the ‘outside’ other 21
line (the so-called Long Clay wall; it was more than 230 km long).^25
Th is limitation of the borders had, most of all, practical, military, and
political aims. It has the same functions in the world of the sedentary
civilizations as well. However, it could have had another meaning for
the Bulgars, especially with view to the fact that aft er 813 A.D. they
built the ‘Erkesiya’, more than 120 km long earthen rampart with a
ditch; the fortifi cation facility was situated in Eastern Th race, between
the Black Sea and the Maritsa River estuary.
From a symbolic point of view it seems that ‘Erkesiya’ was meant
to stop the penetration of Byzantine infl uence into Bulgarian lands in
general.^26 At the same time, for the Turks and Uighurs, there was no
need to make such barriers against their main enemy—the Chinese,
since the steppe to the north of Ordos provided a suffi cient boundary.
Th e nomads also knew that China was not interested in conquering
their territories since they were not suitable for agriculture.^27
Another written source—the Turkic stone stelae—reveals the exis-
tence of the sustainable topos ‘boundary’ in the consciousness of the
Turkic aristocracy and, most of all, its importance for the preservation
of their own identity and independence. Th e inscription of Kül-tegin
explicitly states that some people “did not cross the borders”; it also
pays attention to the danger of settling down near the border with
China and recommends establishing the center of the Turkic khaga-
nate in the sacred territory of Оtüken.^28
Th e problems of the real boundaries and the real (or symbolic)
intrusion of otherness across them were crucial issues for the Bulgars,
Khazars and Western Turks in Sogdiana. Th e Other for the Bulgars
and the Khazars was Byzantium, the Arabs—for the Khazars aft er the
(^25) Arkheologiia SSSR 1981, 53. For details see, Kyzlasov 1998, 11; Kyzlasov 2004, 5,
and the literature in n. 14.
(^26) More details in, Stepanov 2000, 144–166. For the system of the frontier fortifi ca-
tions in Early Medieval Bulgaria see, Rashev 1982.
(^27) Taskin 1975, 149–150: from the point of view of economy, the lands of the nomad
herdsmen were useless to the Chinese-agriculturalists. Also see, Maliavkin 1980, 104.
For the notions of the frontier, e.g. great sand steppe, towards the Middle Kingdom
see, Bichurin 1950, 238. Th e Turks, as all the other nomadic or semi-sedentary societ-
ies, were interested in opening markets along the border with China (see Bichurin
1950, 240). Th e Chinese, on their part, were well aware of the possible dangers that
could come with a nomadic settlement in China proper, e.g. south of the Great Wall,
and this becomes clear from the ardent dispute in the emperor’s court discussing the
possible settlement of Turks south of the Great Wall aft er the fall of the First (East)
Turkic khaganate in 630s—details see in, Bichurin 1950, 258–260.
(^28) See the inscription in, Rybatzki 1997; Kliashtornyi 1964.