240 CHAPTER 5
certain detour from our main subject, in order to highlight the role of the
Oghuz in Khazaria. Their presence could indicate the status of an area (settle-
ment) in the khaganate.
Noting that the pottery of both the Pechenegs and the Oghuz were identi-
cal during this period, S. Pletneva assumes that in Samkerts they signified the
Pecheneg population (“Pechenegs and some Uz”). In her opinion, this popu-
lation settled there during the tenth century, although coin finds also allow
for an earlier dating, namely around the second half of the ninth century.
S. Pletneva justifies her theory with the later arrival of the Pechenegs in this
area (after 889) and with the assumption that they settled (became seden-
tary) in Samkerts some time afterwards. According to S. Pletneva, at the same
time (the first half of the tenth century) this very population (“Pechenegs and
Uz”) arrived in Sarkel as well.68 It is also possible that it was not Pechenegs
or Pechenegs and Oghuz (Uz), but Oghuz only. Such a precision is necessary,
since by the end of the ninth century the Oghuz were allies of the Khazars
against the Pechenegs.69
Especially interesting are the archaeological finds made in the last few years
near the village of Samosdelka. There, this type of pottery constitutes a signifi-
cant part of the total amount of found pottery (the rest is Bulgar in origin) for the
period from the end of the ninth to the tenth century. E. Zilivinskaia assumes
that the Oghuz were the main population of the hillfort near Samosdelka dur-
ing the tenth century.70 She notes the fact that the pottery from Samosdelka is
identical to that from the late period of the Dzhetyasar culture, from the so-
called “marsh hillforts”, associated with the Oghuz state with a center on the
lower reaches of the Syr Darya (Iangikent), and is also identical to the pottery
from the area near Otrar, situated on the middle reaches of the river.71 Apart
from indicating that Khazaria’s connections with this region never ceased
(which is also supported by accounts from the ninth and tenth centuries
regarding the Al-Khazar city on the middle reaches of the river), this pottery is
also a sign of the significant presence of Oghuz in the presumed Khazar capital
(or its surroundings). We should therefore ask ourselves whether the garrison
at the khagan’s fortresses (which, undoubtedly, both Samkerts and Sarkel were)
was not made up of the Oghuz that inhabited the Khazar capital. S. Pletneva
68 Pletneva 2001, 102–106.
69 Golden 2003, no. 5, 74–77; Pritsak 1981b, no. 10, 10; Artamonov 1962, 349–350.
70 Zilivinskaia, Vasil’ev, and Grechkina 2006; Zilivinskaia 2007, 27.
71 Zilivinskaia, Vasil’ev, and Grechkina 2006, 31; on the Oghuz state and the “marsh hillforts”,
see Tolstov 1947a; Pritsak 1981b, no. 19, 279–292; Golden 2003, no. 5, 72–80; Levina 1996, 5;
Vainberg 1990, 293.