II took measures to strengthen his state. One of these was the reform of money circulation undermined under the Indo-Parthian rulers who had released into the market defective silver coins. Under Kadphises II gold and copper coins constituted the bulk of the money in circula- tion. The picture of the Hindu god Siva, sometimes together with the bull Nandi, on the reverse of coins, testifies to his desire for binding closer to the empire the territories added to it. The magniloquent title of Kadphises II also includes Mahesvara, another name of Siva. By declaring his inclination for Hinduism, Kadphises II obviously hoped to strengthen the position of the Kushan empire in the Indian regions. Evidently under Kadphises II there was a clash with Chinese troops in Eastern Turkestan.2 8 Though Chinese chronicles describe those events in a favourable light for China, Eastern Turkestan ultimately remained in the Kushan sphere of influence, and the Han westward aggression was checked.

Kanishka is among the best known of the Kushan rulers. In a number of inscriptions mention is made of the years from 2 to 23 of the era he established. If we assume that 128 was the first year of that era and the count of years started with his advent to power, then the years of his rule must have been from 128 to 151. In historical tradition Kanishka is known as an adherent of Buddhism. He is as- sociated with the convention of a large Buddhist council. The construction of religious buildings and patronage of monasteries and Buddhist philosophers are also ascribed to him. Indeed, portrayed on the reverse of the coins issued by Kanishka is the Buddha, sitting or standing. His coins depicted many other deities as well, and in the inscriptions their names were spelled out. Among these are the gods of ancient myths Helios and Hephaestus, and the goddess Selene, and the ancient Iranian gods Mithra, Verethragna and, probably, Anahita, the cult of whom had merged with the cult of Nanaia of Western Asia, whose name is inscribed on Kushan coins. Since these cults were fairly widespread in various regions of the vast Kushan empire, Kanishka evidently addressed himself to all his subjects, thereby displaying broad religious tolerance. Meanwhile during Kanishka’s reign Greek inscriptions on coins were replaced by Kushan ones written in a slightly modified Greek alphabet but in the Kushan, or, to be more precise, the Bactrian language, the official language of the new state.

Judging by the names of the Kushan rulers mentioned in Indian inscriptions, Kanishka’s successor must have been Vasishka who ruled in the years 24 through 28 of the Kanishka era, or in 152-156, according to the chronology we have herewith accepted. However, no coins bearing Vasishka’s name have been found so far. Possibly he was of the dynasty that ruled the southem part of the empire without the right to issue its own coins. Another outstand- ing Kushan ruler was Huvishka, whose name is found in inscriptions dated 28-60 (Kanishka era), i.e., 156-188 A.D. Huvishka’s coins are nearly as numerous as those of Kanish- ka and they also bear pictures of various deities on the reverse. roe ,

The next ruler mentioned in the dated inscriptions 1s Vasudeva (64-98, or 192-226, according to the accepted chronology). True, inscriptions mentioning the years of rule may not have reached us. Judging by the coins with Siva and the sacred bull on the reverse, during Vasudeva’s reign there was a revival, so to speak, of the ideological policy of Kadphises II. In the year 230 an embassy of the Kushan king (Bo Diuo in Chinese sources) visited China. Most scholars are inclined to identify that king as Vasudeva. That was, in fact, the end of the most magnificent period in the history of the Kushan state, which was followed by its gradual decline. Even the coins were of increasingly poorer quality, though the general type which had taken shape under Vasudeva was retained. It is thought that coins were also issued by two other rulers of the same name—Vasudeva II and Vasudeva III, but the inscriptions related to them are not known. All through the latter half of the 3rd and probably the first half of the 4th centuries A.D. bronze imitations of Vasudeva’s coins—several succeed- ing series—were minted in Bactria.29

The decline of the Kushan state was undoubtedly also brought forth by failures in the conflicts with the major new state of the Sasanids. Though medieval tradition says that Bactria had already been conquered by Arda- shir I (227-243), this is not confirmed by other sources. Falling under Sasanian influence at that time were most likely only Margiana and Sacastene, and even then they were initially ruled by members of the local dynasties. Every thing considered, the first telling blow at the Kushans in that period was delivered by Shapur I (243-273). In his long inscription written in Ka’bah of Zardusht mention is made of Kushanshahr, the country of the Kushans, among the kingdoms and provinces whose rulers were subordinate to him, or paid tribute to him, apart from Sacastene and ' Herat (ancient Areia). The Sasanian vicegerent in the East at that time was Narses, the son of Shapur I, who bore the title “king of Sacastene, Turkestan and India up to the seashore”. There is a good deal of literature on the inter- pretation of the inscription in Ka’bah of Zardusht.3° Most scholars doubt that the greater part of the Kushan country was ruled by Shapur I. However, the Kushans did suffer a partial defeat, which could have been followed by both loss of territory and a formal recognition of political dependence in some form or other.

Most likely at that time the first series of so-called Kushano-Sasanian coins were minted by the Sasanian vice- gerents in the East, who normally were members of the ruling dynasty. Issued in great variety, these coins have repeatedly attracted scholars’ attention. Their interpreta- tion is still the bone of contention among them, for differ- ent opinions exist in regard to Kushan chronology.3 !

The coins themselves can be subdivided into two groups. The first one includes the coins of the type adopted under Vasudeva, but the rulers (Kushan Shahs) who issued them had Sasanian names—Varahran and Hormizd. The other group was minted in the Sasanian fashion and bore Sasa- nian inscriptions, but the titles of the rulers were the same— “king of the Kushans”’ or “great king of the Kushans”’. Some of the coins in the second group have Kushan inscrip- tions. The rulers who issued the coins of the latter group are far more numerous. These were, apart from Varahran and Hormizd, Shapur, Ardashir and Peroz. Incidentally, judg- ing by crowns and other signs, different persons often had the same names.

The historical significance of these coins is all too clear: the Sasanian vicegerents of the eastern regions of the state sought to maintain authority by using the cultural tradi- tions of the territories they ruled or claimed. Hormizd, for instance, is named on some coins not just as a king but as the “great king of kings’’, a title that is the same as that of the head of the Sasanian state. Possibly it was Hormizd, the brother of Varahran II, who led an uprising in the 80s in the East to seize the Sasanian throne. We have observed the same situation in the epoch of the Achaemenians, when members of the ruling dynasty in Bactria considered them- selves powerful enough to seek the imperial throne.

The Sasanids kept building up pressure in the East, and under Shapur II (309-379) there erupted a long Kushano-Sasanian war at the tum of the 70s, which is reported in many sources. The Kushans lost the war and the Sasarian troops seized Bactria.

The might of the Kushan state was on the wane. At the turn of the 5th century the Sasanians came under increas- ing pressure from Asian nomads, who repeated the march of the Sacas and the Yiieh-chis, and for some time ancient Kushan lands regained their independence, though there was a lack of former unity and might. Political divisions, which made it easier for foreign invaders to win, were lar- gely accounted for by the social and economic situation— the rise of the agricultural aristocracy signalling the emerg ence of new, feudal relations.

In the Kushan period ancient civilisation reached its peak. It was a time of political stability and an upsurge of the economy based on irrigated farming and highly specia- lised crafts. Urban-type settlements are the best evidence of the level of progress. According to ancient tradition the Graeco-Bactrian state was already called the land of a thousand towns. This was never said about the Kushan em pire, which in general was little known to Graeco-Roman authors. But there are quite a few data, archaeological finds above all, to suggest that it was the Kushan period in which urban life in Bactria, Arachosia, Gandhara and other regions flourished. In the summary of geographic data known to the antique world, compiled by Claudius Ptolemaeus in the 2nd century A.D. he named 18 cities in Bactria alone, though this enumeration is incomplete and to a consider- able extent provisional. It was believed that by the 2nd century B.C. the population of Bactria was around one mil- lion, doubtlessly increasing over the next 200-300 years. Ancient Bactra was presumably for a certain time the capital of the entire Kushan empire and in any case the administrative, economic and cultural centre of one of the two component parts of that huge state formation. A new wall was erected around Bactra in the Kushan period, but even beyond that wall there stood a number of structures (in particular, a huge stupa, known now as Topi-Rustam). The main centre of Northern Bactria was Termez near which a number of Buddhist centres with first-rate art monuments have been discovered (Kara-Tepe, Fayaz-Tepe).

However, rectangular or square cities seem to have been built in the Kushan period for the most part. Their layout shows that the cities were built on instructions from the central authorities. Carefully planned and systematically built-up urban centres, they were strengthened with for- tress walls that had towers at equal distance from one another, strictly in keeping with the Kushan fortification standard. Well studied among such urban centres in North- erm Bactria are Kei-Kobad-shah, Dalverzin-Tepe and Zar- Tepe.

Quite a few such cities and towns with regular layouts are to be found in the territory of present-day Afghanistan. Among then, in particular, is Begram, located 60 kilometres north of Kabul at the foot of the majestic spurs of the Hindu Kush Mountains. They are in all likelihood the re- mains of the ancient city of Kapisa. A settlement that existed from the lst century B.C. to the 4th century A.D. and was built in the initial period of the Kushan state, has been studied better than others. Some 25 hectares of its territory are enclosed by rectangular city walls. Excava- tions have revealed three consecutive periods, and help one to trace the evolution of the urban culture of Paropamis- ade.32 A central road divided the city into two parts. The residential districts along the city arteries had small “flats” with three or more rooms, including a home sanctuary. In the city centre there stood the ruler’s palace, in which archaeologists found a splendid art collection, obviously the remnants of a palace treasure-trove. The articles of an cient art are evidence of the broad trade and cultural rela- tions of the Kushan state. There were tiny black-vamish cups from Han China, as well as glass vessels with various scenes painted on them, beautifully made bronze figurines of Hippocrates, Heracles, a horseman and a stoic philos- opher portrayed in a grotesque manner, originating from the eastem provinces of the Roman empire. But of especial Interest is the collection of ebony carvings; mostly plates inlaid in caskets and wooden furniture. Such plates were often decorated with pictures of women dancers executed in a refined style resembling that of the Mathura school of Northern India.

The Soviet-Afghan expedition led by I. T. Kruslik made a thorough study of Dilberjin, actiee site ote Bactrian town 40 kilometres north-west of Mazar-i-Sharif. The first settlement had emerged there by the middle of the Ist millennium B.C., but it was mainly after the Yiieh-chi tribes conquered Bactria that it developed into a large centre.33 The central part of Dilberjin is square, with for- tress walls all around, occupying an area of some 15 hecta- res. Large residential districts stretch to the south and east of that fortified nucleus, which means that the entire area with urban structures runs up to 40 hectares. In a citadel in the city centre is a monumental temple, which initially had colourful frescoes depicting young men standing beside horses. Probably this is a reproduction of the divine twins known from Greek myths as Dioscuri. Iconographically the frescoes have patent Hellenistic features. Later, but perhaps not before Kadphises II came to power, there oc- curred a “‘change of gods’: in the second period a large multicoloured mural on the temple wall depicted Siva and his wife Parvati, both sitting on a bull. The excavations also revealed parts of stone slabs with an inscription in the Kushan alphabet containing information on some kind of rebuilding. Yet it is not so far clear if it pertains to the main temple or some other structure. Found in another temple were three sitting figures. The temple was likely to have been dedicated to the ruling Kushan dynasty. Outside the city nucleus was a district of artisans who lived in small houses huddled together along the streets.

Yet another structure, the “big house”, is vastly differ- ent. The numerous living and household quarters are grouped round a spacious internal courtyard. On the whole, the house was rectangular in shape and most likely belonged to members of the city patriciate. In the suburbs there were a Buddhist sanctuary and a water reservoir (sardoba). After the flourishing period under major Kushan monarchs Dil- berjin began to degenerate in the 5th century and gradually became fully neglected. That was the lot of most of the Kushan towns discovered so far, including Begram.

In the Kushan period commerce was well developed and, like the building of new towns, it was evidently encouraged - by the Kushan rulers. Top priority was given to trade with the Roman empire, mainly with its eastern provinces. The traditional land route of trade ran across Parthia towards Herat where it forked, with one road turning straight to the south, to Drangiana (Sacastene), and the other through mountain passes and ravines down to Kapisa-Begram. From Begram the road ran to Ortospana (approximately the present-day site of Kabul) and then straight to the flourish- Ing cities of Gandhara. The distances between various points along the trade routes were thoroughly measured and the stopover lots for trade caravans and local places of interest were marked by special people. ,

In addition, a soyithem sea route from Egypt across the Red Sea, then along the Arabian Peninsula and further east to India, was becoming increasingly important in the Ist century A.D. Barbaricon was a major port in the lower reaches of the Indus, and Barygaza in the lower reaches of the Narbada. From Barygaza the land route led north, straight to Bactri. From Bactria Chinese goods reached India along the Great Silk Route, which linked the West and the East of the civilised world of the time and ran through Bactria. Trade with Rome was particularly exten- sive. According to ancient authors, various goods to the sum of not less than 55 million sesterces were brought to India from the Roman domains annually. The Kushan state doubtlessly accounted for a considerable portion of that sum, which is confirmed by the relatively large number of Roman-made articles found during excavations in Kushan territory. Far less is known about internal trade. However, the fact that thousands of small copper coins have been found during excavations of Kushan towns and rural settle- ments speaks for itself. Those were small value coins, which means that money operations were conducted also in small- scale, or perhaps in retail, trade.

The emergence of the powerful Kushan state was closely associated with the evolution of internal processes in Bac- tria, Arachosia, Gandhara and other regions. The lack of relevant data prevents scholars from getting a deeper insight into the social and economic relations of that period. They can be spoken of only in general terms. The considerable progress observed in handicrafts production, in urban life and in money circulation is an indication that the produc- tion relations of the slave-owning system continued to develop. Strong power, which strengthened the domestic and external position of the state, met the interests of the top slave-owning stratum of society and the big merchants of Bactria and Gandhara. Interesting facts about agrarian relations have been disclosed in Soviet archaeological stu- dies dealing with North Bactrian rural settlements of the Kushan period. These settlements are of two types: small ones with slipshod layouts and multi-room houses with living and household structures. Judging by the size of the houses, large families dwelt in them. The more substantial house probably belonged to the village headman. There were no fortification walls. Evidently these are the dwellings of the village communities, in which the interests of central power were represented by the local elder.

However, settlements of another type prevail. They are square-shaped or rectangular, surrounded by a wall, some- times having towers, and resemble towns in layout; only they are a good deal smaller, normally not more than 0.5-1 hectare. In excavated settlements of this type archaeolog- ists have found huge depositories for wine and grain remi- niscent of the state storehouses of the Oriental despotat, for instance, Urartu. Possibly these settlements were temple or royal economic complexes with bonded labourers, who were like slaves. These settlements could also have been economic units that were often created in Oriental states from among prisoners of war and other persons who did not enjoy full rights.

The excavations of Bactrian urban centres revealed a considerable social differentiation of the population, which influenced the division of town territory according to estate and rank. Apart from the huge buildings of the city nobility discovered in Dalverzin and Dilberjin, most of the houses were blocks of 6 to 12 rooms with a common household yard, which belonged to house communities of a kind. As can be deduced from documents of the 3rd century A.D., Khwarizm archives found in the Toprak-Kala palace, nearly half, and sometimes more than half, of the population in such communities were slaves. Yet during this period -notable changes were already fermenting within society. According to Indian sources, the first centuries A.D. saw the emergence of the institution of land grants. Archaeological evidence also testifies to the enhanced political role of the agricultural aristocracy. In the 5th and 6th centuries, when the urban centres were on the decline, individual estates and castles came to the fore. The castles with many-metre platforms at the base were increasingly becoming impregn- able fortresses, symbolising the independence of their owners. These were most likely the symptoms of the on- coming of the new feudal age. The degeneration of towns was accompanied by a decline of artisan industries, with earthen pottery becoming more coarse and often being hand-made. Nomad invasions by themselves can hardly explain these developments. ndeed, the penetration of nomads in the 2nd century B.C. did not stop the develop- ment of the local structures which had not used up to the full all the opportunities of the existing mode of produc- tion. During this period the situation underwent rapid change, and there is reason to associate this with the crisis of a definite form of social relations, namely, the crisis of the slave-owning system.

