Identification of Burana with the settlement of Munora
The identification of Burana with the settlement of Munora, mentioned in the 16th century by Muhammad Haidar Guragani, is widely accepted among contemporary scholars. In this regard, particular interest is drawn to this author's account of an epitaph he saw and read on a slab for the "glorious imam," "most perfect sheikh," "a scholar of both branches and fundamentals of jurisprudence," the capital scholar Imam Muhammad-Faqih of Balasagun. Specifically considering the overall historical situation, it seems that there was an error in the transmission of the word "hundreds" in the date of death of this learned sheikh (as 711 AH, corresponding to 1311/12 CE, instead of 611 AH, which corresponds to 1214/15 CE) during the analysis of the inscription on the monument or during the transcription of the manuscript. Muhammad-Faqih was honored with the title of spiritual leader of such an important administrative point as Burana in the 12th century, and he passed away in the early next century, shortly before the Mongol conquest of Central Asia.
In the 11th-12th centuries, some circumstances compelled the government administration to pay special attention to Burana, which is particularly felt in the fate of the local Christian community. This is evidenced by the aforementioned fact of the liquidation of its cemetery at the city gates of the northern facade of the city wall. The community was by no means significant. In its cemetery in the southern part of the suburb, during many years of research, only a little more than thirty gravestones with crosses and corresponding epitaphs were found. It is noteworthy that only one scholastic, Kubuk, a teacher of Ushin and priest Kutluk, is mentioned among them, while all the other gravestones belong to more or less ordinary individuals. At the same time, the peculiarities in the letter forms and the presence of certain expressions that distinguish the Burana epitaphs from those on the monuments of the Nestorian cemetery in the Pishpek area draw attention. Apparently, this is related to the later functioning of the latter. The earliest date on its gravestones is 1261, i.e., when Burana had already ceased to exist as a prominent settlement. The overwhelming majority of gravestones (several hundred) date back to the 14th century. The epitaphs from 1338-1339 indicate that the city's residents died from a terrible plague epidemic that began in China in 1334. Later, it spread to European countries, where about 24 million people perished, almost a quarter of the then population. In Semirechye, this plague undoubtedly affected not only the large Nestorian community but also the entire settled and nomadic population of the region.
However, the plague was not the only reason for the city's decline. It is known that the area in the valley of the Chu River did not suffer particularly during the Mongol invasion, as its inhabitants largely submitted to the conquerors without much resistance. Meanwhile, due to the still insufficiently studied overall political and economic situation, the decline of urban and generally settled cultural life began as early as the second quarter of the 13th century, resulting in the residents of the Chu and Talas river valleys leaving the cities.
Survey of Burana to begin restoration work
A convincing answer to the question of what kind of city this was — the work at Burana in 1927 did not provide. The assertion of V. Tomashev remained unshakable, that it was in the vicinity of Tokmak that the capital of the Turkic khanate was located, but without precise localization of its location. V. V. Bartold once believed that the city of Saryg should be sought in the vicinity of Tokmak. Later, after visiting Burana, he expressed in his report on his trip to Central Asia in 1893-1894, with a number of reservations, the assumption of the identity of the Burana settlement with Balasagun and at the same time allowed that it might be a suburban outskirt of the latter, provided that the latter was located at the site of Ak-Beshim. The opinion expressed by V. D. Gorodetsky after his joint trip with A. E. Schmidt through Semirechye in 1925, which involved the identification of the Burana settlement with Nevaket, was also of interest. In the various transcriptions of the name of this city cited in Arabic sources, one might suggest that the authors were indicating "prosperity," "wealth," while in another transcription — it can be translated as "new city," considering its relatively later formation compared to other cities in the valley. It was only much later, from the unpublished manuscript of V. D. Gorodetsky, that it became clear that the argument for recognizing Burana as Nevaket was based on the indication of the distance between this city and Pendzhikent as one farsakh. A more convincing identification of Burana with any medieval city was not achieved by the Central Asian Expedition in 1927.
However, a number of new observations and facts emerged from the survey of the tower of this settlement. To determine the condition of its lower parts and identify possible deformations, a small stratigraphic trench was laid on the eastern side at the protruding corner of the octagonal base of the minaret, by agreement with architect M. M. Loginov. It was gradually brought to a depth of 1.8 m from the level of the modern ground surface. It was found that the masonry rows of the tower located below the modern surface had been destroyed by brick collectors no less than the outer ones. At the same time, it was confirmed that in the masonry during the construction of the monument, alongside well-made brick tiles, there were also "underburnt" and "overburnt" bricks, and these were not whole, but broken into pieces.
The size of whole bricks is 25.3X25.3X4-5 cm. The mortars used varied: thus, the joints of the inner rows (with a thickness of 18 to 24 mm) were only in the lower part filled with a thin layer of 2-4 mm alabaster-lime mortar (ganchkak), laid directly on the brick, followed by a significantly thicker layer of earthen mortar, on which the next row of bricks was laid, which had a new thin layer of ganchkak on top, and so on. Only in the outer rows of the masonry was a solid alabaster mortar used with the addition of pieces of crushed bricks and only partly earth.
