Although at this junction Ziyād himself died, his policy was carried on by his sons, in particular by ʿUbaydullah. Scarcely any governor, not even _H_ajjāj, has suffered so much at the hands of the traditionists as the “Murderer of _H_usayn,” though his ability and devotion to the Umayyads are beyond question. It is not surprising therefore that his earlier military successes should be so briefly related, in spite of their importance. Yet as he was no more than 25 years of age when appointed by Muʿāwiya to the province of Khurāsān on probation, and only two years later was selected to fill his father’s position in ʿIrāq, his administration must have been markedly successful. The policy of Ziyād had now firmly secured Khurāsān and made it feasible to use it as a base for the extension of the conquests into the rich lands across the river. On his arrival at Merv, therefore, in the autumn of 53/673, the new governor began preparations for an invasion of Bukhārā. The Shao-wu principality of Bukhārā was at this time second in importance only to Samarqand. It included not only the greater part of the oasis (“al-Bukhārīya”) then much more thickly populated than now, but also the great emporium of Paykand, which controlled the trade route across the Oxus at Āmul. Of its early history we have two accounts, both confused, inaccurate in detail, and often conflicting. From these it may be gathered that the prince, who held the high Turkish title of Shād[25], resided at Paykand, the citadel of Bukhārā being either founded or restored by the Bukhār Khudāh Bidūn, probably in consequence of the Arab invasions. This prince at his death left a son only a few months old on whose behalf the regency was exercised by the Queen-Mother. This princess, known under the title of Khātūn (a Turkish form of the Sogdian word for “lady”) became the central figure in the local traditions, which represent the Arab invasions as occurring precisely during the period of her regency. This version is the one accepted by Balādhurī, Yaʿqūbī, and Narshakhī, but though not altogether devoid of historical value, it is certainly misplaced, and the true account of the early conquests must, for cogent reasons, be sought in the brief and widely divergent narratives of _T_abarī. In the first place the Khātūn-legend, like all such legends, has grown by natural elaboration of detail, as in the account given by Narshakhī of Khātūn’s administration of justice and by continual accretions from other streams of tradition, as seen, on comparing the narratives of Balādhurī and Narshakhī, in the introduction of episodes of Ibn Khāzim and Muhallab. Critical examination also reveals alternative traditions and chronological inconsistencies, as, for example, the birth of _T_ughshāda after the invasion of Saʿīd b. ʿOthmān, Khātūn’s reign of 15 years, and others mentioned below. There is clear evidence of the late compilation of the tradition in the