The most significant achievement of Kushan civilisation is most likely the high level of cultural development. Kushan culture, for all the local and temporary differences, was a fusion of the achievements of local ancient Oriental civilisation, of the invigorating aspects of Hellenism, of the refined manner of Indian art and the tempestuous style brought in by the nomads from the vast Asian steppes.’The early stage of this synthetic, though stylistically united, art is well represented in Tilla-Tepe. The Kushan towns with their well-established cultural standards ranging from pottery to articles of religious cult were definitely the bearers and base of the new type of culture. That urbanised, as it were, culture also affected, as did monetary relations, the rural areas. The unity of the mass, traditional culture, brought to light during the Kushan excavations, is striking.

Buddhism became widespread in the Kushan period, as has been already mentioned, and its monuments are to be found all over the territory of that vast state. As a rule, they are lavishly decorated with sculptures, reliefs and pain- tings, which make them genuine treasures of art. Most widely known are the ancient Buddhist monuments in the vicinity of Hadda, not far from Jalalabad. The ruins of Buddhist stupas, monasteries and some other structures have been subjected to close study. The figures of the Buddha and the Bodhisattvas are an ideal and perfect image of inner contemplation. But in other sculptures, in which the image was not restricted by preconceived canons, the realism of Hadda sculpturers was particularly impressive. Such are the figures of the donators who made material contribution to the development and maintenance of the Buddhist cult. They show men in light tunics with thick moustaches on strong-willed faces. Great inner strength distinguishes the “head of an ascetic”, an emaciated old man with sharp lines at the mouth, his brows knitted with determination. Hadda sculpture, with its realism and emphasis on the individual features of the personages pre- sented, its psychological penetration, is an outstanding achievement of Kushan art, which had creatively assimilated the methods of expressive psychological portrayal of Hel- lenic sculpturers.

The Kushan rulers upheld Buddhism and, at the same time, sought to build up the prestige of secular authority, which is seen from their efforts to establish the dynasty cult. The Surkh-Kotal sanctuaries in Northern Afghanistan, 15 kilometres to the south of Pul-i-Humri, are remarkable dynasty cult monuments. Excavations have shown that there, on a high hill surrounded by a wall with towers, stood a number of structures, including the main temple with a fire-altar in the centre. Archaeologists found stone statues of Kushan rulers there. Leading to the temple was a long flight of steps which began at the foot of the hill. Of great interest is a many-line inscription made in Greek letters but in the Kushan language, or Bactrian, for that matter, as was the case with the Dilberjin inscription. The inscription is about repair works and mentions the nobles who supervised the reconstruction, and names the complex itself—the “Temple of Kanishka, the Victor”. It is not ruled out that the prodigious structure was erected during Kanishka’s rule.

Apart from official cults and religions, there existed the beliefs of the popular masses, most interesting relics of which are the numerous terracotta figurines that have been found in towns and rural settlements (Buddhist ones ac- count for but a few). Preference is given to figurines of female deities, clad in robes hanging in heavy folds, with a cult vessel or a fruit in hand. Most likely it is a female deity, that is a goddess of fertility and guardian of the household. This explains why such figurines were found in almost every house. Another distinctive feature of the mass, folk culture is the considerable number of figurines of horsemen, or just of saddled horses, as a kind of memory of the founders of the Kushan state and one of the funda- mental elements of its armed forces. Kushan culture, clo- sely associated with the socio-economic basis and the polit- ical situation in the state, is clear evidence of the flourish- ing of the ancient civilisations that existed in the territory of Afghanistan, a process brought forth to a great extent by the cross-fertilisation of various cultural traditions, broad cultural ties and intercourse, which have always been the main stimulants of historical progress.

Afghanistan in the Middle Ages

After the collapse of the Kushan empire a large part of Afghanistan was incorporated in the state of the Chion- ites or Ephthalites, which rose on its ruins. Some scholars believe the’ Ephthalite state had been growing round the central regions of what is today Badakhshan. In the second half of the 5th century the Ephthalites seized Gandhara and extended theirrule as far as Punjab, Sind and Rajasthan. The local rajas who agreed to pay tribute to the Ephthalite rulers usually remained in their domains. Towards the mid- 6th century the Ephthalite state was falling into decay. In the year 533 their supreme ruler Mihiragula was defeated by a coalition of rajas who ruled North-Westem India, and in 567 the joint forces of Iran (ruled by the Sassanian dy- nasty at the time) and the West-Turkic kaganate dealt a crushing blow to the Ephthalites and divided their terri- tory. The greater part of what is today Afghanistan went to Khusraw I Anushirwan (with the exception of the north- eastern regions controlled by the Turks). The state that had emerged in the valley of the Kabul River and in the area between the Indus and the Chenab, which was ruled by the Shahi dynasty, claimed kindred to the Kushans.

The emergence of the Ephthalite state was accompanied by migrations of a number of tribes under its rule from thé southern regions of Central Asia to areas north of the Hindu Kush and, further, to the Indus valley. These migrations changed, to a certain extent, the ethnic make-up of the territories that are part of present-day Afghanistan and had a strong impact on the ethnic evolution of its peoples.

The 4th-6th centuries A.D. of Afghanistan’s history saw both violent political overthrows and major changes in social and economic development: the slave-owning system was giving way to nascent feudalism.

The disintegration of the Kushan state and Ephthalite conquests brought about the emergence of a large number of small, conflicting principalities in the territory of Afghan- istan and contiguous regions of the Indus valley. The rulers and nobility of these principalities were gradually becoming big feudal-type landowners.

As feudal society was taking shape, new social classes were emerging, those of feudal landowners and the under- privilegéd socially downtrodden peasants. Only in individ- ual remote regions did the relations of the previous social systems persist. ;

Major changes set in in ideology and culture: replacing Buddhism in .the religious form of Hinduism was the ideo- logy of feudal society.

These most important social, economic, ideological and cultural changes, signalling the coming of a new, feudal system, coincided with the fall of the Sasanian state and the appearance of new conquerors at the Afghan borders— the Arabs.

The Arab Conquest

The Arab Caliphate, formed in the early half of the 7th century, played an immense role in the fates of neigh- bouring countries. Its emergence was closely linked with complex social, ideological and political processes of the feudalisation of Arab society in Western and Northem Arabia, ideologically expressed in Islam.*

The founder of the newreligion was prophet Muhammad (570-632), an Arab of the Koreishite tribe born in Mecca.

During the last decade of his life Muhammad had the eet part of Arabia under his power and influence. His irst four successors, the caliphs Abu Bakr (632-634), Omar (634-644), Osman (644-656), and Ali (656-661), are called pious in Muslim tradition. In the years of their rule, which was the period of early Islam, theocracy was a recog- nised ideal in the caliphate, just as it was under Muhammad: religious and secular power, law and religion constituted a single whole and the head of the religious community was simultaneously the head of state.) _

Urging the spread of Islam, the caliphs built an enor- mous state. After a number of victorious campaigns they controlled a considerable part of the Byzantine empire, conquered the Sasanian state and a number of other states in South-West Asia, North Africa and on the Iberian Penin- sula. By the middle of the 8th century the caliphate com- prised the territories of Iran, Iraq, Syria, Palestine, Egypt, Libya, countries of the Maghreb (Algeria, Tunisia, Moroc- co), and Spain, part of Transcaucasia (up to the Main Cau- casian Range), part of Central Asia (including Samarkand, Khwarizm and Ferghana), a considerable part of Afghanis- tan and some regions of North-Western India (Sind and the valley of the Indus, up to Multan). They also controlled Sicily and Malta.

The Arab expeditions to Afghanistan—Ghazni, Herat, Seistan and Tokharistan—began in the middle of the 7th century. In 652 the Arabs captured Herat. In many regions, in particular Bamian, Bust, Balkh, Badghis, Ghazni, Kabul, Parvan, and Gorband, the local rulers and the population offered fierce resistance and the caliphs and their viceger- ents often had to dispatch troops once again to subdue the recalcitrants. The sources say some mountain regions— Ghur in the upper reaches of the Harirud and the area of the Suleiman Mountains—were never fully conquered by the Arabs. Balkh was captured only in 707 and Parvan, Gorband and Panjshir still later, in the 790s. The Kabul area, ruled by the local dynasty, sent tribute to the caliphs from time to time and was fully subjugated by the Arabs only in the early 9th century after numerous expeditions. Qandahar was conquered at the same time. ‘

The militarily and politically turbulent 7th and 8th centuries were a rather complex period in the history of the peoples inhabiting Afghanistan. Regrettably, sources of relevant data are insufficient for studying many impor- tant aspects of the political and socio-economic processes of the evolution of statehood during the Arab conquest and learning about the relations between various peoples and tribes and the development of new social and economic institutions, the growth of cities, expansion of trade, and the transformation of old and emergence of new cultural traditions.

But even available data give us reason to believe that in the eastern outskirts of the Arab caliphate, which, at the time, also included the territory of Afghanistan, feudal relations were beginning to take shape in the 7th and 8th centuries. The process, however, was uneven in different physico-geographic zones. In the oases on the plains it proceeded a good deal faster than in the outlying areas and in the mountain districts where nomad and semi-nomad cattle-breeding tribes lived and communal tribal relations prevailed. Though slavery as a system continued to exist (there were slave markets, for instance, in Balkh, Kabul and some other cities), it did not play a significant role in social and economic activity. Slaves were used mainly in the household and also in mining, handicrafts and livestock breeding. Under the Arabs the land was drastically redistri- buted, particularly where farming had been well developed. The greater part of the land was declared state property and was cultivated by peasants who enjoyed the right of hereditary lease; here the tax and the feudal rent coincided. Taxes from that land went as payment to the troops and clerks. A considerable portion of the lands was appropriat ed by the caliphs and members of their families, and by the Arab nobility.

At the turn of the 9th century there was a growth in private land holdings, or mulgs (hereditary land grants to Arab military commanders, district rulers and the local aristocracy) and conventional holdings, or zqta.

At first the conventional holdings were only a part of the rent-cum-tax granted as payment for service rendered during the term of service or for life; later the right to rent was combined with the right to land tenure. In that period wag f ownership began to be practised. Waqfs (land grants) were received by mosques, madrasahs and other Muslim establishments and could be neither sold nor alienated and were exempt from taxation. There also existed communal lands, but their size diminished after forceful appropria tion by Arab conquerors. The peasants were compelled to cultivate state-owned and private lands and also the lands of zgta owners on metayage rent terms, thus falling into feudal dependence. The land was given to peasants on the condition that they would pay one-fourth, one-sixth or one- eighth of the crops, depending on who owned the beasts of draught, farm implements and seeds—the sharecropper or the landowner.

A corollary of the incorporation of Afghanistan in the caliphate was the migration of Arabs who settled on the conquered lands. Some of those lands became the posses- sion of Arab military commanders and officials. However, there were less Arab settlements in Afghanistan than, for instance, in Iraq or Iran. But it is known that Arab war- riors, resettled with their families to Tokharistan, Eastem Khorasan and other localities, were given land and housing. In some regions the Arabs did not mix with the local popu- lation and lived isolated. Arab villages existed in many regions of Afghanistan also in the 20th century (in partic- ular, in the north of the country, near Kabul and Jalalabad).

The main consequence of the Arab conquest was the gradual spread of Islam and Arabic ie the official and lit- erary language), and also the introduction of the Arabic ' script in the writing of the local languages. In the terri- tory of present-day Afghanistan Islam was spread primarily in Balkh (a mosque was built there in 742), Herat and Seis- tan. As for Kabul, Ghur and a number of mountain locali- ties, their population began to profess Islam much later, in the 9th-11th centuries, for the Arabs could not subjugate those regions for a long time. In Nuristan (Kafiristan) Islam took hold only at the turn of the 20th century.

On the vast territories they had conquered, the Arab caliphs often left local rulers, making it binding on them to secure the conveyance to the treasury of taxes, tribute or gifts; and Arab vicegerents were appointed to govern large regions like Khorasan, Seistan and Tokharistan. However, subordinate to the Khorasan vicegerent, for instance, were the rulers of Kabul and Qandahar. A single taxation system was established for the whole of the caliphate, though in some areas local leaders and tribal chiefs still levied tribute for themselves, as had been the practice before the Arab conquest.

Muslims paid the zagat (literally ‘“cleansing’’, alms for the poor) amounting to 2.5 per cent of the crop. The culti- vators also paid the kharaj, or one-tenth of the crop. Non- Muslims had to pay a bigger land tax and a special per capita tax—the jizza. In addition, the population also paid various duties in kind (for the maintenance of messengers, officials and others); their unpaid bonded labour was used for the construction of roads, irrigation canals and palaces. Taxation usually involved various abuses and cruel treat- ment on the part of tax collectors and the landowners. Taxes were constantly rising. Fearing eruption of broad popular protest, the authorities were at times compelled to make concessions. Thus, newly-converted Muslims were freed from paying the kharaj twice during a fixed period of time. Dissatisfaction with the taxation policy was expressed more and more often not only by the tax-paying population, but also by other social groups—the local non-Arab nobility who were often forced not only to obey the vicegerents of the caliph but to hand over to them a considerable portion of their income; traders who had accepted Islam cherishing the hope that they would be granted equal rights with the Arabs; adherents of theocracy who were opposed to the . caliphate being tumed into a secular state, and others. s is known from sources, during this period popular opposition took various forms—from passive resistance (leaving the place of residence and evading taxation) to armed actions which in most cases merged with the rebel- lions by individuals or groups of people defending the interests of various social strata. Many of those protest actions were conducted under the banner of various sec- tarian doctrines, as those propounded by Shiites, Khari- jites, and Hurramites.* Thus, the supporters of the Khari- jite sect, which had taken its final shape towards the end of the 7th century, led several rebellions in the 8th century (and later, in the 9th and 10th centuries), in Khorasan and Seistan, among other regions. At the tum of the 740s the supporters of the Hurramite sect, which was close to the Mazdakites, eee in Khorasan the ideas of social equality among all people, defending their right to land and property, and called for massive armed struggle.2 In the second half of the 8th century, they led the Muqanna uprising in Mawarannahr, which exerted strong influence on various areas of Northem Afghanistan.

Most of these movements in the early half of the 8th century were directed against the caliphs of the Umay- yad dynasty (661-750). The struggle was headed by des- cendants of Abbas (uncles of prophet Muhammad), known as Abbasids. Among other things, they promised the Mus- lims (including the new converts) and non-Muslims to ease the burdensome taxation. This explains why the pro-Abbasid uprising stirred up by Abu Muslim at Merv (747) was joined by the population of Tokharistan, He- rat, Talikan, Balkh and other regions, by people who belonged to different social strata, ethnic groups, reli- gious trends and sects.

The coming of the Abbasid caliphs to power -(750) marked, above all, the consolidation of the feudal order in landownership. The Sunnite version of Islam became the class ideology of the feudal lords. But the conditions of the popular masses did not improve. New uprisings flared up in the caliphate, including the territory of what is pres- ent-day Afghanistan. In 755 a large uprising, known as the Sunbadh Magian uprising, spread to a number of regions from Khorasan to Azerbaijan; in 767 another popular rebellion with Ustad Aziz (Sis) at the head took place in Herat; late in the 8th century a new wave of Kharijite rebel- lions swept across Seistan and the disturbances continued into the 9th century. Major uprisings against the Abbasids broke out in other areas of the caliphate—in Southem Azer- baijan, Iraq, Yemen, Syria and Palestine.

Reviewing the events of the 7th and 8th centuries in the caliphate, which affected the fate of the peoples that played a significant role in the history of Afghanistan, it must be noted that the mid-7th century saw the beginning of the division of Muslims.3 Standing out among them were pri- marily the supporters of “true Islam’’—the Sunnites,* adherents of the Sunna (they hold that the caliphate is an elective office), and also the Shiites (Shiah, i.e., “the party of Ali”). The latter recognised the hereditary right to be imam—head of the Muslim community of the caliphate and supreme political leader of the state—only for Ali (Muham- mad’s cousin and son-in-law) and his descendants. The Shiites had several sects within the framework of both moderate and extreme Shiism, Ismailism4 being one of them. This sect has survived to the present day; its follow- ers live in a number of Asian countries and also in Afghanis- tan, mainly in its northern regions.

The third sect, the Kharijites (insurgents) who came out against big landowners, and supported the legal and social equality of all Muslims and their dominating posi- tion over the Zimmiyas (non-Muslims). In their view, sover- eign power was epitomised in the religious community, while the caliph (who had to be elected) should, in his activities, be responsible to it. An important aspect of their doctrine is that any Muslim, and any ruler for that matter, imam or caliph, should he commit a “great sin”, was there- after considered a Kaftr or infidel, and opposition to him was God-willed. This maxim often served as ideological

round for overthrowing a ruler, or for a “holy war”, but in actual fact for political struggle, rebellions and insurrec- tions. In the territory of Afghanistan this sect was most widespread in Seistan.

