loony loony 19 56 2002-04-14T17:31:00Z 2002-10-09T04:29:00Z 2 540 3078 Home sweet Home 25 6 3780 9.3821

Back

In Russian

Besenyos, Ogur and Oguz

Bulgar Archeology

Saltovo-Mayak

Alan Dateline
Bulgar Dateline

Huns Dateline

Kipchak Dateline
Sabir Dateline

Russian version needs a translation

Mayak Citadel

Links

http://members.tripod.com/~Groznijat/p_bulgar/p_bulg8.htm

Summary

Mayak citadel

Mayak citadel is situated at the northern edge of the steppe, near the forest-steppe belt. 

Fig. 1 Map of Bulgarian fortresses in Eastern Europe and on Lower Danube, built of ashlar blocks and with inscriptions
1. Humarin 2. Cimlyansk Citadel (Right-bank) 3. Mayak Citadel  4. Sarkel  5. Pliska
6. Madara 7. Preslav  8. Han Krum 9. Silistra 10. Pyjkul luj Soare 11. Slon 12. Devnja

Map of the Proto-Bulgarian fortresses in Eastern Europe and on the Lower Danube

The citadel ruins occupy a 80 m high hill, the promontory on the lower inundated terrace of the river Tikhaja Sosna, at its confluence with Don. The relative accessibility of the place required substantial additional work on the fortifications, the neck of the promontory was cut off by a ditch 6 m deep and 12-13 m wide. The rectangular fortress (100 m by 85 m) was built of regular ashlar blocks with dimensions 0.6 x 0.3 x 0.3 m, the same as in the right-bank "Cimlyansk" citadel. The walls had no foundations, they were laid directly on the leveled ground. The blocks formed two walls, the inner space being filled with ir regular blocks and pebble. The total thickness of the walls was 6 m, in places up to 7 m, with the height 6.0-6.5 m. The entrance was in the NW wall, guarded by a massive rectangular tower. An inner  rectangular fortification 42 m x 27 m, contiguous to the SW wall, served as a residence for the local ruler.

Fig. 2 Scheme of the Mayak citadel.

To the east of the ruins is a large catacomb necropolis. The characteristics of the burials (few artifacts, the predominance of single burials, some differences in the structure of the dromos, etc.) link them with the Bulgarian pit burials and, especially, with the Chiryurt catacombs. Another peculiarity are the numerous signs and graffiti chiseled or scratched on the limestone quadras of the fortification. Besides the drawings of horses, donkeys, deer and other animals; scenes of a fight between a horseman and a footman, etc., there are many symbolic signs - swastikas, pentagrams, crosses, etc. as well as Türkic inscriptions. The drawings, the signs and the Türkic inscriptions are absolutely similar to those from the danube Bulgaria and to the Nagy Saint Miklos treasure.

Fig. 3 Mayak citadel. Part of the inner side of the wall with the typical ashlar blocks.

Right-bank "Cimlyansk" citadel

The right-bank "Cimlyansk" citadel is some 250 km north-east of the mouth of Don. The fortress occupies a triangular promontory with steep slopes and connected by a very narrow isthmus to the main plateau.

Fig. 3 Scheme of the right-bank  "Cimlyansk" citadel
(accorfding to Pletnyova)

The 4 m thick stone wall consist of an inner and outer facings, built of regular white ashlar blocks (dimensions 0.6 x 0.3 x 0.3 m), the space in between was filled with smaller stones and pebble. One row of ashlars was laid crossthwise, the next row - lengthwise, etc. The hight of the walls was 4 metres, and there were 5 towers, two of them guarding the isthmus, and other two above the river Don. The inner space was inhabited, the dwellings were light yurts or semi dug-outs. One yurt stands out with its dimensions, 6.5x5 m. It has three rooms, interpreted by Pletnyova as a male and female part and a linking central room, and most probably it belonged to the local feudal, the ruler of the fortress.

A suitable building material is not found locally, the nearest quarries which could provide the necessary building material are some 100 km higher along Don. The white fortresses high on the steep hill must have been an impressive sight.

The excavations yielded abundant iron agricultural tools - sickles of different types, light and heavy ploughshares, scythes, etc. Very interesting are and iron vine sickles. This find in a fortress which is in the center of one of the most important vine-growing regions in N. Pontic tells about the early origin of the vine-growing in this region. The pottery is representative for the Saltovo-Mayak culture, characteristical are the numerous cauldrons with inner lugs.

The fortress was built during the final quarter of the 8th c. The end of the right-bank "Cimlyansk" citadel is dated by the find of some 50 Sassanid and Arab coins from the first quarter of the 9th c. After the destruction of the right-bank "Cimlyansk" citadel the Khazars built another fortress, Sarkel, which became their stronghold in the region.

The right-bank "Cimlyansk" citadel was re-populated after the debacle, but the fortress lost its military importance and was transformed into a casual fishermen village. It was taken and destroyed again by the Besenyos in the end of the 9th or in the beginning of the 10th c.

Sarkel

The Bulgarian presence was also attested in Sarkel, the principal Khazar stronghold in the area. Sarkel, now under the waters of the Cimlyanskiy reservoir, was built some 15 km east of the right-bank "Cimlyansk" citadel. The excavations revealed that the Bulgars were main inhabitants of Sarkel during the Khazar period, the drawings, signs and the inscriptions in Mayak and Sarkel are very close, they also have counterparts in the quadras and bricks with the first Bulgarian capital of Pliska. As in Danube Bulgaria, many if the signs were scratched on the walls and handles of the pottery, especially amphorae. The very name of Sarkel ("White house, White fortress") does not fit to its red wall, built of bricks. Artamonov is very convincing in saying that Sarkel, built after the destruction of the white right-bank "Cimlyansk" citadel, which was probably called Sarkel, on the other bank of the river, took the name of the predecessor.

The numerous runes and symbolic signs on the bricks of Sarkel are very important having in mind the scarcity of such material in the right-bank "Cimlyansk" citadel. The latter was virtually destroyed in 1744, when its quadras were re-used by the Russian military.

References

S.A. Pletnyova, Ot kochevij k gorodam ..., p. 39. The Bulgar character of the inhabitants of the fortress is confirmed by the anthropological material from the burned dwellings, it belonged to brachycranic Europoids with slight Mongoloid features - the characteristic features of the Zlivka Buglars.
 M.I. Artamonov, Istorija khazar, s. 313-316;  
V.V. Ginsburg. Antropologicheskij sostav naselenija Sarkela - Beloj vezhi i ego proizhozhdenie. MIA, 109, 1963, p. 260 sl.

Back

In Russian

Besenyos, Ogur and Oguz

Bulgar Archeology

Saltovo-Mayak
Alan Dateline
Bulgar Dateline
Huns Dateline
Kipchak Dateline
Sabir Dateline