236 CHAPTER 5
The doubts regarding Joseph’s account do not only affect topics that are
prone to various interpretations and that have not been of significant impor-
tance for “inner Khazaria” or for the territory under direct Khazar rule. A typical
example is the question of the Khazar rule in the Crimea. Quite a few schol-
ars (mainly Russian and Ukrainian ones) reject with fiery persistence the idea
that a large part of the peninsula (the coastal strip and the mountains, except
for the area around Chersonesus and the steppe zone up north) belonged to
the Khazar Khaganate not only during the tenth, but also during the ninth or
the eight centuries. Also disputed is the Khazar rule over the Taman Peninsula
(Samkerts) during the reign of Joseph.49 At the same time, two Ukrainian
archaeologists working in the Crimea, I. Baranov and V. Maiko, believe that
the Khazars’ biggest dominance in the peninsula occurred in the mid-tenth
century, and thus support the information, contained in Joseph’s letter.50 As
for Samkerts, there is every reason to believe that it was captured along with
Sarkel by Sviatoslav in 965–966;51 and once more by his son Vladimir (980–
1014) between 985 and 988.52
The lack of sufficient written records, the still inadequate level of knowledge
of the area, as well as the many issues regarding the interpretation of archaeo-
logical finds, and the large Khazar territories that have yet to be explored, all
hinder the establishment of a clear notion of what Khazaria looked like during
the tenth century, or indeed even earlier. The workings of the state indisput-
ably constituted a diverse and multi-layered mechanism, along with the meth-
ods of imposing authority and subordination. The use of ready-made models
is of no help in the recreation of the khaganate’s state structure. Known facts
about various conflicts do not prove the secession of a particular region from
Khazaria, nor do they indicate the disintegration of the khaganate. This is also
true regarding the popular theory about the destructive role of the Pecheneg
the Khazar rulers “managed the Pecheneg affairs”. On Magyar-Khazar relations, see also
Artamonov 1962, 343–347; Róna-Tas 2005; Romashov 2002–2003, 154–155.
49 See for instance Naumenko 2004b; Novosel’tsev 1990, 109–110 and 133; Romashov 2002–
2003, 143 and 2004, 256; Gertsen 2002; Makarova 2003; Tortika 2006a, 162–164, 197–198,
and 254–255. Tortika 2006a, 198 nevertheless believes that the notions regarding “the
complete ousting of the Khazars from the Crimea by the end of the ninth century are not
quite true”. He assumes that the Khazars “either kept some of the Crimean ports in the
area of the Strait of Kerch, or, which is more probable, had the opportunity to penetrate
the Crimea through the Azov Steppe or the Isthmus of Perekop.
50 Baranov 1990, 54; Maiko 1997, 114 and 2000; Baranov and Maiko 2001; also, see the views of
Aibabin 2003.
51 Pletneva 2001, 97–107 and 2003, 172.
52 Gadlo 1990, 22–23; Gumilev 1997, 271.