Shiism, just like the Kharijite doctrine, was used by the political, and often social, opposition in the struggle against the Umayyads, Abbasids and other Sunnite rulers.

Afghanistan in the 9th–13th Centuries

The coming to power of the Abbasids, as was mentioned above, did not improve the position of the popular masses in the caliphate. The decrees lowering tax rates and cancel- ling some requisitions over and above the kAaraj were either practically ignored or observed for only a brief span of time. The popular movements, originally spearheaded against the Arab rule, more and more often advanced social demands; and anti-Abbasid uprisings, led primarily by the Shiites, Kharijites and later by the Ismailians and Karmathians,* continued. In the territory of Afghanistan such uprisings occurred mainly in Seistan. The rebellions were caused by overtaxation; illegal confiscation of lands of peasant com- munities and local owners; collection of additional sums of money and fines from farmers, artisans and traders; abuse of power by Arab vicegerents, particularly Ali ibn Isa, vicegerent of Khorasan and Seistan, and his officials.

The first to rise were the peasants and artisans of Seistan led by the Kharijite Hamzah ibn Atraq (798). The Kharijite movement continuedmany years, andin consequence Seistan was actually free from caliphate control. for more than 30 years. Hamzah ibn Atraq cancelled the payment of the kAa- raj. His treasury was replenished by the war booty seized by the Seistanians during attacks on Arab-controlled territories.

By the 9th century the situation in the caliphate wor- sened. Supported by the population, which was displeased by the mounting tax burden, the local feudal lords con- tinued to come out against the power of the caliphs.

The Abbasid caliphate was disintegrating politically under the impact of a number of factors, connected prima- rily with the development of feudal relations, different socio-economic levels of the countries conquered by the Arabs, and the lack of stable economic and ethnic ties between those countries, some of which had nothing in common in terms of language and culture. The incessant popular uprisings, often used by. the local feudal lords for winning political. independence, greatly weakened the cali- phate as a whole and its position in the provinces.

Replenishments to the state treasury were on the decline with the increase of big feudal holdings and the exemption of their owners from taxation; some of the local rulers refused to send the caliph tribute and gifts and provide troops; and expenditures on suppressing popular uprisings . and feudal rebellions were growing. Together all this under- mined the economic and military might of the caliphs. In fact, they had no real opportunity to resist the separat- ism of the hereditary aristocracy, the vicegerents’ desire to consolidate their hereditary power and independence in the provinces they governed. Furthermore, apart from the local aristocracy, apart from the rulers and vicegerents of separate regions, the small feudal lords, too, on seizing lands by military force (with the help of their volunteer detach- ments or ghazi*) established hereditary power in the cap- tured territories, and sought to become independent.

In a bid to prevent the collapse of the state, the caliphs took steps to bolster their power. To that end, they formed the Ghulam Guard out of Turkic slaves.

Fearing the emergence of another large hotbed of anti- Arab action, Mamun, son of caliph Harun-ar-Rashid (786- 809), (in 809-813 Mamun was vicegerent of Khorasan), sent his troops against the ruler of the Kabul Shah dynasty which controlled, apart from Kabul, lands in Tokharistan and Qandahar and occasionally rebelled against the power of the caliphs. Despite stubborn resistance, the troops of Kabul Shah were defeated, his throne and crown were sent to Mecca, while the land tax and tribute were doubled. The domains of the Kabul Shahs were made part of Khora- san and from then on were subordinate to the Khorasan vicegerent of the Abbasids. Mosques were built in the towns. Then began the inculcation of the Sunnite doctrine of Islam, which lasted almost a century.

In referring to the political situation in the caliphate in the context of attempts by the ruling elite to consol- idate their power in the conquered regions (including the territory of Afghanistan), it must be stressed that the elite sought to inculcate the Sunnite doctrine of Islam as the dominant religion, which was to justify the changes in social life brought about by the development of feudal relations. To achieve that goal, tenets of the Koran and cer- tain khadises (traditions) of the Sunna were reshaped, and doctors of sacred law and theology—fakihs and ulemas, were summoned to the caliph court. The proclamation of the Sunnite doctrine of Islam in 851 as the official religion was aimed at counterposing it to religious sects whose teachings served as the ideological form of the opposition to Arab rule and to the intensifying of feudal exploitation. Beginning with the mid-9th century the adherents of other sects and religions were persecuted. This period saw the further spread of Sufism, an ascetic mystic sect within Islam, that passively condemned wealth and preached sub- mission, tolerance and contentment with one’s lot. Pover was said to be the ideal for the “salvation of the soul”.

To retain power, at least nominally, the caliphs meted out to big feudal lords the high posts of vicegerents. The latter often became hereditary owners and formed what were actually independent emirates.* Such a vicegerent in the territory of Afghanistan was Tahir ibn Husayn, former ruler of Busheng in the Herat province. Under his rule were Mavarannahr, Khorasan with Herat, and the Balkh, Kabul and Seistan regions.

Sole masters in vast territories, Tahir and his success- ors, known as the Tahirids (821-873), dispatched to the caliph fixed sums from every district. The Tahirids sought to buttress their power and to that end were insistently spreading Islam wherever the population professed Zoro- astrianism. At the same time they took measures to regulate taxation, develop agriculture and irrigation, and issued legislation on water use. Under their rule the Kharijite movements in Khorasan and Seistan still continued, though their intensity was on the wane.

The Tahirids were far more troubled by the units of Ghazi under the command of the brothers Yaqub and Amr ibn Lays,** who had suppressed Kharijite uprisings in Seistan. Having defeated the Kharijites, they seized power in Seistan in 861 and moved north where they captured Herat, Balkh, and Ghazni, took control over Kabul and, . having overthrown the Tahirid dynasty in 873, gained con- trol over Khorasan. As he failed to conquer Baghdad, the capital of the caliphate, Amr ibn Lays made peace with the caliph and nominally recognised himself to be his vassal. Such subordination, however, was limited to mentioning the caliph’s name during the Friday service in mosques and putting his name first on coins; the Saffarids did not send tribute and taxes to Baghdad.

Having consolidated their hold on the seized territories, they moved north to attack the Samanids (a local dynasty of Termez extraction), who had gained a foothold in Cen- tral Asia in 821. In the battle at Balkh, Amr ibn Lays was defeated by the Samanids, taken prisoner and executed.

After their victory over Amr ibn Lays the Samanids con- quered vast territories. Their domains, which included the whole of present-day Afghanistan, stretched from the Tien Shans to the Suleiman Mountains and from Bukhara and Samarkand to the Persian Gulf. In the conquered territories, as a rule, they left administrative powers in the hands of local dynasties. These territories included Seistan, Balkh, Ghazni and other regions, whose representatives, while recognising the supreme authority of the Samanids, did not always send taxes, tribute and gifts to their capital Bukhara. :

The Samanids set up a ramified administrative apparatus consisting of 10 departments (divans) that were in charge of taxation, lands, wagqfs, the guards, and extemal relations, all of which is evidence of their efforts to strengthen central power. At the same time the Samanids handed out land in the form of igta, along with the right of tax immunity, leaving members of the local dynasties as rulers of some provinces, thereby promoting separatist tendencies among them. These tendencies were spreading also among the Ghulam Guard, who often joined popular actions conduct- ed, as before, under slogans advanced by various sects.

The greatest influence was exerted by the Carmats, who during the first four decades of the 10th century constantly stirred up risings in Khorasan, including the regions of Herat and Ghur.

In 962-963 Alp-tegin, commander of the Samanid Ghu- lam Guard, captured Ghazni and then Bust and remained there. After his death, his son-in-law Sabuk-tegin (977-997), who managed to hold out in the struggle against the other claimants to those lands, founded the Ghaznavid dynasty (977-1186). Sabuk-tegin not only gained a firm hold on Ghazni but undertook some successful expeditions, includ- ing one to Ghur, and moved east, towards India. He launched an offensive against the principality ruled by the Shahi dynasty whose domains stretched from Lagman (the Kabul River valley) to the Chenab River. As a result, Sabuk-tegin captured those lands and reached Peshawar. The power of the Ghaznavids reached its peak under Mah- mud (997-1030).

Apart from Afghanistan, the Ghaznavid empire included the territories of Iran, ithe south of Central Asia with Khorezm, and North-Western India, to which Mahmud went on 17 expeditions, waging a holy war against the “‘infidels”’. Afghan units played a significant role in his army. Caring mainly about replenishing his treasury, Mahmud waged a long and stubborn struggle against the feudal lords, and confiscated their lands, thus greatly enlarging the area of state-owned land. He used the income from the land at his own discretion. Mahmud spent lavishly on the maintenance of the troops, the central administrative apparatus, punitive expeditions, and on criminal investigation. All the recal- citrants, those suspected of disloyalty or heresy were subjected to cruel persecution; some were executed and their property was confiscated. The sources of that time say that many localities, including towns, were hard hit by famine and epidemic during Mahmud’s rule, towns were devastated, rural areas were neglected and the people were brought to ruin.

Meanwhile, Mahmud, wishing to acquire the fame of an enlightened ruler and true Muslim, kept a magnificent. court, where many well-known theologians, famous scien- tists and poets lived. Their names went down in the chroni- cles of world civilisation. Among them were Firdausi, al-Bi- runi, and Unsuri, to mention just a few. In Mahmud’s days majestic mosques and palaces were built. Most famous among the architectural monuments of that time are the mosques and madrasahs in Ghazni and the Lashkar Gah _ (or Lashkari-Bazar) complex in Bust.6

But the might and power of the Ghaznavid state was shortlived. Routed in the battle at Dendanakan in 1040, by Turkmenian Seljuks, who had moved from Central Asia to Khorasan, it could no longer regain its former strength. As a result of the exhaustive struggle against the Seljuks, who were supported by the Khorasan nobility and the Ghur rulers, and also because of internecine strife, the Ghazna- vids were losing one province after another. The Seljuks captured Balkh, then Herat and the whole of Khorasan and Seistan. In 1151 the capital Ghazni was seized by the rulers of the mountainous Ghur province. The city was almost entirely destroyed and bumt down. The Ghaznavids were forced to abandon their capital and up to 1186 members of that dynasty exercised their rule from Lahore.’

The Seljuk conquerors did not confine themselves to annexing pee of the Ghaznavid possessions. In the 11th ‘century they subjugated Iran, Asia Minor, Syria, Iraq, Palestine and the southern part of Central Asia. But the same fate befell their own state, as had been the case with many other medieval states of that kind: it soon began to disintegrate. ‘

Only its eastem regions, including a part of Afghanistan’s territory, remained for some time under sultan Sinjar (1119-1157) of the Seljuk dynasty. After his death the state collapsed. For some time Muhammad Khwarizm Shah (1200-1220) ruled in Afghanistan until his rule was dis- continued by the invasion by Genghiz Khan in 1220. -

Reviewing the milestones of the political history of that period, special mention should be made of the events in Ghur in the upper reaches of the Harirud between Bamian and Herat. Historical sources assert that neither the Arabs nor the Samanids managed to penetrate the prov- ince deeply, no matter how hard they tried. However there js reason to believe that Islam had spread in some re- gions’ of Ghur back in the early 9th century, for Carmat uprisings had taken place there in the early 10th century.

After several military expeditions by Mahmud of Ghazni and his son Masud (1030-1040), many of the Ghur rulers (maltks) were forced to obey the formidable conquerors, though already under Masud’s successors they made attempts to win full independence.

The lack of pertinent data makes it impossible to probe the evolution of social relations in Ghur. Yet it is known that in the 11th century gradual feudalisation was taking

_place there and the communal or private lands of the peas- ants were forcibly taken away by the maliks.

Early in the 12th century the Ghaznavids handed over the administration of Ghur to malik Izz-ad-din, who thus became the first “great prince of Ghur” and Ghur essential- ly became an independent territory. In the second half of the 12th century, the Ghurids, as already noted, availing themselves of the weakening of the Seljuks and Ghazna- vids, dealt a crushing blow to the latter and seized their capital Ghazni.

In 1175 the Ghurids conquered Herat and Seistan, after which Shihab-ad-din Muhammad Ghuri undertook several military expeditions to Northern India. As a result, the Ghurid military-feudal nobility established sway over an immense territory from Lahore and Multan to Bengal. In Ghur itself the residency of its rulers was at Firuzkuh. Bamian, another centre of the Ghurids, was ruled by Fakhr- ad-din Ghuri. Under his rule were also Shugnan, Vakhan, part of Tokharistan as well as part of the mountain areas of the Hindu Kush and the Pamirs. Herat, Ghazni, Kabul and Bust were major trade centres in the territory of Afghan- istan.

In the years preceding the Mongol invasion, their vast domain was often attacked by Khwarizm Shahs until the Ghurid state disintegrated.8 By 1217 the troops of the Khwarizm Shahs occupied vast territories, including all the lands of the Ghurids in the territory of Afghanistan. In the regions captured by Muhammad Ghuri in Northern India a Ghurid military commander, named Qutb-ad-din Aybak, founded a new state—the Delhi Sultanate (1206-1526).

Thus the period between the 9th and the early 13th centuries in the history of Afghanistan was marked by frequent incursions of foreign conquerors and internecine strife. The invaders seized vast territories, and then redis- tributed the land. But no matter who owned the land—the Arab nobility, local landowners or the military-nomad aristocracy—feudal landownership kept spreading, becom- ing hereditary. Tribal ties were disrupted and feudalism developed steadily, though unevenly. Slavery was gradually disappearing.

As feudal landownership developed, a considerable part of the peasants fell in ever greater feudal dependence. Remaining free tillers, the peasants cultivated, on metayage rent terms, the land of the feudal lords, who usually had no farms of their own. The growing tax burden often made it impossible for the peasants to work their own plots, for they lacked water, seeds and cattle. In such cases the land plots were voluntarily left to the patronage of the feudal lords on the condition that the peasants would get part of the harvest (often not more than a quarter), a sys- tem practised not only in Oriental countries but also in Europe.

The period preceding the Mongol conquest saw certain economic revival. The local rulers took rather successful measures to advance agriculture, handicraft production and trade. Irrigation work and town building developed. In some areas industrial crops such as cotton and silk be- came widespread; livestock breeding was expanding, and so were the trades on its base. Apart from growing wheat, barley, fruits and vegetables, rice was sown on larger areas. Canals, kyarizes, wells, and protective structures to stop quick-sand movement, were built. Agriculture and the hand- icrafts gradually separated; along with urban semi-agrarian settlements, large feudal-type cities were growing in number. Balkh, for instance, had nearly 200,000 inhabit- ants. Even a small town like Panjshir had a population of 20,000. In the cities there were corporations of bakers, potters, weavers, copper-smiths, jewellers and merchants. Apart from free craftsmen who worked in their shops, craftsmen who worked for hire laboured in enterprises owned by the state or by feudal lords.

Carpet weaving, production of cotton and silk fabrics with golden and silver needlework, metal-chasing, and the making of glazed ceramics, weapons, and bronze articles reached a high level. Incidentally, the development of hand- icrafts in the towns did not mean that there were no crafts- men among the rural settled, nomad or semi-nomad cattle- breeding population. Thus, leather currying and metal- processing were often done by nomad craftsmen.

The cities were becoming centres of craftsmanship and trade, both domestic and foreign. Narrative sources and archaeological finds provide evidence that Afghanistan main- tained trade relations with India, China, and the Mediter- ranean countries. Situated along trade routes Herat, Kabul, Balkh, Ghazni and Bust were major centres of handicraft production and retail and wholesale trade; they also served as trans-shipping points for caravan trade.

Ore-mining was developing, yielding big profits for the rulers. Slave labour was often used in the ore pits. Silver pits, with a few thousand workers in each, operated in the regions of Panjshir, Ghuzgan and Parvan; iron ore was mined in Ghur and near Kabul, lead and sulphur in Tokharistan, gems and semi-precious stones—ruby, lapis lazuli and tur- quoise—in Badakhshan, in the north of the country.

As the cities developed, their architecture improved: new palaces, caravanserais, mosques and madrasahs were con- structed. Ancient ruins in that area and archaeological finds testify to the wide use of alabaster, ore, coloured glazed ceramics, and lustre painting.*

The flourishing of science, literature, poetry and prose in the early Middle Ages was reflected in the immortal poetry of Firdausi, the works of al-Biruni, the writings by Beihaqi and al’-Utbi.