At a depth of 1.5 m, a layer of solid masonry in one row of bricks, placed on edge and laid "in herringbone," was discovered. Measurements showed that the outer edge of this masonry protrudes outward from the face of the octagonal base by more than 30 cm. Below began stone masonry on mortar with the addition of coal, which gradually expanded and lowered over a distance of about 0.5 m from the edge of the masonry, and the bricks placed on edge were faced with correctly shaped elongated stone slabs (30X15 cm), laid "rusticated" with joints divided by two grooves. In total, in this place of the trench, 4 rows of masonry were preserved to a height, counting with the joints, of 0.65 cm. The level of its lower row lies at a depth of about 1.8 m from the modern ground surface. The rubble masonry with its facade tiled cladding belongs to a wider base in the form of a stylobate than the octagonal part of the tower.
In plan, it can be square (or square with beveled corners) or a regular octagon. The gap of 0.45 m between the row of bricks standing on edge and the fourth row of stone cladding was probably also decorated, most likely with similar slabs. Observations showed that above the vertically standing bricks, at the same level with them, there were previously at least five rows of bricks laid flat.
The results obtained were recognized by M. M. Loginov as sufficient for carrying out the initial repair work of the season. To obtain more detailed data, including the depth of the solid foundation, significant earthworks are necessary to clear the lower parts around the entire monument, the costs of which could not be covered by the amount allocated by the Central Asian Expedition for the repair of Burana. In the absence of additional allocations, further earthworks were postponed to the future.
Determining the date of construction of the Burana tower
The clearing of the cultural layers directly adjacent to the minaret (during the laying of the described insignificant stratigraphic trench) showed that they consist entirely of construction debris of various ages. In the upper layer, up to 20 cm thick, animal bones were found, mainly from rams. Below, fragments of ceramic dishes, predominantly unglazed and partly green-glazed, began to appear. At a depth of 1 m, large pieces of clay pots, shards of glazed utensils from the 11th-12th centuries, and single fragments of dishes began to be found. The latter lay on the slope of the rubble masonry. During partial clearing in the dump of the minaret, a small piece of glazed ceramic from the 11th century was found in an old repair masonry. This could serve as a hint that in the indicated century, under the influence of earthquake shocks, the monument already needed repairs, although it is possible that the shard ended up in the mortar of a crack that formed later.
When the first Muslim minarets appeared for calling to prayer, it is not precisely established. As is known, in the early stages, their construction in some parts of the established Arab caliphate sometimes met with a certain protest, as an unacceptable imitation of pagan cult towers and Christian bell towers. However, already in the early centuries of the widespread spread of Islam in various regions where it became the dominant religion, several types of minarets appeared. Some of them, in particular in Central Asia, represented independent structures in the form of round towers, sometimes of very large sizes.
In Turkestan, the question of minarets was raised before local historians as early as 1909. At the same time, difficulties in their study often arose immediately in connection with the complexity of determining the date of creation of certain objects. This also applied to the Burana tower. Even in 1926, such an active researcher of Central Asian architecture as B. N. Zasypkin asserted that following the minaret of Kunya Urgench (which he dated to the 11th century), "the minaret in Bukhara of the 12th century, the minaret in the village of Uzgent, and the Burana tower near Tokmak in the Pishpek district should be placed around the same time."
Regarding B. P. Zasypkin's conclusion, some clarifications need to be made. The dating of the 11th century for the preserved minaret in Kunya Urgench is based on a lead plate with an inscription found in the ground in 1900 within this settlement, stating that a certain minaret was built by the Khwarezmshah Abul-Abbas Mamun II in 401 AH (1010/11 CE). The exact location of the ruins of this minaret has not been established. There are sufficient grounds to believe that the inscription does not refer to the minaret still standing at the Kunya Urgench settlement, but to another one that towered there until the end of the 19th century.
There is no doubt about the dating provided by the author of the "Kitab-i Mulla-zade," which states 521 AH (1127 CE), in which during the reign of Arslan Khan Muhammad, son of Suleiman, a large minaret was rebuilt in Bukhara at Masjid-i-Kalyan, known to the people as the "Tower of Death." As for the minarets of Uzgent and Burana, their construction cannot be dated to "around the same time" (i.e., the beginning of the second quarter of the 12th century), as they were erected much earlier and certainly not simultaneously. Uzgent, located on a busy trade route from Fergana through Osh to Kashgar, was already a prosperous urban administrative center by the 10th-11th centuries. To this day, it has preserved a separately standing semi-ruined minaret and three mausoleums located close to one another from the feudal era. The southern one has two dates — 582 AH with indications of different months. One of them was not published quite accurately in 1897 by the Turkestan Circle of Archaeology Lovers — 1186/7 CE instead of 1187 CE. The second — with an indication of the month of May 1186 AH — was read by M. E. Masson in 1927 on site. At that time, due to the inability to obtain a ladder because of the active Basmachi movement in the area, M. E. Masson managed to notice from a distance on the portal of the Northern mausoleum in the Persian inscription only the date "on the Wednesday of the fourth month of Rabi 547 AH" (mid-1152 CE), and in the Arabic inscription, the name of the Karakhanid ruler Turk Toghrul Karakhan Hussein, son of Hasan, son of Ali.
