Sarkel is an example of this third type. In 834–837, at the request of the Khagan’s government, Petron Kamatir and a team of Byzantine engineers built a fortress on the bank of the Don river, near present-day Tsimlyansk. Its name in the Ugrian tongue meant ‘White House’, while Russian chroniclers call it the ‘White Tower’. This fortification was initially intended as a defence against the migrating Magyars, and was both inhabited and garrisoned by Khazars and Bulgars.
The fortress of Sarkel was a regular rectangle measuring 193.5 x 133.5m (634.6ft x 437.8ft), oriented along a south-east to north-west axis. Its walls were made of red brick laid in a local manner, having a thickness of 3.75m (12.3ft) and an original height of no less than 10m (32.8ft). These walls were strengthened with protruding towers plus larger corner towers, and the main entrance was through a gate in a north-western tower. Internal walls also divided the fortress into several parts, and the smallest, south-eastern part had no external exits. This served as the main stronghold, within which, in the southern corner, stood a square main tower or donjon.
Despite the participation of Byzantine craftsmen, and having an essentially Byzantine plan, Sarkel fortress was built following local traditions. Substantial ramparts and moats separated the cape on which it was built from the main shore, but the walls and towers lacked true foundations, having been built directly onto levelled ground. For the bonding of walls a liquid lime solution was used with the addition of sand, and the bricks had actually been made and fired inside the walled areas, seemingly overseen by Byzantine craftsmen. The main internal walls separating the parts of the fortress were only slightly thinner than the external wall. Within the fortification there were large, long brick buildings whose floors were paved with either brick or a lime cement. According to the written sources, the Byzantine engineer Petron Kamatir had wanted to erect a stone church within the fortress but was not permitted to do so. Instead the stone columns and capitals that he had brought from Byzantine territory for this purpose were simply abandoned on the nearby steppe.
By building Sarkel the Khazars not only protected themselves from Rus, but could now block the trade route between Kiev and Atil. In the event, Sarkel only served as a simple military fortress for one or two decades; thereafter settlers began to take over the site, and Sarkel rapidly became a centre for merchants and craftsmen, with a multi-ethnic population of Bulgars, Ghuzz, Khazars and others. Eventually almost the entire area between the river and the dry moat of the fortress itself was built up with yurt tents and semi-dugout houses. When there was no free space left the brick fortifications themselves began to be partially re-configured.
The evidence of ceramics and certain aspects of the habitations suggest that Bulgars inhabited the south-eastern part of Sarkel and Slavs the north-western corner, while the citadel was inhabited by Turks◦– Khazars and Ghuzz◦– who formed the garrison. In addition to guarding Sarkel and the important route on which it stood, they also collected dues from passing merchants using the river and the road north and south.
Sarkel was taken by the Rus prince Svyatoslav in 965, and was badly damaged during his assault, but the location continued to be inhabited until the 12th century. By that time Sarkel had become a Russian steppe outpost known as Belaya Vezha or ‘White Vezhi’, and it was during this period that Russian colonization started to spread across the Don and Seversky Donets river areas.
Then, at the start of the 12th century, rising Kipchaq (Polovtsian) pressure on Kievan Rus made sustaining White Vezhi increasingly difficult. In 1103, while returning from a campaign against the Kipchaqs and intending to strengthen Russian influence in this region, Prince Vladimir Monomakh brought with him both Kipchaqs and Torks (another nomadic Turkish tribe) as settlers. Until 1117 they formed the garrison of Russian Belaya Vezha, but in that year the Kipchaqs and Torks turned against the Russians and forced most of the inhabitants of Sarkel-Belaya Vezha to flee to more secure Russia territory. Thereafter Kipchaq and Tork nomads roamed the region and raided Russia itself. Even so, a small number of Slav Rus remained in what had been Sarkel, and were later mentioned in Russian chronicles as ‘brodniki’.
Generally speaking, the defences of Khazar fortresses were rather feeble when compared with those raised by the Byzantine Empire. The only exceptions were perhaps found in what is now Daghestan; elsewhere, Khazar builders placed their walls directly on the surface of the ground, making them easy to undermine. Often they also had their gates positioned so that an attacking enemy could approach with his shields facing the defenders, making the task of defence more difficult; this can be seen at the Süren fortress near Bakhchysarai in Crimea, which probably served as an outpost for Sarkel itself.
One might summarize by saying that Khazar fortifications were not really capable of resisting serious Byzantine or Islamic assaults. This was probably because fortifications on the steppes were not strategically very important for a state and culture like that of the Khazars. On the other hand, Khazar fortifications in the Crimea would have faced the Byzantines, while those close to Derbent and the Caspian Gates would have faced the Umayyad and Abbasid Caliphates and their successors, all of whom were at the forefront of siege technology, thus rendering existing Khazar military architecture virtually useless.
SELECT BIBLIOGRAPHY
Barthold, V.V., & P.B. Golden, ‘Khazar’, in The Encyclopedia of Islam, Vol. 4 (Leiden & London, 1978) 1172–1181
Brook, K.A., ‘A Brief History of the Khazars,’ in D.N. Korobkin & Y. Halevi (eds), The Kuzari: In Defense of the Despised Faith (Northvale, 1998) xxv–xxxi
Brook, K.A., The Jews of Khazaria (Northvale, 1999)
Dunlop, D.M., The History of the Jewish Khazars (Princeton, 1954)
Fedortchouk, A., ‘Khazars’, in E. Kessler & N. Wenborn (eds), A Dictionary of Jewish-Christian Relations (Cambridge, 2005) 252
Frenkel, A., ‘The Jewish Empire in the Land of Future Russia’, in Australian Journal of Jewish Studies, 9 (1995) 142–170
Golb, N., & O. Pritsak, Khazarian Hebrew Documents of the Tenth Century (Ithaca, 1982)
Golden, P.B., ‘The Khazars’, in D. Sinor (ed.), The Cambridge History of Early Inner Asia (Cambridge, 1990) 263–270
Golden, P.B., ‘Khazars’, in M. Tütüncü (ed.), Turkish-Jewish Encounters: Studies on Turkish-Jewish Relations through the Ages (Haarlem, Netherlands, 2001) 29–49
Golden, P.B., ‘Some Notes on the Comitatus in Medieval Eurasia with Special Reference to the Khazars’, in Russian History/Histoire Russe, 28 (2001) 153–170