The early Middle Ages played a significant role in the ethnic evolution of the Afghan (Pashtun) people.** The origin of the Pashtuns has been trace.’ back to the ancient population of the Suleiman Mountains. The formation of the union of basically East-Iranian tribes most likely dates from the middle of the 1st millennium A.D. and was a result of the disintegration of the Ephthalite alliance.

Right up to the start of the 2nd millennium A.D. the area inhabited by the Pashtuns was confined to the Sulei- man Mountains between the valleys of the Kuram River in the north and the Gomal River in the south. By that time the Pashtun ethno-linguistic community had formed, the boundaries of Pashtun territory were fixed, and the founda- tions of the original culture of the Pashtuns and their indi- vidual mentality were formed on the basis of the semi- nomad and nomad livestock raising economy. It was prob- ably at the time when the group of related East-Iranian dialects were developing that the Pashto (Pushtu) language was formed.

As the productive forces developed and the population increased the Pashtun tribes gradually began to live a set- tled life. Dwelling in territories around the Suleiman Moun- tains, some even engaged in sedentary farming. Their mi- gration was made easier by the fact that the sedentary Irano-Tajik and Indo-Aryan population of those regions had been partially exterminated during the incursions by Gen- ghiz Khan and his successors, and also under Tamerla- ne (these developments will be described in more detail below), and some of them had moved to safer regions. At first the Pashtuns occupied the Ghazni Plateau, part of the Peshawar Valley, Kohat and Bannu, and several regions in the Kabul area. Some time later they moved on towards, Qandahar, to the Swat Valley, and to the territory of Zhob.

In the process of settlement, tribal relations were dis- rupted, and unions’ of tribes were formed and broke up. Property and social inequality was growing in the Pashtun society and major changes set in with the spread of Islam. Settling in the vast area between the Indus and the Hindu Kush, the Pashtuns mingled with the local population. More often than not these contacts led to the assimilation of the Pashtuns with their neighbours who became involved in the tribal and communal structure of the Pashtun society. Thus, from the 11th to the 13th century the Pashtuns mixed with a number of Turkic tribes who lived as nomads on the Ghazni Plateau. The largest of these was the Khalaj tribe (or union of tribes), predecessors of the Ghilzais, one of the biggest Pashtun tribes. The Tarklani tribe, too, populating the Bajaur area has genetic ties with the Turks. Besides, Indo-Aryan tribes and ethnic groups that popu- lated the valleys of the Kabul and its tributaries and the lands between the Suleiman Mountains and the Indus played a certain role in the formation of some of the Pashtun tribes.

However, the main role in the evolution of the Pashtuns was played by the Tajiks and kindred Iranian tribes and ethnic groups that populated avast region between the Hindu Kush and the Suleiman Mountains as well as the territory south of the Suleiman Mountains. The Tajiks as well as the Indian peoples, who by that time already had a feudal system that had taken firm root, undoubtedly influenced the development of feudal relations among the Pashtuns. Ample evidence of this is provided, in particular, by analy- sis of Pashtun socio-political, economic and state adminis- trative terminology.

The Mongolian Conquest

Early in the 13th century, after lengthy and persistent struggle, Mongolian tribal chief Temuchin achieved polit- ical unification of Mongolia. Having assumed the title of Genghiz Khan (1206-1227), he was recognised great khan.

By that time an early-feudal society had taken shape in Mongolia, though tribal relationships remained and tribal unions (uluses) were at different levels of social develop- ment. Every ulus was hierarchically subdivided into mili- tary-administrative units, their names depending on the numerical strength of the armed units they supplied (tu- mens,* thousands, hundreds and tens). The units were headed by hereditary tribal chiefs, elders of clans and fami- lies, etc., in which the master (or feudal lord) of the tribes- men was also their military commander. Implicit obedience was total.

The armed force thus formed was well organised and dis- ciplined. Being nomads, the Mongols created a very mobile and manoeuvrable cavalry whose actions, facilitated by the combat’ equipment of that time (catapults, wall-breaching machines and weapons) determined their success in battles against enemy units recruited from among the'settled popu- lation of divided feudal state formations.

The name of Genghiz Khan is synonymous with one of the most arduous periods in the medieval history of the many countries invaded by his troops.

Having waged several successful campaigns, the Mongols extended their power to the territories of China, Korea, Tibet, Eastern Turkestan, Central and Western Asia, Trans- caucasia, Iran, Afghanistan, Eastern Europe, the areas north of the Black Sea, and the lower reaches of the Don and Volga rivers. As distinct from many other conquerors in the East, Genghiz Khan and his military commanders ravaged whole regions in a systematic and organised manner, des- troyed irrigation systems tuming fertile oases into desert land, burned down and wiped off towns and villages. With a 200,000-strong force they often totally annihilated a population that could offer resistance; thousands of crafts- men were tumed into slaves and sent away to Mongolia.

Afghanistan did not escape the common lot.? Having at- tacked the Khwarizm Shahs in 1219 and conquered Central Asia by 1220, the Mongols marched on to Afghanistan. In 1221 they seized Herat, exterminated the whole garri- son, the greater part of the population and took away many craftsmen, including all the Herat weavers. Other cities and regions of Afghanistan, too, including Balkh and Talikan, were sacked. The Nusrat-Kukh fortress was razed to the ground and its entire population killed.

Jalal-ad-din, the son of Muhammad Khwarizm Shah, tried to hold off the Mongols. He mustered an army of 70,000 in Ghazni (where he was vicegerent) from among the volunteer troops of Khorasan, Ghur, and the detach- ments of the Khalajes, Afghans and Turkmenians, and moved against the Mongols. He pitched a camp near Parvan, in the upper reaches of the Logar River in the Kabul Valley. In the battle at Parvan the Mongols were defeated. This bolstered the confidence of the Afghan population. Though strife among the feudal lords ultimately made Jalal-ad-din flee to India and then to Iran, in many towns and settle- ments anti-Mongolian uprisings flared up. One of the largest was in Herat, where unsurgents killed the Mongol vicegerent, destroyed the garrison and, having fortified the city walls, got ready to repel the attacking Mongolian troops. The siege of Herat lasted nearly half a year, and after its seizure in 1222 the city and its outskirts were ravaged and ruined and the whole of the population mas- sacred.* It was not until 1236 that Herat was restored and populated by an order from Genghiz Khan’s son Ogodai.

The Mongols met with protracted and stubborn resistance in Gurzivan and Bamiyan. During the siege of the latter, Genghiz Khan’s grandson was killed. Infuriated with the news, Genghiz Khan ordered that the town be taken by storm and razed to the ground. The same fate befell many cities of Ghur and Seistan.

After the seizure of Kabul and Qandahar the Mongols made several expeditions to India. Passing across the Kuram Valley, they ravaged the lands populated by Afghans. Kabul was so badly destroyed that the city practically ceased to exist. What remained in its place was a settlement populated by an Afghan tribe.

The local Afghan feudal lords offered no resistance to the Mongols. What is worse still, many of them, in contrast to the inhabitants of the cities and settlements, showed not only loyalty but even servility to the invaders. Some of them received permission from Mongol khans to retain control over various regions. But even when such permis- sion was given, officials were sent to watch over the ruler’s activities and see to it that taxes were properly collected and the khan’s instructions observed. As a rule, Genghiz Khan and his successors appointed their own vicegerents in large regions, mostly Mongol princes and military com- manders.

To tighten their grip on the seized territory, the Mon- gols resettled Turko-Mongol and Mongol nomads there. These resettlements, carried out repeatedly in the 13th to the early 14th centuries, had a definite influence on the evolution of the peoples now populating the central parts of Afghanistan. It is commonly thought that the Hazaras, living in the Uruzgun province and in some other regions and cities of Afghanistan (including Kabul and Herat), originated from those tribes. Their name is derived from the word “hazara’’, meaning “thousand’’.*

In the middle of the 13th century the Mongol empire broke up into several uluses, nominally subordinate to the ‘ great khan of Mongolia. The territories in South-West and West Asia became the ulus of Hulagu (1256-1265), a grand- son of Genghiz Khan.

In 1256 Hulagu, who continued conquests in Asia, des- troyed the state of the Ismailites and the Alamut fortress, its centre. Having seized Baghdad, he executed Mustasim, caliph of the Abbasids (1258). Having fixed the northem border of his domain along the Caucasian range, Hulagu Khan annexed vast territories, including Iran, Kurdistan, Iraq with Baghdad, upper Mesopotamia, the eastern part of Asia Minor, Azerbaijan, part.of Armenia, the Merv oasis, and part of Afghanistan (except for the Balkh region).* Georgia, Cilician Armenia, the Trebizond Empire, the Rum Sultanate and Cyprus became the vassals of the Hulagus and paid tribute to them. The Kurts (a local dynasty that first ruled in Ghur and later extended its rule to other regions of Afghanistan) were also their vassals.

In 1261 Hulagu assumed the title of Ikhan** and was granted an investiture from the great Khan Khubilai (1259- 1294) for the whole of Iran and newly-conquered territor- ies,*** including a part of Afghanistan.19 Bordering on the | hostile Golden .Horde in the North, the Chagatai ulus along the Amu Darya River in the East, and the Mameluke Sulta- nate in Egypt in the West, Hulagu Khan and the Ilkhans who auccenied him waged incessant wars requiring constant expenditures. Heavy spending was caused also by the main- tenance of the I[khan’s court, the military-nomad elite and the fiscal apparatus.

The Mongol invasion led to a redivision of land: the lands that had belonged to the Khwarizm Shahs and the local feudal aristocracy—most of whom had been extermi- nated, banished or simply fled from the country—went over to the elite of the military-nomad tribes. The change in the ethnic set-up of the ruling class caused changes in the tenor of life and in the goals the new rulers set themselves.

The ruling class consisted of the military-nomad nobility (it not only played a major political role in the state, but was greater in number); remnants of the local sedentary aristocracy, including the military; and high Muslim theo- logians who had retained their influence. Speaking about the set-up of the ruling class, the following must be em- phasised.

The nomad nobility (including the Mongol princes from among the Genghizids), the tribal chiefs and military com- manders, who seized the conquered lands or were given land for their service and then as private holdings, were becom- ing big feudal lords. The greater part of the nobility, sup ported by the tribes and having an opportunity of plunder ing vast territories that had been given to them by the Ilkhans or under the zgta rights, were ultimately interested in decentralising the state, and that trend became obvious already under Arghun Khan (1284-1291). Continuing to live a nomad life, the nobility was very hostile to the local aristocracy and the sedentary population, looking upon it merely as an object of exploitation.

The policy of plunder pursued by the nobility, the intensification of feudal exploitation, abuses and violence with regard to the tax-paying population, which was already ruined in the course of the Mongol invasion, forced the peasants and craftsmen to leave their native lands, under mined the country’s economy as a whole, primarily agri culture, which was the basis of the economy. Thus, by the end of the 13th century merely one-tenth of the arable land was under cultivation.

Another part of the Mongol nobility, less numerous but more far-sighted, sought contacts with the local aristocracy, including the military, the merchants and Muslim theolo- gians (the latter had a great influence on the population), and took measures to restore the disrupted economy, the irrigation systems, agriculture, handicrafts and trade. This policy was pursued, in particular, by Ogodai, Munke and specifically by Ghazan Khan (1295-1304), Mongol emir Nawruz, who was vicegerent of Khorasan, and others.

Throughout the entire period of Mongol rule these two opposite trends were in severe conflict with one another.

The surviving part of the local aristocracy felt insecure in their domains, for they depended on the Ilkhans and their vicegerents who could expropriate their land and property to their own benefit. That part of the ruling class sought increasingly to strengthen their economic and polit ical position and wished to see the Hulagid state decentral- ised. The strongest among them achieved a certain degree of independence, as was the case, for instance, with the local Kurt dynasty—it ruled in Ghur in 1245-1389, and in. the mid-13th century created a vassal principality with Herat as the capital.

The military, on the contrary, advocated a strong central power with stronger IIkhans and tried to influence them by helping to improve the administration mechanism, including the fiscal system.

The Muslim theologians, owing to the Mongols’ relative religious tolerance, retained their land holdings. Further- more, the Mongol khans freed them from all taxes and duties even before they adopted Islam. Connected with commerce, they, just like the military aristocracy, advocat- ed centralisation of the state and restoration of agriculture and the handicrafts.

These trends within the ruling class played a major role in the historical development of the state of the Il- khans. The main forms of landownership in it were the divant, or the state-owned land; the inju, or khass inju, that is, the land owned by the khan and his relatives; the mulq, or the land privately owned by Mongol, and partly by local, feudal lords; and the wagf lands, conventional feudal land grants: igta, idrar and ubacseh tl

The profits from the divant lands were collected through the state financial apparatus or farmed out to be pent for covering state expenditures. A great part of the lands was given out as conventional ownership mainly to the nomad-military nobility, used for producing food for the troops and partially went to the military in the bureaucratic apparatus. Due to these grants the area of state-owned land, from which the entire profit went to the treasury, was shrinking. The profits from the znju lands were used to cover the expenses of the Mongol court, princes and other relatives of Genghiz Khan and his offspring, their vassals attached to their hordes, or were used on the basis of personal comm- endation or patronage; sometimes the znju lands were given by Ilkhans to feudal lords for use or just as a gift.

The igta lands, the conventional land grants, while jurid- ically state-owned, turned into hereditary fiefs of the military elite. The lands, given by the Mongols to Muslim theologians of various ranks as waqf lands, were tax-free. While the owners of those lands, and also inju and mulq landholders, collected taxes practically without control.

The terms tdrar and mukasseh meant conventional grants. Thus, the zdrar was a hereditary grant of rent as a fief, while the term mukasseh implied lands and real estate.

In the 14th century, during the rule of the Ilkhans, there already functioned the system called soyurgal, when the landowner was given the right to immunity. I. P. Petru- shevsky stressed in his fundamental research Agriculture and Agrarian Relations in Iran in the 13th-14th Centuries that in order to understand the historical significance of immunity one must tum to Marx’s observation that in feudal society the feudal “functions of general and judge were attributes of landed property”.12

The pasture lands of the nomad tribes were a special category of land in the state of the Ilkhans. Those lands legally belonged to the tribe but in practice were control- led by the tribal elite. The lands of the rural communities and of the landowning peasants who had left the com- munities accounted for a meagre portion of the land. At the time when feudalism developed, that category of land was doomed to extinction.

Apart from taxes and duties that existed also in the previous years, introduced under the Mongols were new taxes and duties and extraordinary collection of food and forage for the army, requisitions for the maintenance of emirs, clerks, messengers, tax-collectors, as well as labour conscription and provision of billeting. There existed the practice of distributing so-called berats, giving officials and the military the right to receive a salary or pension in some region or other. Often several berats were given to one and the same region. One of the newest reforms effect- ed under the Mongols—under Ghazan Khan, to be more’ precise—was the attachment of peasants to the land.

At first the Mongols extended the practice of attaching nomads and peasants to their master in keeping with the military-administrative division of Mongolian society into tumens, thousands, hundreds and tens. Then the enslaving of the taxed population, which was a logical outcome of the development of feudal relations, took its final shape under Ilkhan Ghazan.

Lenin pointed out that under feudalism non-economic coercion may take different forms, “ranging from the peasant’s: serf status to his lack of rights in the social es- tates”.13 Given feudal property in land, which made up the basis of fetidalism, one of these forms was attaching the farmer not to the feudal lord but to the place where he paid his taxes and carried out his duties.

In 1303, under an order issued by Ghazan Khan the peasants were included in the tax lists of the regions where they lived and weré not permitted to change their place of residence. During the time when agriculture was being ruined, irrigation structures destroyed, peasants and handi- craftsmen taken away as prisoners and exploitation inten- sified, masses of rural inhabitants fled to the mountains, and joined bands of robbers. The mass departure of peasants brought further deterioration of agriculture and reduced the profits of the feudal lords and the treasury. Therefore a special point of the edict attaching the peasants to the place of taxation envisaged the right of the feudal lord and the state to bring back fugitive peasants by force within a period of 30 years since their escape.

An important measure to strengthen central power was the regulation of the administration machinery under Ghazan Khan, particularly the fiscal system. Under his edicts tax rates were established (and partially reduced), and the berats and some of the most burdensome duties (as, for instance, billeting rights) were cancelled. To pro- mote handicrafts and trade, the tamga tax was reduced for craftsmen and merchants, and in some regions it was even cancelled altogether; slave craftsmen working in large work- shops (karkhanahs) were transferred to the quitrent system, without freeing them from slavery. The slaves, whose numbers during the expeditions were replenished with prisoners, were widely used as craftsmen, in agriculture, construction, and so on. This enabled historians to view the period of Mongol rule as a period of revival of slavery.