Who was the true creator of the Burana minaret?
As for the half-preserved large Uzgent minaret, the flat ceiling of its internal staircase corridor is made with overlapping bricks. The entire outer surface of the minaret's shaft is covered with solid, adjoining ornamental bands, among which a narrow band consisting solely of circles with a depression in the middle is characteristic. It is a brick interpretation of the "nipple" ornament, widespread on monuments of the 11th-12th centuries. Alongside it, in the outer decoration, in addition to figurative brickwork, there is alabaster cut-out ornamentation. It is noteworthy that the brick of the Uzgent minaret most closely resembles the brick of the Northern mausoleum. Based on the above and considering the history of Uzgent, the construction of the minaret can be attributed to the middle or second half of the 11th century.
The Burana minaret used square burnt bricks (averaging 25.3X25.3X4 or 5 cm). The ceilings leading to the upper internal staircase, although made similarly to the Uzgent minaret with overlapping bricks, are done using a different technique, resulting in a vaulted rise in cross-section. In the outer cladding of the minaret's shaft, all decorative brick bands of figurative masonry alternate with wide smooth bands of simple building bricks laid in horizontal rows. There is a complete absence of decoration with alabaster ornaments on the nests of the outer patterned bands, as is the case in the Uzgent minaret.
The Bukhara minaret of 1127 shows signs of architectural progress compared to the Burana and Uzgent minarets. The Bukhara minaret uses large-sized square bricks — 28X28X5 cm. The internal staircase leading to the top of the minaret is covered by a true arched vault, and inside the passage, there are ornamental layouts of small bricks. On the outer surface of the minaret's shaft, carved bricks are found, including in the bands of inscriptions. The entire band of the upper inscription is made of large ceramic slabs (54X31X6 cm), covered with green glaze. The facts presented are quite sufficient to recognize the Burana tower as having an earlier origin among the three mentioned minarets.
Regarding the date of construction of the Burana minaret, M. E. Masson initially thought it could be attributed to the 10th century. This was reflected in the handwritten preliminary field report he presented to the Central Asian Expedition upon his return to Tashkent.
The office processing of all field materials from 1927, with the involvement of archaeological-topographical data and stratigraphic observations of the cultural layers of the settlement, not to mention the aforementioned comparisons of construction techniques of similar monuments in Uzgent and Bukhara, led M. E. Masson to conclude that the Burana minaret was most likely erected in the 30s-40s of the 11th century.
This period corresponds to the rule of the Karakhanid sovereign Arslan Khan Suleiman (1031/2—1056) in Semirechye and Eastern Turkestan. It is noteworthy that T. Mirgiyazov, a local resident of Tokmak who worked with M. E. Masson, detailed one of the versions of the local legend about the construction of the Burana tower by Arslan Khan, sharing some details from the history of this sovereign's reign that are known among the people. In particular, T. Mirgiyazov mentioned that Arslan Khan gained power in Eastern Turkestan and Semirechye after his father's death, that he was at odds with his brother, who ruled in Talas (Jambyl) and Isfidzhab (Sayram), and that towards the end of his life, he was defeated, overthrown, and captured by him.
All these facts are documented in historical written sources and are specifically associated with the name of Arslan Khan Suleiman. It is also worth mentioning that Arslan Khan Suleiman, despite his victories over the Karakhanids, who he instilled great fear in, failed to maintain the authority of the head of state among other rulers of the Karakhanid dynasty. If the Burana minaret was indeed constructed at his behest, perhaps the creation of such a prominent monument was intended to somehow influence the psychology of his contemporaries among the Karakhanids, who regarded him with distrust and even hostility as the head of the dynasty.
However, this is again only speculation, and the true answer to who was the real creator of the Burana minaret remained in question for M. E. Masson.
The completion of the initial repair and preservation work on the Burana tower was carried out by the Central Asian Expedition in 1928 under the guidance of N. M. Bachinsky. At that time, an iron roof was laid over the surviving upper part of the minaret, a downspout was extended 3 m outward, and a door was installed and tightly sealed in the entrance leading to the internal spiral staircase. In connection with the liquidation of the Central Asian Expedition as an organization of Central Asian scale in Tashkent in 1929, all subsequent activities for the preservation and study of the Burana settlement monuments were carried out by scientific organizations of the Kyrgyz SSR.