160 CHAPTER 3
imported to Europe, with Byzantium being the main exporter.47 Silk was of
interest to Rus’ trade with Byzantium48 and probably prompted the gradual
movement of the Rus’ south towards the Middle Dnieper and their subsequent
settlement in Kiev. In R. Kovalev’s opinion, the destruction of the Sarkel car-
avanserais circa the year 900 was caused by problems along the trade route
along the Severski Donets after the Pecheneg invasion. He believes that during
the tenth century, the international route along the Severski Donets was no
longer in use.49 However, assuming that there actually were any caravanserais,
only one of the two, situated in Sarkel, was destroyed. During the tenth cen-
tury, the road along the Don that connected the Azov region and the Crimea
with the Bulgaro-Alanian settlements along the Severski Donets, the Middle
and the Upper Don, as well as with the Viatichi in the north, grew in signifi-
cance within the Khazar Khaganate. The ties between this part of Khazaria
and Itil also strengthened.50
Until recently it could be argued that the change in significance of the road
along the Don and the Severski Donets was also evidenced by the development
of the Maiaki settlement (on the Severski Donets), which fell into decline at
the end of the ninth century and a century later was no longer a large eco-
nomic center of the Saltovo culture.51 However, as already stated, excavations
from the last few years reveal that it was displaced by the Sidorovo hillfort.52
A. Tortika believes that the road along the Severski Donets was not part of the
international trade routes in Eastern Europe either during the ninth century,
or during the tenth. In his opinion, there is no conclusive evidence that this
road continued west towards Kiev.53 Even if this was so, the Khazar fortresses,
located 20–30 km apart (a distance equal to a day’s march) indicate that
the main route did not continue westwards from the Severski Donets, but
eastwards along the Tikhaia Sosna River and towards the upper reaches of
the Don.54
47 Pletneva 1996, 154–156. According to Kovalev 2005b, 81–84, the Sarkel caravanserai com-
plex was the third largest among the known Middle Asian caravanserais, contemporary to
Sarkel. This shows the significance of the settlement in the system of international trade.
Flerov 2002, 155 disputes the existence of caravanserais in Sarkel.
48 Shepard and Franklin 2000, 176.
49 Kovalev 2005b, 104–105.
50 These issues concern the internal development of the Khazar Khaganate and are exam-
ined in greater detail in chapter 4.5.
51 Mikheev 1985, 23–24.
52 Kravchenko 2004, 266.
53 Tortika 2006b, 29–37; see in particular Tortika 2006a, 430–497.
54 See for instance Kovalev 2005b, 87–92; this topic is discussed in more detail in chapter 4.4.