Among the reforms effected by Ghazan Khan that were, in some way or other, connected with the regulation of taxation, mention should be made of the establishment of a unified system of weights and measures and of a monetary unit—the dirhem (2.15 grams of silver).

Ghazan Khan adopted Islam, and leaning on the local nobility and Muslim theologians he left their wagf lands intact. Simultaneously, the mulg area was increased. But that was done mainly by granting the local holders the neglected lands, provided they would cultivate, irrigate and populate them. Not only the Mongol elite but all Mongol warriors without exception were given land under the zqta right, the hereditary character of this grant was formalised, and so was the right of the iqtadars to tax immunity. An iqtadar could not sell the land grant. But, under the khan’s order, it could be taken away from him for negligence of duties and service evasion.

The policy of centralisation pursued by Ghazan Khan was strongly opposed by the military-nomad elite. A num- ber of feudal rebellions erupted at the time. All of them were quelled, though some concessions had to be made. The reforms effected by Ghazan Khan yielded some results, but they could not prevent the collapse of the state of the Dkhans.

Among the vassal territories subordinate to that state a special role was played by the Kurt principality with Ghur as its nucleus. At the time of the Khwarizm Shahs a considerable part of Ghur was subjugated. Rukn-ad-din, the ruler of the Khaysar mountain district—a rather small territory in Ghur—who did not recognise their authority, retained independence. The Khaysar fortress held out also during the invasion of the Mongols. Rukn-ad-din received official permission from Genghiz Khan to rule Khaysar and Ghur. His successor Shams-ad-din Kurt (1245-1278) main-. tained relations with the Mongols and even took part in their expedition to India in 1246. During the struggle for pone between Munke and other claimants Shams-ad-din

acked Munke, who showed his gratitude by handing him down the administration of a number of towns and regions.

Later, under Abagha Khan (1265-1282), the son of Ilkhan Hulagu, Shams-ad-din. managed to get an edict con- ° firming his right to administration. Among other towns and regions named in the edict, Afghanistan was mentioned as a region populated by Afghan tribes in the area of the Suleiman Mountains and between the upper reaches of the: Helmand in the north-west and the Indus in the south-east.

The sources of the time do not contain any detailed information about the Afghans. It is known, however, that during this period Afghan tribes were becoming feudalised and that a hierarchy existed among the Afghan tribal chiefs who governed their small domains and had a subordinate tax-paying population dependent on them, as well as slaves. At the same time the Afghans continued to settle not only the territory of present-day Afghanistan but also that of India. The Afghans played a meaningful role in the polit- ical history of India in the 13th century, specifically during the rule of the Delhi sultan Ghiyath-ad-din Balban (1265- 1287), the Hildji dynasty (1290-1321) and also later.15

Despite numerous military expeditions of the Mongols to regions populated by the Afghans, they failed to subdue many of the Afghan tribes. This is clear, for instance, from a letter to Shams-ad-din Kurt written by Afghan chief Almar, who had consolidated his position in Teri. In the letter he declared that never before, under no sultan did his “fathers and grandfathers serve the Mongols or pay tribute to the infidels”.

Some of the Afghan maliks voluntarily recognised the power of the Kurts. Among the Afghans who had long resisted the Kurts wére Almar from Teri and also the chiefs of the tribes from the Mastung and Ghazni areas. On one occasion the besieged Afghans held a fortress for several months on a mountainous island on a lake near Ghazni. The Kurts had to build ships and boats to seize the fortress. Having encircled the Afghans, the Kurt soldiers forced the besieged, after 12 days of incessant fighting, to surrenderand received a contribution of 10,000 dinars, 10 packs of silk fabric, 5 Arab thoroughbreds, 50 slaves, and valuables. Besi- des, the Afghans were obliged to pay them annual tribute.16

It took the Kurts several years to conquer the Afghan lands. At the tum of the 14th century the ruin and im- poverishment of the population of the Kurt principality, and of the whole of the Hulagid state at that, were so enor- mous, and the flight of the tax-paying population reached such disastrous proportions, that not only the Kurts, but also the Mongols, who sought the retum of the fugitives for fiscal reasons, were compelled to make considerable concessions. Emir Nawruz, for instance, who had been sent by Ghazan Khan to Khorasan, ordered the rulers of Farah, Isfizar and Seistan to retum the people who had fled to them from Herat and its outlying districts and then issued a decree exempting the Herat population from taxation for a term of two years.

Speaking about the position of the tax-paying popula- tion in the Kurt state, mention should be made of the karkhanah, the profit from which went to the ruler. Wide- spread at that period were karkhanahs for thé manufacture of bricks and tile, which was obviously caused by the need to fortify city walls.

The revival of the slave-owning system in many countries during the Mongol rule also took place in the Kurt prin- cipality. The sources say that in artisan production, with the status of slaves, apart from the local people, there worked prisoners or persons punished for some offence; many were in chains.

It is significant that under the Kurts Herat did not lose its importance as a trade centre, which is evidenced by the fact that bazaars and caravanserais were built in the city. Another interesting fact is that Ogodai’s decree on the restoration of Herat in 1236 was issued on the mer- chants’ advice.

Just as in other vassal territories, the Mongols sent their representatives to the Kurt maliks. Various officials resided permanently in Herat for inspection work. Herat and Ghur were under the direct control of the Kurt maliks. The rest of the principality was administered by feudal rulers who depended (as vassals) on the Kurts. Among them were Ghurs, Afghans, Tajiks, and also the militaryynomad Mon- gol elite. The largest Mongol settlements were in Badg- his. The conflicts that erupted between the Mongol elite and the Kurts often grew into armed clashes. In some instances the Kurts deliberately aggravated relations with . the Hulagid rulers by suspending the delivery of taxes and tribute to them, executing officials they had sent, and backing the feudal lords opposed to the Ilkhans. Behind this policy of the Kurts was the intention of the local sedentary nobility to create an independent domain, making use of the hatred among the masses towards the Mongol invaders. Owing to this, the Kurts managed to deal heavy blows at Mongol troops and pursue a relatively independent course.

To win support of the pcople, the Kurt maliks sought popularity among them and set out to bolster their position among Sunnite theologians. They built mosques and ma- drasahs, bestowed alms to the poor, and made offerings of money and property to dervishes. Acting as champions of the norms of Islam and morality, the Kurts ordered that drunkards and profligates should have their beards shaved off, be chained, and used for work in karkhanahs together with slaves.

The striving of the Kurt maliks for independence caused dissatisfaction and apprehension among the Mongols. Their troops repeatedly attacked the lands of the Kurts, including the capital Herat. Thus, in 1270, under an order from Abagha Khan, the entire population was evicted from Herat. In 1298-1299 the city was besieged by the troops of a Mongol prince, later known as Oeljeitu Khan (1304-1316), but, having received 30,000 gold coins and ravaged the city outskirts, he rescinded the siege.

In 1306 the city was again besieged by Mongol troops headed by Danishmand Bahadur, and later by his son Bujay. After a siege lasting five months and fierce battles the city was taken. The Mongols destroyed all the fortifica- tions and many buildings in Herat. In 1319 Mongol prince Yasawur sacked the city outskirts. In 1358 Herat was again besieged by Mongol troops, however they failed to capture the city and the siege was raised. But the suburbs were des troyed; the population was plundered.

Speaking about the numerous instances of devastation of Herat in the 13th and 14th centuries, one is to mention forays by groups of nomads who did not recognise the power of the Hulagids. They often raided the Herat area, sacking the city and its environs.

A negative impact on Herat’s economic life was doubt- lessly exerted by the internecine strife and by the rebel lions of vassals. The rebellions by the rulers of Isfizar and Farah were especially wide-scale. Herat’s location at the crossroads of major trade routes, with Mongol-ravaged Merv and Balkh offering no competition, coupled with the striving of the Kurts for independence and their efforts to ensure the security of their capital, improve the city and enlarge its population were all factors that definitely facilitated the revival of that area. Taking advantage of a lull in attacks from the outside, the Kurts continued to fight successfully the recalcitrant vassals, forcing them to pay taxes and indemnities, and restored or rebuilt city fortifica- tions. The second city wall, about a farsakh long (7-8 kilo- metres), scaled the northern and eastem parts of the city. It was built under Muizz-ad-din Kurt (1331-1370).

Built in Herat under the Kurts were the citadel Ikhtiar- ad-din, the palaces Bargakh and Koshk, madrasahs, the tomb of malik Muizz-ad-din, bazaars and caravanserais. The walls of many houses were decorated beautifully with orna- ments. Most fascinating were the walls of the Bargakh palace built under malik Ghiyath-ad-din (1307-1329). Fol- lowing the malik’s instructions, the big mosque, which had been built in Herat under the Ghurids, was restored.

The subjugation of vassal territories, the strengthening and growth of Herat, and the measures to improve it, all show that the Kurt influence was waxing and that the patronage of the Mongol rulers was increasingly oppress- ing them. Beginning with the early 14th century the Kurt maliks more and more often refused not only to go to the great Khan to express their respect but even to fulfil the direct duties of vassals—to pay taxes and tribute and supply troops for their suzerain. The displeased Ilkhans responded with threats. But the victory of Ghiyath-ad-din over a Chagatai prince, who had opposed the Hulagids, strengthened the position of the Kurt rulers at the Ilkhans’ court. Muizz- ad-din, son of Ghiyath-ad-din, formally recognised himself to be a vassal of the Mongols, but after the death of Ilkhan Abu Said (1335) he ordered that his name be mentioned during religious service at mosques on Fridays as an inde- pendent ruler and that it be inscribed on coins.

The disintegration of the Hulagid state, which had concluded by 1353, offered the Kurts an opportunity to consolidate the independence of their state. They estab- lished friendly relations with Timur (Tamerlane) who by that time had extended his power to Central Asia, and exchanged embassies with him. But these relations, which seemed to be well established and even sealed by marital ties, proved to be shortlived in the end.

Timur and the Timurids

In the last thirty years of the 14th century several states were attacked by Timur (1336-1405), the son of emir Taragay of -the Barlas in the Kesh province (now Shahri- syabz). Having gained a firm position in Mavarannahr and actually being head of the state (formally the Chagatai princes were the rulers of Mavarannahr), Timur undertook numerous expeditions of conquest to Iran, Asia Minor, Transcaucasia, to the Volga, Siberia, the Tien Shans, to Khwarizm, Afghanistan, Northem India, and intended to subjugate China.17

Leaving a trail of death and destruction, killing hundreds of thousands of people, and tuming farming oases and cities, partially restored after the invasion of the Mongols, into barren land, Timur wanted to create a vast state with strong central power. His goal also was to establish control over the main trade routes from Europe to Asia that ran across Iran and Afghanistan, and simultaneously to close the caravan routes alongside the Black and Caspian Seas.

The conquest by Timur of the territories of what is now Afghanistan began in 1370 with the seizure of Balkh. Hav- ing established friendly relations with the Kurts, Timur, however, soon demanded that they recognise his supreme authority. The Kurts refused to obey and he marched on their lands. Having enlisted the support of Muhammad, the ruler of Sarakhs, who had come over to his side, he seized Jam, Kohe-Siyakh, and Fushenj and besieged Herat in 1381. After repeated but futile attempts to capture Herat, Timur called upon the besieged to surrender and promised that if they complied with his request he would leave the city whole and the people unharmed. But after they surrendered he ordered the population to pay a large contribution; 200 eminent persons and mullahs were forcefully resettled to Kesh, the native city of Timur, the iron gates of Herat were also taken to Kesh, and the city walls, built under Muizz-ad-din, were destroyed.

Fearing an uprising, Timur left a garrison and a viceger- ent in Herat and prohibited the restoring of the city walls and the construction of new fortifications. His apprehen- sions were not unfounded. In 1383, the people of Herat, partly consisting of Ghurs, set the town afire, annihilated the garrison and started an uprising. The insurgents were backed by units of warriors who had arrived from Ghur.

The Herat uprising was suppressed with utmost cruelty by troops of Timur’s son, Miran Shah. Simultaneously, an expedition was sent to Ghur accompanied by mass extermi- nation of the population; then the troops invaded Seistan, where many cities were ravaged, especially Bust; and other areas that were part of the Kurts’ principality, including Qandahar and Kabul, were also sacked. The invading troops built towers with the heads of the dead bodies of the city’s defenders. In 1389 the last of the Kurts were killed.

In 1392, Timur made a gift of the lands south-west of the Hindu Kush, largely populated by Afghan tribes, to his grandson Pir Muhammad, though many of the mountain regions in those areas had not been actually seized by Timur. He appointed his son Shahrukh ruler of Khorasan, Seistan, Gurgan, and Mazenderan, with Herat as the centre of the domain. During his Indian expedition in 1398 Timur captured some of the territories populated by Afghan tribes (a district in Peshawar, part of Bajaur, Swat, and other territo- ries). However, Timur failed to subjugate many of the tribes.

In the struggle against the Afghans, Timur and his suc- cessors cruelly punished the unruly and made wide use of the strife among the various tribes and tribal groups. Timur also enlisted Afghan tribal chiefs with their troops in his military operations. Participation in these expeditions pre vented the Afghans from carrying on productive work, increased the power and wealth of the tribal chiefs, and touched off the migration of Afghan tribes that settled in India, which later led to the emergence of the Afghan dynasties Lodi and Sur that ruled in India in the 15th and 16th centuries.

The Afghan chiefs, on their return from predatory ex peditions to India, received part of the spoils, and some times also land grants. This tended to speed up the feudal- isation of Afghan society. Besides, after entire regions were devastated during the invasion of the troops of the Mongols and Timur, the Afghan tribes began to undertake seasonal migrations from the mountains to the flat country, to the vast pasturelands in the Ghazni area and the valleys of the Helmand, Kabul and Kunar, practically seizing those terri- tories. As a result of conflicts with the rulers of Kabul and Ghazni, part of the tribes (for instance, the Yusufzais) migrated, reaching the Peshawar Valley through the Khyber Pass, and settled there in the latter half of the 15th century.

The 13th and 14th centuries marked the beginning of the gradual transition of the Afghans from nomad livestock breeding to sedentary farming, which was mainly caused by the internal processes underway in Afghan society. The number of dependent tribesmen (khamsaya) was increasing not only within the tribes; often whole clans and tribes became dependent; the khamsaya grew in number as they were joined by members of various social and ethnic groups, including ‘those from among the indigenous population of the areas seized by the Afghans and also those who had moved from India. The process of property stratification within a number of tribes led to the intensification of the struggle for pasturelands, undermining tribal relations and enriching the elite. Tribes joined in alliances, which no longer consisted of kindred tribes alone. Within the tribes themselves there emerged privileged hereditary families, the khan-hels, from whose midst there came forth chiefs of whole tribes—khans.

The feudalisation of Afghan tribes proceeded under the influence of and in interaction with the feudal environ- ment, i.e., the cities and agricultural oases, where the feudal system was already established. This interaction had a number of major consequences. It proved very important in that the Afghan tribes went over from patriarchal and tribal relations to feudalism by-passing the slave-owning stage. Among other significant aspects was the unequal development of feudal relations among various tribes (also depending on the places of their settlement), the lack, for quite a long time, of cities with a purely Afghan popula- tion, the relatively poor level of the handicrafts among the Afghans who remained active as intermediaries in transit trade along the caravan routes from Iran and Central Asia to India, and the forniation of Povindah tribes special- ising in that trade, etc.1

The further feudalisation of Afghan society was also influenced by the specifics of the social, economic and political development of the state formations, of which Afghanistan was part—the state of the Herat Timurids, the state of the Great Moghuls and the state of the Safavids.

After Timur’s death in 1405 his state was rent by inter- necine strife and part of the territory he had seized fell away. The Timurid rulers retained power in Central Asia, part of Iran and in Afghanistan. In 1409 Timur’s son Shahrukh gained a firm stand in Herat and made it his capital, while a considerable number of the state’s regions were granted to Timurid princes. Thus, his son Ulugh Beg received Mavarannahr and soon became essentially its sovereign ruler (1409-1449); Samarkand was the central city. Ghazni, Qandahar and Kabul were given to another son of Shahrukh, Qaydu; and Tokharistan was granted to Muhammad Jahangir.

During the rule of Shahrukh (1409-1447) part of the Abdali tribe migrated to the Beets region.

