A second suggestion has been put forward by Professor Barthold, to which, however, Professor Houtsma’s objections would apply with equal force[60]. In the narrative of the historian Yaʿqūbī (II. 344), there is a brief notice as follows: “Qutayba appointed his brother ʿAbdur-Ra_h_mān ibn Muslim governor of Samarqand, but the men of Samarqand treacherously revolted against him, and Khāqān, king of the Turks, attacked him also. He wrote to Qutayba, but Qutayba waited until the winter cleared, then marched to join him and routed the army of the Turks.” Professor Barthold takes the view, therefore, that this is the expedition referred to in the inscriptions, and attributes the failure of the Turks to the disastrous effects of a winter campaign in a devastated land, which so severely disabled them that they could not face the formidable army that took the field under Qutayba in the spring. It is questionable, however, how far Yaʿqūbī’s narrative may be trusted. None of the other historians give the slightest hint of this invasion, nor were the results such as we should expect after a _S_ughdian revolt. There was no ruthless reconquest, no stamping out of rebellion in blood. Neither does the general tenor of Yaʿqūbī’s accounts of Qutayba inspire confidence. They are not only confused in detail and chronology—the capture of Samarqand, for instance, is dated 94 A.H.—but in some cases are taken from what we know to be the Bāhilite tradition, and in others, such as the narrative under discussion and the account of the conquest of Khwārizm, follow a tradition which seems irreconcilable with our other information. While it cannot be said definitely therefore, that Yaʿqūbī’s statements in this case contain no truth, it is certainly preferable to regard them as a later development of the narrative, on the lines of the Bāhilite tradition. If the chronological objections raised by Professor Houtsma are sound, there remains still a third possible solution, which, however, as there is no corroborative evidence from either the Arabic or Chinese sources, must remain nothing but a hypothesis. It is surely quite tenable that Kül-tegin’s “organization of the Sogdian people” had something to do with the deposition of _T_arkhūn and appointment of Ghūrak. With Sogdian trade playing the most important part which we know in the Turkish lands, it would be well worth while to try to prevent the Arabs from obtaining control over it. The very unexpectedness of the description given to this expedition shows clearly that there was some motive for “organization” and it is difficult to see what other motive there could have been. These circumstances would render it quite probable that Ghūrak did, in fact, appeal to the Khāqān for assistance against the Arabs, but it seems that the growing power of the Türgesh barred the way into Sogdiana against the Northern Khanate for the remainder of its short existence.