Shahrukh did not wage large-scale wars of conquest. Military operations during his rule were conducted mainly to suppress uprisings, mutinies, and intemecine strife. Among the most potent enemies of the Herat Timurids were the chiefs of the Turkmenian tribal confederation Qara- Qoynlu, who captured Azerbaijan, Armenia, Kurdistan and Arab Iraq and sought to form an independent state. But, having suffered a number of defeats from Shahrukh, they recognised themselves to be his vassals.

Under Shahrukh taxes were fixed, duties determined, and measures were taken to develop farming, irrigation, the handicrafts and trade. Much attention was devoted to Herat, the capital of the state. The city was adomed with magnifi- cent buildings: the Mosalla ensemble with the mausoleums of Shahrukh’s wife and son, a madrasah, the tomb of Ansari, a library founded by prince Baysunghur, and gardens and parks.

Shahrukh’s death was followed by a struggle for power and internecine strife. Mutinies became more violent, and devastating incursions by the Hazaras and Nikudaris into the areas of Ghur, Qandahar and Farah became more fre- quent. Among the short-term rulers of Herat were Shah- rukh’s son Ulugh Beg and his grandsons Abdul Latif and Abdul Qasim Babur. In 1458 Herat was seized by Abu Said, the ruler of Mavarannahr. But during his rule the interne- cine strife did not cease. In 1469 he was killed.

After a period of stubborn struggle the Herat throne was occupied by Timurid prince Sultan Husayn Baiqara (1469-1506) who conquered the whole of Khorasan. During his rule Herat became more prominent as a major city and a centre of the handicrafts, trade, culture and the arts in the Middle and Near East. At that time the famous poet, scientist and statesman Ali Sher Nawai, poet Abdurrahman Jami, historians Mirkhwand and Khwandemir, the great master of miniature painting Behzad and many others lived in Herat.

New palaces, madrasahs, hospitals, baths, bridges, gardens and parks appeared in the city. Repair and reconstruc- tion of the central mosque of Herat, built under the Ghurids, were conducted on a broad scale. However, con-_ centrating on the development of the arts and culture and on the construction activities of the Herat Timurids, medieval authors almost never describe that part of the city where the working population lived. Apart from the grand buildings in the city centre, there were overcrowded dist- ricts with narrow dirty streets, without running water— hotbeds of diseases. Only on rare occasions, when describ- ing splendid buildings and shady gardens or the benefi- cence of a ruler, do the sources mention that under Sultan Husayn running water was to be found only in the vicinity of the central mosque, or that thousands of people died during an epidemic of the plague in Herat and its environs. They note, as if.in passing, that water and air contamina- tion was the cause of the epidemic.!9

Under the Timurids Herat was a major centre o f domestic and foreign trade. Trade and the handicrafts were concen- trated along the main bazaar routes intersecting the city and at small marketplaces in the city districts.

Apart from locally made articles and foodstuffs from the environs, goods and livestock were brought to Herat from all over the state. Various goods, be it articles made by craftsmen, raw materials, livestock or foodstuffs, were all sold at special places. Horses, for instance, were sold at the fortress walls not far from the Melik Bazaar. Handi- craft articles of a common type were sold in several build- ings called tims, The tims most probably had links with handicraft corporations known as firkas or asnafs, though there is no direct evidence of this.

Many sources mention trade relations of the Timurid state with countries of the East and Europe. Though Balkh, Qandahar, Ghazni and Kabul were major trade cities where- to caravans arrived from Iran, Central Asia, India and China, the centre of foreign trade at the time was Herat. Ambas- sadors arrived from other countries, and there were am- bassadors from Moscow too (1464-1465).20 It is known that the Timurids sent ambassadors from Herat to India, China and even to Grand Duke Ivan III of Muscovy (1490). These relations were more commercial than diplomatic. Among the export items were precious stones—Badakhshan ruby, topaz, lapis lazuli, turquoise—brought to the Middle East and Europe, and Ghazni apples and madder delivered to India. The Timurid state imported mainly luxury goods, chinaware, and fine cloth.

The city suburbs stretched in a continuous line, about 10 farsakhs long, and were like small towns and settle- ments located close to one another. The Herat suburbs were subdivided into nine districts, or bulyuks, which made up the Herat region and were administratively subordinate to the capital. The subdivision into bulyuks was done on the land-tenure principle, i.e., the area irrigated from one and the same canal comprised a bulyuk. The bulyuks were named after the canals that irrigated them.

In the Herat province life bustled most in Obah, Sha- felyan, Isfizar, Fushenj, Kusuviye, and Badghis. The Timu- rid rulers also built baths, bridges and pavilions at mineral springs in the Herat province. Some of the towns in the province were densely populated and had large bazaars. The Isfizar bazaar, for instance, had 1,200 shops.

Farming was developing parallel with trade and the handicrafts; the area of irrigated, and hence cultivated, land was expanding; and irrigation canals and kiryaz sys- tems were built. Economic advancement in the state of the Herat Timurids was significant; though, the sources say, it never reached the 12th-century level (prior to the Mongol invasion). But still, in the 15th century most of the dis- tricts had an economic specialisation of their own. Sayavu- shan, for instance, was a grapevine-growing area with crops reaching 30,000 harvars.* The Badghis region was famous for its pistachios. It also provided Herat with timber, fuel, livestock and grain. Obah, lying in the foothills, was dis- tinguished for fertile soil, white-marble quarries, and a hot mineral spring. A similar spring was in Shafelyan, which was famous also for its lead pits, as well as fruits—apples, apricots, plums, peaches and musk-melons.

Under the Timurids the feudal system was further devel- oped, which was seen in the spread of soyurgal. Territories of various size, from a village to an administrative region, were granted as a soyurgal. It is known, for instance, that Timurid Abul Qasim Babur (1452-1457) granted the whole of Seistan as a soyurgal to emir Halil.

While recognising the supreme power of the head of the Timurid state, the holders of large soyurgals could them- selves give out soyurgals to smaller feudal lords, their vas- sals, who had a staff of officials, a court and a large military reserve contingent. Thus, late in the 15th century the armed contingent of emir Khusraw, who had a soyurgal right to the possession of lands from the Amu Darya to the Hindu Kush, was some 30,000 strong.

Big feudal lords made independent expeditions of con- quest and levied taxes in the seized territories. Shaikh Ali Khan, the Timurid ruler of Kabul, attacked Indian provinces in the first 30 odd years of the 15th century, and for some time levied duties from several regions of Punjab.

The sources inform us also about other forms of grants— the tarkhan deeds. Those possessing them had, apart from immunity, all sorts of privileges in the distribution of war spoils, were not subject to legal responsibility until commit- ting nine violations of the law, etc. Usually the word tar- Ae was added to the name of persons receiving such

eeds.

The holdings of Muslim religious institutions and those of outstanding Muslim theologians, which made up a con- siderable part of the land, also enjoyed the right of tax immunity.

Deeds lifting some or all taxes were often given to the owners of mulgs (private lands). Such lands, which were called free mulgs, were sometimes huge and brought im- mense profit. The poet Jami, for instance, received an in- come of over 100,000 dinars annually from the lands in the Herat province.

This policy of the Timurids resulted in the reduction of the influx into the treasury from taxes; the weakening of central power and the spread of separatist tendencies among the feudal lords.

_ To replenish the treasury, the authorities increased land- and poll-tax rates (kharaj and sarshomar), and taxes on gardens; fixed kharaj rates prior to harvesting; intro- duced new duties; and compelled the population to do unpaid work, to dig canals and build palaces. As is known from historical records, there were instances when the material for building houses, laying out parks and growing gardens was collected from the population in lieu of taxes.

The intensification of feudal exploitation was compoun- ded with the tyranny of the authorities and financial officials. The mounting tax burden and oppression by officials evoked acute dissatisfaction and, in some instances, violent protest action among the masses. Popular action was spon- taneous and often ended with the killing of tax-collectors.

Sometimes, after a mutiny, the authorities would depose some of the officials and reduce taxes, with the very es- sence of feudal exploitation left unchanged, of course.

Thus, under Sultan Abu Said, decrees were issued, an- nouncing a reduction of a part of the kAaraj to be paid before harvest gathering and the lifting of taxes on fruit- trees. In response to the popular action of protest against abuses by officials who had misappropriated part of the taxes and increased the poll-tax tenfold in Herat in 1457- 1458, Mahmud Mirza, son of Abul Qasim Babur, ordered that the unlawfully collected money be returned to the popu- lation. The subsequent years saw new uprisings caused b abuses of power by the fisk officials. During one such upri- sing Ali Sher Nawai, who was then a vizier, was compelled to announce, on behalf of Sultan Husayn, the lifting of taxes in Herat and the punishment of the officials. Though one must know that such orders were a mere formality.

As before, the anti-feudal thrust of popular action under the Timurids often took the form of religious sectar- ian movements. Most known at that time was the Hurufi sect21 which was under the influence of the Ismailites and the Sufis. It had followers in Turkey, Iran, Azerbaijan, Syria and Herat, mostly among the craftsmen and urban intel- lectuals. They saw the people’s liberation from tyranny in an armed uprising led by a mahdi who would “feed the Earth with truth and justice”. Common property and com- mon meals were introduced in the dervish abode of the Hurufis in Herat. After Ahmad Lur, a member of that sect, wounded Sultan Shahrukh with a knife in Herat’s central mosque in 1427* (Ahmad Lur was slashed to death on the spot), the Hurufis were subjected to repres- sion; some were executed. :

Some of the feudal rulers and tribal chiefs began to rise increasingly against the Herat Timurids, especially in the middle of the 15th century. According to historical sources, they not only refused to pay taxes but staged numer- ous rebellions against the Timurid princes and the rulers of a number of regions. Many were only nominally depend- ent on the centre, but they sought full independence all the same. Among the recalcitrant vassals of the Timurids the sons of Sultan Husayn (vicegerents of Balkh, Merv and Abivard) and the Arghun dynasty of Mongol descent were most powerful. Members of the Arghun dynasty ruled a vast territory that included Ghur, Seistan, Zabulistan, and the Kabul region, with Qandahar as their capital.

At the close of the 15th century Sultan Husayn’s son Zunnun Arghun rose in rebellion. During those same years Muhammad Shaybani, khan of the nomad Uzbeks, seized the domains of the Central Asian Timurids and their capital Samarkand, Having mustered large forces (including the troops of his sons), Sultan Husayn moved his army against Muhammad Shaybani at the start of 1506, but died en route. The strife between the Timurid princes flared up anew. This enabled Muhammad Shaybani to seize Balkh and then, in 1507, Herat.22 Soon Khorasan was practical- ly conquered. But Muhammad Shaybani’s rule was short- lived. In 1510 his trepps were routed and he himself was killed near Merv in a battle against Shah Ismail (1502- 1524), the founder of the Safavid dynasty that had been established in Iran and contiguous regions.

After lengthy and persistent battles the Safavids con- quered Khorasan and the lands on the left bank of the Amu Darya up to Balkh. Khorasan became an outlying province of the Safavid state and its population, which professed Sunnism, was subjected to religious persecution by the Safavids who had proclaimed the Shiite branch of Islam the’ officia] religion, Popular action and feudal mutinies in the subsequent years often assumed the form of religious struggle which was waged off and on for several decades with alternating success, Due to this, the Uzbek khans of Mava- rannahr, who enjoyed certain support of the population opposed to the Safavid rulers, even managed to tempora- rily establish their power in Herat (in 1535, 1587 and 1597).

Late in the 16th century Herat was recaptured by the Safavids, and members of the large Kyzylbash tribe Shamlu were for many years the hereditary rulers of that region.

As for the Kabul and Ghazni regions, beginning with the middle of the 15th century they were ruled by Abu Said’s son Ulugh Beg (1460-1502). Afghan tribes settled in his domains. After a conflict with Ulugh Beg part of the tribes migrated to the east, some settled in Lagman, and others moved first to Nangarhar and then to the Peshawar Valley and seized the regions of Bajaur and Swat.

Babur, the Roshanites and Khushhal Khan

In 1504, the Ferghana ruler’s son, Timurid prince Zahir- ad-din Babur, who later founded the dynasty of the Great Moghuls, captured Kabul. A large part of the lands populat- ed by Afghan tribes came under the rule of that dynasty. In his memoirs Babur Namah, a most important source for studying Afghanistan and the Afghans, he relates valuable information about the settlement, way of life, morals and customs of the Afghan tribes and gives a detailed descrip- tion of a number of towns and regions, paying particular attention to Kabul, which he was very fond of. Babur also wrote Mubayyin, a treatise in verse on state administra- tion.

Babur’s policy with regard to the Afghan tribes was shaped in accord with his preparations for an expedition ta India. Part of the tribes, that would not obey him and refused to pay tribute, he dealt with eruelly; while in, the case of other tribes, the Yusufzais, forinstance, he succeeded in winning their support and persuaded them to, join his army, taking into consideration the fact that the throne in Delhi was occupied by the Lodi dynasty of Afghan descent.

In 1526, after the battle at Panipat, in which Sultan Ibrahim Lodi (1517-1526) was killed, Babur with his troops, which partly consisted ef Afghans, seized Delhi and extended his power up to Bengal, He died in India in 1530, but was buried in Kabul, ‘in accordance with his wish. His state included part of the territory of present-day Afghanistan, among them Nangarhar, Seistan, and the Kabul, Herat, Ghazni and Qandahar regions.

The Qandahar region, and the city proper, stood on caravan routes, which brought great profit. Besides, being a major strategic point on the route to India, Qandahar was for many years the bone of contention between the Great Moghuls and the Safavids. It changed hands several times in the 16th and the early half of the 17th centuries. In 1649 the city was seized by Savafid Shah Abbas IT. The Ghilzai and Abdali tribes that settled in the Qandahar province took part in the long struggle for Qandahar. Their chiefs sided intermittently with the Safavids and with the Great Moghuls. Part of the Abdalis moved to the Herat provin- ce, while others, who supported the Great Moghuls, went to India and settled mainly in Multan. The Ghilzais gained a foothold in the regions of Zamindawar and Qandahar.

The chiefs of the Ghilzai, Abdali and other Afghan tribes that settled in the territory of the Safavids were subordinate to the Safavid vicegerents appointed ‘by the shah. To gain the continued loyalty of the tribes and receive military support from the Afghan chiefs, the Safa- vids often gave them a free hand in tax-collecting, granted them titles, land and money, availing themselves of the discord and struggle between separate tribes or their sub- divisions. Thus, under Abbas I (1587-1629) in 1597 Abdali malik Sado of the Popolzai clan received the title of ‘‘chief of Afghans” for his cooperation in the struggle for Qan- dahar. Sado’s troops were instructed to safeguard the roads from Herat to Qandahar. The Sado family were granted privileges that were later enjoyed also by their offspring— the Sadozais who, having become the khan-hels, received the right to appoint the chief of all Abdalis.

Taking part in the military expeditions of various rulers and fighting almost incessantly against other tribes and the settled population for cultivated lands and pastures, acting as middlemen and guarding the caravan routes, the Afghans for a long time retained intra-tribal military orga- nisation based on traditional family ties. At the same time, tribe unions were formed mainly for joint struggle against other tribes and local, non-Afghan rulers whose lands the Afghans seized or intended to seize. Within such unions the relations between tribes at that period were based increasingly on vassal dependence, which largely accounted for the erosion of patriarchal and tribal rela- tions. The development of social relations among the Afghan tribes has been thoroughly studied primarily in works by Professor J. M.‘Reisner and his disciples Profes- sors Yu. V.Gankovsky, L. R. Gordon-Polonskaya, and V. A. Romodin.24 They stressed in their studies that during the development of seized lands and pastures and settle- ment in seized territories, the subdivisions of Afghan tribes gradually mixed, while tribal unions tended to become the embryo of territorial-tribal associations set up for the joint struggle against other tribal unions.

For various reasons groups of one and the same tribe often occupied pastures and land oases not on an uninter- rupted tract of land but intermittently. The chiefs of some tribes, instead of forming tribal troops set up military units not joined by blood relationship.

Having occupied the lands in particular in the area of the Kabul and Qandahar regions and in the Peshawar Valley, the Afghans divided them among the tribesmen. This division of land was based on various principles: ac- cording to the number of people or to the size of the here- cia shares, or depending on the prestige of the heads of the families and their role in the conquest of the lands. A large part of the land area went to the nobility. Ever more often the impoverished members of a tribe, a clan or separate families were compelled to seek the patronage of the stronger ones by the right of the khamsaya (dependent), thus bolstering the position of the tribal nobility who were gradually becoming feudal landlords.

The growing property inequality and the natural con- ditions in the new regions of settlement, where nomad livestock breeding was often out of the question, made separate groups and subdivisions of some tribes switch toa settled way of life. Thus, part of the Ghilzais, Abdalis, Momands, Kakars and Muhammadzais began to cultivate land, grow cereals and rice and sell them, while others, who settled in the cities, for instance in Kabul, Herat or Ghazni, made up a section of the Afghan population there and were occupied with handicrafts and trade. As they began to live a settled life, both groups joined the already established system of feudal relations and feudal economy. W ile seizing cultivated land oases, the tribal nobility tried not to give the land out to their tribesmen but to appropriate jt tum ng the population into khamsayas. :

Developmentt’;in« Afghan society of barter and trade,

emergencé:of tisury, ad 'consolidation’-of*the riglt’to land- Ownership—first'for thé Milslim thedlogiaris anid then for the nobility—etodéd patriarchal-tribalrélitions! with the tribal chiefs ‘and “elite? tiitning intd" a‘ hereditary ‘feudal nobility. : ~ Peto at be. - ~li¥'the process of the feudalisation of the Afghan tribes, thé ‘social’ infgtitutions, that'‘were ‘patriarchal -by form:(spe- cifically, -thé 'jé##ga-touncik ‘of: tribes); gradually changed their social’ maké-up, ensurif'g thé: right ‘of the nobility not’only ‘to the’ éxploitatibi’ef Slavesand ‘the khamsayas, but also to subjugation ‘and -ehslaveménit of the formally free co-tribesmen. thee ENR

Féudalisation proceeded unevenly among various tribes. In the livestock ~breedir4 tribes, the Wazirs, for instance, patriatchal-ttibal Felations ‘were only beginning to disin- tegrate"inithe P'6th*k8th cenfiries, while the feudalisation of the Khattaks}tKHalils,-Muhammadzais and flat-country Momands, i.€.;'those who had begun a settled life, was going on much faster. The concentration of land in the hands of the elite of those tribes was a more intensive process.

An important aspect of feudalisation in Afghan society was that the development of the productive forces, the social division of labour and the shaping of antagonistic classes, while undermining the traditional forms of col- lective landownership, led to the formation not only of feudal landownership but also of private landownership by the peasants.

Karl Marx wrote on that score that “the more the tribe moves away from its original place of settlement and oc- cupies alien land, thus entering substantially new condi- tions of labour and the energies of the individual further developing—hence the communal character seems, and must seem,rather as a negative unity in relation to the outside world—the more do conditions arise which cause the indivi- dual to become a private proprietor of land—of a partic-

ular plot—whose separate cultivation devolves on him and his family.”25

The struggle between the peasants and the tribal elite, which was becoming ever more feudal for retaining that property during the disintegration of the patriarchal-tribal relations played an important role in the development of Afghan society.

Most outstanding Muslim theologians were the first in Afghan society to secure for themselves the right to keep their land holdings out of the sphere of re-allotment (vesh), which in some instances was practised annually. Many of the impoverished tribesmen were seeking the patronage of influential Muslim theologians, timing their land plots over tq them and thus becoming khamsa'yas.- °

As they became big landlords, the Muslim theologians often exploited not only the khamsayas‘'but also other believers. This explains why the anti-feudal movement, begun in the 16th century in the eastem regions-populated by Afghans, against the tribal elite which was getting feudal and against the power of the Great Moghuls, was also spearheaded against orthodox Islam and its preachers.

Like many other anti-feudal movements'in the Middle Ages, that movement, too, had originate’dand spread as a sectarian one. Its leader and idedlogist’ was Bayazid An- ° sari.26 Bom in Punjab, he moved ‘together with his family to Kaniguram (Waziristan), the homeland of his father. Travelling with caravans across the Afghan lands, Central Asia and India, he studied various branches of Islam and Hinduism. In the middle: of the 16th céntury Bayazid Ansari declared himself a prophet, the eldei df. the world (pir-t roushan) and began to preach ‘a new teaching. His main postulates were that there was no-distarice between God and man, that the divine was omnipresent throughout the world and that all people, whatever their nationality, religion, property status or hereditary ‘privileges; were equal before God. Believing in the migration of*souls, he preached that “the path to salvation” was the same for slaves, khamsayas, Afghans and non-Afghans, and that salvation could be achieved in the struggle for equality in earthly life. Ansari was opposed to the payment of a kalym for the bride.

According to him, all people were subdivided into those who rejected and those who accepted his doctrine (the

“people of the light””—the Roshanites). Those who rejected his doctrine, his adversaries, were declared, from time to time, to be non-existent, having no right to own land and other property, and were often annihilated. Their property was confiscated to be distributed among the sect members. The Roshanites proposed that the division of Afghan society into families and tribes should be abandoned in favour of a unification of people that was to be based on the territorial principle. Ansari set forth the essence of his doctrine in verse and prose. Best known among his writings is Khay ul-Bayan (Good Word), written as Bayazid’s dialogue with God. Bayazid Ansari was not only an eloquent speaker and a superb poet, but also a gifted political leader and mili- tary commander of the 1560s. From preaching he went over to organising an uprising. By its slogans and composi tion the-Roshani movement en masse was a peasant move- ment spearheaded against the tribal nobility (becoming feudal lords) and the Muslim theologians. Because the movement was clearly anti-Moghul, the insurgents were joined by individual members of the nobility and tribal chiefs dissatisfied with the power of the Great Moghuls.

Encompassing mainly areas north-west of what is today Pakistan (with the centre of the movement in Tirakh), the Roshanites achieved, in the long years of their resolute struggle, significant military victories in the territory of Afghanistan too. They captured temporarily the areas of Nangarhar, as well as Ghazni, Kabul and contiguous re- gions, and blocked the Khyber Pass, thereby disrupting not only traditional trade routes, but also the military communications of the Moghul rulers.

In the lands seized by the Roshanites the conditions of the khamsayas and of ordinary tribesmen improved and slaves were set free. The lands and property of the nobility, Muslim theologians and Moghul rulers were to be divided between the sect members, and one-sixth of the spoils went to the sect leaders. In case of resistance, prisoners were often executed.

Most active in the movement were the Khalils, Muham- madzais, flat-country Momands, and Hughianis, among whom social contrad ctions reached a high point, while the ordinary members were subjected to double exploita- tion, by the tribal nobility and the Moghul vicegerents. The Roshanites were backed up by other tribes, sometimes together with their chiefs. The chiefs joined the movement for various reasons. Some planned to avail themselves of the situation and seize more fertile lands and pastures, others in order to fight against the Moghul rulers who were taking away part of their gains.

The Great Moghuls took vigorous efforts to quell the Roshanite movement and sent major military expeditions to fight them. The class character of the movement and its anti-Moghul thrust were not the only reasons why the Roshanites were so violently opposed. The areas captured by them in the north-west of the lands of the Great Moghuls were important for the latter economically and strategically, for through them ran the main routes linking India with Iran and Central Asia.

However, for more than half a century the Great Moghuls failed to suppress the Roshanites. The movement was led first by Bayazid Ansari himself and then by his sons and grandsons. It was not before the late 1580s that the Great Moghuls, having won over the nobility of some tribes and pooled their own efforts, dealt a series of heavy defeats at the Roshanites, after which the movement lost its force. Bayazid Ansari’s grandson Karimdad, the last of the move- ment leaders, was killed in 1638.

In the course of the movement it was now joined by some tribes, and then left by them. This inconsistency was not so much due to the fact that the nobility, which sought land grants, high titles and privileges, compacted with the Great Moghuls. Some of the tribes themselves, as, for in- stance, the Yusufzais, opposed the equalisation of rights of free tribesmen with those of the slaves and khamsayas, since this left no chance for exploiting the latter two. In addition, one should take into account different levels of social development, economic and political discon- nection, and traditional tribal strife.

Despite the defeat, the Roshanite movement had an enormous influence on the historical development of the Afghan tribes. It was an outstandirig period in the struggle of the popular masses against feudal exploitation and foreign rule. What is more, the movement of the Roshanites and their striving to unite the population on a territorial basis at a time when patriarchal-tribal relations were fractur- ing, was a progressive factor which undoubtedly influenced the development of Afghan society.

The unification ideas were taken up in a new Afghan uprising led in the 1660s by Khushhal Khan (1613-1689), the ruler of the Khattaks.27

The Khattak principality with its centre in Akora, situat- ed on the roads leading to Peshawar, at the confluence of the Kabul and Landai rivers, was formed in the 16th century as a domain dependent on the Great Moghuls.

The Khattak nobility, who prevented their tribesmen from taking an active part in the Roshanite movement, sided with the Great Moghuls and for many years were at loggerheads with the Yusufzai chiefs. Padishah Akbar (1556-1605) granted the Khattak chiefs a number of privileges (the right to rule Akora as a jagir, a conventional land grant) and obliged them to guard the caravans, the military units of the Great Moghuls and their transport from attacks by other tribes on the roads to Peshawar. Although power in Akora was practically hereditary, the Moghul padishahs by special edicts asserted the authority of the Khattak rulers, giving them all sorts of incentives from time to time. Thus, Shahbaz Khan, the father of Khushhal Khan, was granted the right to collect taxes from the Yusufzai lands in the Peshawar Valley (amounting to 12,000 rupees annually) for his successful struggle against a rebellious vicegerent and the Yusufzais. After the death of Shahbaz Khan in 1641 Moghul padishah Shah Jahan approved the appointment of the former’s son Khushhal Khan as ruler of the Khattaks. For taking part in the expedi- tions of Moghul troops to Balkh, Badakhshan, Deccan and other places, Khushhal Khan received a large land grant with the jag:r status, which brought him 150,000 rupees annually. In retum, he had to supply 1,500 warriors to the Moghuls. A vassal of the Moghul padishahs, Khushhal Khan also had Khattak maliks and khans subordinate to him.

During Khushhal Khan’s rule many of the Khattaks began to live a settled life. By that time stratification of the Khat- taks on the basis of property ownerships and feudalisation attained higher levels than among many other tribes. The Khattaks cultivated the land, were skilled in handicrafts, worked salt-mines, selling the salt outside the principality. By order of Khushhal Khan a cadastral survey was carried out in the principality. Arable lands and also wastelands, granted additionally for cultivation, were measured and land plots fixed in accordance with the number of people in a family. All these data were entered into a special register. Thus, to regulate tax exploitation Khushhal Khan carried out a cadastral survey and attached the Khattak tribesmen to definite plots of land that were no longer liable to redivision, as was periodically practised before.

Though the main forces of the Roshanites were sup- pressed, riots among the Afghan tribes continued into the 1640s and 1650s. The disturbances intensified in response to the offensive policy of the Great Moghuls and their military expeditions to the north-west provinces of their empire (the region of Peshawar and the roads from Peshawar towards Kabul, where the Afridis, Yusufzais, Momands, Shinwaris, Safis and other Afghan tribes had settled). The riots, with the epicentre in the Afridi territory, grew into an uprising. The troops of the Great Moghuls raided Afghan settlements, committed outrages, pillages, and burned down houses.

At first Khushhal Khan was not very active in the opera- tions conducted by the tribes. But, suspected by the Great Moghuls of supporting the insurgents, he was seized and held in a fortress from 1664 to 1668, after which he was under house arrest.

On returning to his native land Khushhal Khan led an uprising against Moghul domination. A fearless soldier, Khushhal Khan had great oratory and poetic gifts. In his speeches and verses he called for the unity of the Afghans and urged them to end tribal discord and internal strife and join in the struggle against the Great Moghuls. During the insurrection he was joined by the tribes that populated the area from Peshawar to Qandahar. According to some data, by 1675 his supporters numbered nearly 300,000. But the: persistent oa bleed struggle of the Afghans was suppressed.

Moghul padishah Aurangzeb had to fight against the Afghan tribes for almost two years. By destroying crops, exterminating the population and kindling intertribal en- mity the Great Moghuls intended to subdue the Afghans and to induce their chiefs to treachery. The sources cite numerous facts of chiefs being bribed and intrigues by the Moghul rulers. For instance, the governor of Kabul sent letters to the tribal nobility on behalf of an Afghan chief, saying that the Afridi chiefs were not going to divide the conquered lands and intended to leave them for them- selves. All that, naturally, caused tensions, and then a split, among the tribes. Khushhal Khan’s son Ashraf, who led the movement, was seized in 1683 and taken to Bija- pur. His successor Afzal recognised himself as a vassal of the Great Moghuls. But even after the uprising was sup- pressed, the power of Moghul padishahs was only nominal in many regions populated by Afghans.

The anti-Moghul uprisings of the Afghans were followed by the struggle of the tribes living in the Safavid state.

The Qandahar and Herat Principalities

At the end of the 17th and the beginning of the 18th century the Safavid state, which included Herat and Qan- dahar, was in the grip of a severe economic and political crisis. A. Volynsky, the Russian Ambassador to Iran from 1715 to 1718, wrote: “During his stay [in Iran] Alexan- der the Great could not have sacked the country as much and I oa oe that this crown is facing complete ruin.’”2 8

One of the most important causes of such decline was the ruin of small peasant farming—the economic basis of the feudal Safavid state.29 After the 1698-1701 census, the duties and part of the rent, paid in money, were in- creased and a new taxation system was introduced. With the growth of the proportion of taxes paid to the treasury and the end to the wars of aggression that had brought abundant spoils, the feudal lords’ profits shrank drastically. To increase them, they taxed the population more rigor- ously. Feudal exploitation increased many times over. The ruin of peasants caused the decline of agriculture, which left craftsmen without raw materials and merchants with- out goods. Many peasants left their homes. The lands, including those in the shah’s domain, were left untilled. Officials in the capital were instructed to populate those lands with peasants who had little land or no land at all.3° The arbitrary rule and embezzlement by officials, court intrigues and corruption made the situation even worse.

A tide of discontent and indignation swept the coun- try. Many chiefs of nomad tribes came out against the shah. For the Safavids this meant not only the contrac- tion of their social base but also the loss of military back- ing from the tribes.

The peoples whose lands were forcefully incorporated into the Safavid state fought most vigorously against the central government. The liberation movement of the sub- jugated peoples had two main trends in it: one included the broad masses—the peasants, the rural settled and nomad tax-paying population (rayats and ilyats), and the towns- people (handicraftsmen and small traders); the other includ- ed the local feudal lords dissatisfied with the infringement on their political power and the worsening of their econom- ic situation. In those protest actions the striving for freedom from foreign domination was closely intertwined with the separatist tendencies of the feudal lords who exploited the discontent of the popular masses.

The population of Qandahar, a busy trade centre and a strategic military point, was among the first to rebel. At that time the Qandahar province was populated by Afghan tribes, mostly the Ghilzais, Abdalis, and also the Kakars, Tarins, Baburis, and Nasyrs. There were Afghans (mainly Ghilzais of the Hotaki clan) in Qandahar proper.

In each tribe the disintegration of tribal relations and the shaping of feudal ones proceeded in a somewhat dif- ferent direction. The Abdalis and Ghilzais had reached a higher level of social and economic development. In the Ghilzai tribes the tribal elite was most feudalised among the Hotakis who made up a large part of the Afghan popu- lation in the Qandahar province. The Hotaki group included the Khan family of the entire Ghilzai tribe (Shah-alam- hel), which doubtlessly facilitated the growth of Hotakis’ political influence on the other Ghilzai tribes.

The Afghan tribes in the Safavid state were harshly repressed in the late 17th and early 18th century. In the 1698-1704 period alone taxes were increased twice in the Qandahar province. The Safavid rulers plundered the entire population. The economic condition of the tribes was much deteriorated by the drastic reduction of transit trade, which had previously been a source of large incomes for them. The reduction was caused by the transfer of trade with Indian Ocean countries to Dutch and British merchants, by the development of sea routes from Europe to India, by the closure of the Indo-Persian border, constant uprisings of the Sikhs in the Punjab, and so on.

Apart from tax oppression, the Afghan tribes were subjected to national discrimination and religious per- secution. The latter was caused by the increased role of Shiite theologians in the Safavid state (the Afghans were Sunnites). The persecution of Sunnites grew especially large-scale under shah Sultan Husayn (1694-1722) who, being under the influence of Shiite mujtaheeds,* perse- cuted Sunnites, Sufi dervishes and members of various sects, specifically those populating the outlying provinces of the Safavid state (including those in Afghanistan) who propounded separatist tendencies.

The popular unrest in the Qandahar province in the early years of shah Husayn’s rule was an response to the increased burden of the taxes and the arbitrary rule by the shah’s officials. This evoked great apprehension in the shah’s court. In 1704 Gurgen Khan, known for his cruelty, was appointed the beglerbeg (ruler) of Qandahar. But his policy of terror, of exploiting discord between individual Afghan tribes, also between the Ghilzais and Abdalis, only added to the dissatisfaction of the people. The malcon- tents were led by Hotaki chief Mir Wais, the galantar of Qandahar.

Mir Wais went to Isfahan to lodge a complaint against Gurgen Khan. On his arrival he saw that the shah’s power was weak and realised that by bringing together the mal- contents he could fight not only against Gurgen Khan but even attempt to liberate Qandahar from the Safavids. After that Mir Wais went on a pilgrimage to Mecca where he received the blessing of Sunnite theologians for a struggle against the “heretical king”, the Shiite shah Husayn.

Back in Qandahar in 1708, Mir Wais summoned a jirga, a council of tribe representatives, which was attended by the chiefs and members of the nobility of the tribes of the Nasyrs, Baburis, Tarins, Kakars, Alkozais and Baluchis. A decision was made to start an uprising.?2 In April 1709 Mir Wais led an uprising in Qandahar during which the Safavid ruler was killed and his troops defeated. Qandahar became the centre of an independent domain ruled by Mir Wais. The emergence of the new domain marked anew stage in the complex evolution of the Afghan state.

All strata of the population took part in the 1709 up- rising. The nobility of the tribes, ilyats and townspeople had one common goal—liberation from Safavid domination. After futile attempts by the Safavids to regain Qandahar in a peaceful way, they sent two military expeditions against Mir Wais, in 1710 -1711 and in 1713, which ended in the utter defeat of the shah’s troops. In their struggle against the Safavid forces the Afghans were greatly support- ed by the Baluchis, nomad tribes that inhabited the Qan- dahar plain.

The economic and internal political situation in the Safavid state was going from bad to worse. Peasants fled their homes, leaving the fields untilled. In 1710 shah Sultan Husayn issued a firman (decree) on attaching the peasants (rayats) to places of tax payment. It may be concluded on the basis of -narrative sources that at that time the nomad population (ilyats) had no right to change without permission the places of residence or a territory where it roamed.33 The Safavids’ decrees and their predatory policy (particularly in the conquered areas) sparked off new risings against their rule.

The insurrection in Qandahar and’ the formation of the Qandahar (or Ghilzai, as it was otherwise called) principa- lity were followed by uprisings in the northern Caucasus led by Surhay Khan of Kazikumuh, and disturbances in Georgia, Armenia, Azerbaijan and Kurdistan.

The Afghan tribes (mainly the Abdalis) populating the . Herat region revolted in 1716.34 Those tribes were in fer- ment soon after the assassination of Gurgen Khan by whose order thousands of Afghan families had been reset- tled from Qandahar to Herat in the early 18th century, while many chiefs, including the grandfather and uncles of Ahmad Khan Abdali (the future founder of the inde- pendent Afghan state) had been murdered.

The tribal chiefs summoned Abdullah Khan Sadozai and his son Asadullah, who were at the time in Multan, to Herat. On their way they were seized by Safavid military commander Khusraw Mirza, but soon escaped to Herat where they began preparations for an uprising. Having learnt of this, Abbas Quli Khan Shamlu, the Safavid ruler of Herat, arrested them. But the disturbances in the city, which involved also non-Afghans, frightened the Safavids. It was therefore decided at a shah’s durbar that Abbas Qulli Khan Shamlu should be recalled from Herat and a new ruler, Jafar Khan Ustajlu, be.appointed instead.

Meanwhile Abdullah Khan Sadozai again escaped from prison and took refuge in the Dushah Mountains. He was joined gradually by thousands of his supporters. The in- surgents occupied Isfizar, after which they moved on to Herat and laid siege to it. With wide support from the city’s population the insurgents took Herat. Their power soon spread to Badghis, Kusuviye, Ghurian and later to Farah, which had earlier been seized by the Ghilzais.

The loss of all these regions, of which Herat was most important, was a heavy blow to the Safavids. A. Volynsky noted at the time that bread and livestock were supplied to the Safavid residency in Isfahan and other places mostly from the Herat region. “However,” he wrote, “during my presence there the Persians lost it, for it was conquered by the Afghans, and that causes the Persians to start a war...."35 But the Safavids peoved unable to suppress the uprising, and there emerged the independent principality of Herat.

The political situation in the Safavid state was growing ever more tense: in 1717-1719 the liberation movement of Daghestan tribes was on the upswing and the Lurs and Baluchis rose up in arms. The Arabs of Masqat, who seized Bahrain, operated along the Persian Gulf coastline.

But what worried the Safavids more than anything else was the, uprising of the Afghans who, having gained ground in Herat, began to threaten Meshhed. The second, and the last, attempt to suppress the insurgents also failed.

For all the differences among the Afghan tribes, includ- ing those between the Ghilzais and Abdalis, the Ghilzais grew stronger militarily. The tribe’s nobility with Mir Wais’s son Mir Mahmud at the head undertook an expedition to Iran.36 The ruler of Qandahar, which remained the centre of the Ghilzai principality, was his brother Husayn.

In 1722 the Safavid capital Isfahan was captured by Mir Mahmud after an eight-month siege. After that, Kerman, Fars and Persian Iraq were conquered.

At that time various clans of the Abdali tribe struggled for power in Herat. Ultimately the struggle was won by Allahyar Khan who became the Abdali shiek

The differences between the Ghilzais and the Abdalis became increasingly acute and often grew into armed clashes, which played a large role during their struggle against Nadir Quli Beg (since 1736 Nadir Shah Afshar).

Nadir Quli Beg, the leader of a feudal group in Khorasan, joined the detachments of Tahmasp, the son of shah Sultan Husayn, in 1726 and placed him under his influence. Hav- ing united the Khorasan tribes, Nadir Quli Beg captured Khorasan, Mazenderan and Astrabad and began mustering forces to fight the Ghilzais, who had occupied Isfahan, and the Turks, who had seized some of the western regions of the Safavid state. But before moving his troops against the Ghilzais Nadir had to capture Herat and thus secure a safe rear flank for himself.

Putting large stakes on the expedition to Herat, Nadir told S. Avramov, a Russian representative in Iran: ‘‘We have come out against fifty thousand Afghan Abdalis and... if we are defeated, that will be the end to the Persian state....737

Having learnt about Nadir’s intention to subdue Herat, the Afghan Abdalis started intensive preparations for its defence. They built fortifications, stocked up with food and fodder, and formed armed units. According to an eyewitness, the population of many towns and villages in the region joined the insurgents.

In May 1729 Nadir set out from Meshhed to Herat with an army of 20,000 men and artillery. The insurgents, led by Allahyar Khan, went to meet the enemy, having sent units of horsemen who were to by-pass Nadir’s troops from the rear. Nadir moved very cautiously. A few farsabs from the Kafir-Qala fortress, where the insurgents stood, the first battle was fought till dark. Nadir was wounded and his troops incurred heavy losses. In the second battle the Afghans had been winning, too, but were forced to retreat to Ghurian when reinforcements had come to back up Nadir. As the news reached the Abdali chiefs, they sum- moned Zulfiqar Khan and his troops from Farah to Herat. In the battle which took place soon after that and involved great bloodshed, the insurgents suffered a defeat, in spite of their desperate resistance.

Nadir’s troops plundered Farah and captured the fami- lies of the Abdali chiefs, including those of Zulfigar Khan and Allahyar Khan. This development hastened the chiefs to conclude peace. Nadir, too, wanted peace, for he was aware of a, Ghilzai expedition to Khorasan. He therefore had to set out for Meshhed immediately. A peace agree- ment was concluded in June 1729, according to which the Abdali tribe was to release the prisoners and pay tributes. Allahyar Khan remained the emir, but now as Nadir’s vicegerent. On the Afghans’ insistence Nadir and his troops did not enter Herat, neither did he leave a garrison in the region. His compliance was due to the fact that, wishing to secure a rear to fight the Ghilzais and Turks, Nadir did not want to aggravate relations with the Abdalis.

By the beginning of 1730 Nadir routed the Ghilzais and captured Isfahan. Mir Mahmud’s brother Ashraf Hotaki, who led the troops, was killed. After that Nadir inflicted heavy defeats on the Turks.

In 1731 the Herat province was again in a state of fer- ment. Ruined under the Safavids by taxes and exhausted by a struggle which had lasted almost 15 years, the popular masses refused to pay the requisitions fixed by the terms of peace with Nadir. The chiefs of the Abdali tribe, de- prived of independence and being forced not only to obey Nadir’s orders but to share their profits with him, were preparing for an uprising. They were promised support from’ Husayn, the ruler of the Qandahar principality (1722- 1738) who had been frightened by the military successes of Nadir and feared that he would attack Qandahar.

Allahyar Khan’s attempts to maintain peace in the region proved futile. The indignant population dethroned him and banished him from Herat. The power went over to Zulfiqar Khan who declared Herat an independent city. The insurgents then advanced towards Meshhed in an at- tempt to take control of the whole of Khorasan.

The garrison troops with Ibrahim Khan Afshar at the head were defeated in a battle at Meshhed and took up positions in the fortress. Zulfiqar besieged the city, but upon leaming about the coming of Nadir, had to retreat to Herat. Early in May 1731 Nadir’s troops approached Herat and pitched a camp on the right bank of the Harirud at Juyi Nukra.

Meanwhile preparations were underway in Herat to beat back an enemy attack. The population of the city and its suburbs were busy building fortifications and form- ing armed detachments. Messengers were sent to Qandahar with a request for reinforcements.

The insurgents made sallies day and night, inflicting heavy losses on the enemy and keeping it in constant suspense. During one such sally Nadir was nearly taken prisoner. On another occasion, when the Herat defenders were shooting at the enemy camp, his tent was pierced by a cannon-ball. Infuriated by the stubbornness of the city defenders, Nadir made up his mind to encircle the city, leaving it no chance to receive reinforcements. To that end, he ordered his men to block the road to Qandahar and to sack Farah. In June Herat was blockaded. The city began to suffer from a shortage of food and salt. The plight of the besieged was getting worse with every passing day.

At that point the population of Badghis lent a helping hand, bringing food to Jebrail, from where the Heratans were to take it to the besieged city themselves. The first unit of 1,000 men left Herat secretly and reached Jebrail. The insurgents marched through mountain paths and ravines of the Paropamisus on their way back and brought the food safely to Herat. As soon as he leamed of this, Nadir at- tacked Jebrail and, after long and stubbom battles, captured it. New ways were to be sought to bring food to Herat.

In late autumn 1731, a 2,000-man unit of insurgents left the city and, having passed through the Paropamisus, entered Obah, whose population provided the insurgents with food, after which they returned to Herat.

These events evoked an enthusiastic response among the population in the area. Derwish Ali Khan with numerous supporters from among the local population marched on Herat. Nadir, wamed about his approach, sent his troops under the command of Delawar Khan against him. The forces of Derwish Ali Khan were routed and he himself was taken prisoner and executed.

The siege of Herat was taking too much time and, having lost all hope of taking the fortress with his own forces, Nadir ordered the Khorasan ruler to send a reinforcement.

Meanwhile the food reserves from Obah had come to an end and the insurgents had to start negotiations. The arrival of a 10,000-man unit from Khorasan to support Nadir and the new fortifications built at the city gate left them no chance of receiving any help from the outside. Hunger began to, spread through Herat.

In March 1732, at the decision of a durbar (nobility council) the besieged, promised by Nadir that their lives. and the city would be spared, opened the fortress gates. Nadir entered Herat. He appointed Muhammad Khan Mervi, a member of the Khorasan nobility close to him, the ruler of the city. The durbar was replaced with a council whose members were to be picked out by Nadir. Several thousand Abdali families were deported. To prevent new uprisings in Herat, the tribe was broken up and resettled, the durbar was abolished and another ruler was appomted. At the same time, units of the Abdali cavalry were included in Nadir’s army and actively participated in his expeditions.

In 1736 Nadir was proclaimed the shah of Iran at a meeting of the nobility in the Mugan Steppe. Beginning with late 1736 his troops made repeated attacks on Qan- dahar. Nadir feared that the Qandahar Afghans would pose a perpetual threat to him. Besides, the seizure of Qandahar was to be the first step in the preparations for an: expedi- tion to India. But despite his undeniable military superio- rity, Nadir could not: enter Qandahar for more thana year. The long siege compelled him to build a whole town on the site of his military camp. The sources relate numerous facts about the heroic resistance of the Qandahar people. Their sorties were causing serious losses to the enemy. By Decem- ber 1737 only afew thousands remained of the army which Nadir had led to Qandahar. A new levy of recruits was called almost in every part of the Iranian state. But it was not before May 23, 1738 that Nadir captured the city.*

Nadir laid waste to the city and carried out several ‘measures to weaken the economic power and political influence of the Ghilzais, kindle strife between them and other Afghan tribes and to preclude any possibility of new uprisings. The Hotakis and some other Ghilzai clans were resettled to various regions of Khorasan and the Mugan Steppe, their lands were declared the property of the state and given out as jagirs to Abdali khans. At the same time, a cadastral survey of lands requiring irrigation was made in the Qandahar province at Nadir’s orders and taxes were fixed. Abdali khans were appointed the rulers of the pro- vince and a number of its regions. It must be noted that the Abdali tribal elite occupied prominent places in Nadir’s army. They were paid higher salaries and were granted land. In contrast with the nobility of most of the other tribes, they were neither executed nor fined, though executions and fines became particularly frequent in Nadir Shah’s last years of life.

The uprisings in Herat and Qandahar spread over into nearly all regions populated by Afghans. The struggle did not abate even after the cities were occupied by Nadir. When Nadir was still in Qandahar, an uprising of Afghan tribes started in the Ghazni region. In Kabul various sections of the population—the nobility, Muslim theologians, and ordinary ilyats—united against Nadir. Though artillery made Nadir’s troops superior in weapons, they came up against fierce resistance at Kabul.

The Afghan tribes living in the mountains between Kabul and Jalalabad also rose against Nadir. Twelve thousand of the shah’s elite troops under the command of Aslan Khan Qirklu were sent against those tribes, which had long been known for their militancy. The shah’s troops were defeated. The Afghans utilised every opportunity to offer resistance to Nadir. Some of them, who had fled from persecution, joined the army of the Great Moghul Muhammad Shah in 1738 and then fought under his command at Delhi in 1739.

Nadir’s mounting strength and his military victories, including the seizure of Delhi, did not discourage the Afghans who carried on the liberation struggle. A bit more than a year after the fall of Qandahar, new disturbances began in the city.

Nadir. sent there Tahmasp Khan Jalair, one of his best military commanders, in the capacity of the ruler of Afgha- nistan and the north-western regions of the Punjab, which had been added to Nadir’s empire. In the 1740s riots flared up anew in several regions, including the Qandahar and Kabul provinces. Taqi Khan, the ruler of Kabul, supported the insurgents and declared his insubordination to the shah. The insurgents established links, with other tribes also fighting against Nadir. The shah’s soldiers often came over to their side. The example of the people of Qandahar and Kabul was followed by the Hazaras who, having joined hands with the Herat population, rebelled against the Ira- nian authorities. The Yusufzais rose too. The liberation struggle of the Afghan and other subjugated peoples was combined with protest actions against the mounting tax burden. That was the reason why a powerful wave of upris- ings rolled across the country after the introduction of new taxes in 1743.* Taking part in the uprising were various sections of society, with the tax-paying population, the working masses, being most active.

The founding of the independent principalities of Qan- dahar and Herat and the subsequent actions of the Afghans were not merely isolated incidents. The Afghans were the first to raise the banner of struggle against Safavid domi- nation. That liberation struggle, which started in the late 17th century and lasted, with short intervals, for nearly half a century, promoted the development of a fierce struggle against the Safavids and Nadir Shah. The risings of the Afghans and other peoples in the territory of present- - day Afghanistan, together with the liberation movements in Daghestan, Georgia and Central Asia, were one of the main ‘causes of the collapse of the shah’s empire. Major elements in the Afghan tribes’ stubborn long-time resistance to foreign rule, the uprisings in the first half of the 18th. century speeded up “the entire formation of the Afghan ‘ state, a process prepared by the course of the evolution of Afghan society”.38

Afghanistan in Modern Times

Afghanistan in Contemporary Times