From ‘steppe empires’/‘super-complex chiefdoms’ To ‘early states’: The case of Danube Bulgaria and Khazaria (religious aspects)
Автор сравнивает два раннесредневековые государства, Хазарию и Дунайскую Болгарию, в период VIII – начала X вв., сквозь призму государственной модели и религии. В рамках IX в. Болгария, видимо, догнала и даже опередила Хазарию в отношении государственной модели. В основе этого развития стояло не тол...
Gespeichert in:
| Datum: | 2020 |
|---|---|
| 1. Verfasser: | |
| Format: | Artikel |
| Sprache: | English |
| Veröffentlicht: |
Інститут сходознавства ім. А. Ю. Кримського НАН України
2020
|
| Schriftenreihe: | Хазарский альманах |
| Schlagworte: | |
| Online Zugang: | https://nasplib.isofts.kiev.ua/handle/123456789/172381 |
| Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
| Назва журналу: | Digital Library of Periodicals of National Academy of Sciences of Ukraine |
| Zitieren: | From ‘steppe empires’/‘super-complex chiefdoms’ To ‘early states’: The case of Danube Bulgaria and Khazaria (religious aspects) / Ts. Stepanov // Хазарский альманах. — 2020. — Т. 17. — С. 284-296. — Бібліогр.: 69 назв. — англ. |
Institution
Digital Library of Periodicals of National Academy of Sciences of Ukraine| id |
nasplib_isofts_kiev_ua-123456789-172381 |
|---|---|
| record_format |
dspace |
| spelling |
nasplib_isofts_kiev_ua-123456789-1723812025-02-09T17:34:15Z From ‘steppe empires’/‘super-complex chiefdoms’ To ‘early states’: The case of Danube Bulgaria and Khazaria (religious aspects) От степных империй к сверхсложным вождествам и ранним государствам: Дунайская Болгария и хартия (религиозный аспект) Stepanov, Ts. Статьи и публикации Автор сравнивает два раннесредневековые государства, Хазарию и Дунайскую Болгарию, в период VIII – начала X вв., сквозь призму государственной модели и религии. В рамках IX в. Болгария, видимо, догнала и даже опередила Хазарию в отношении государственной модели. В основе этого развития стояло не только противостояние с двумя могущественнейшими христианскими государствами того времени – Византией и империей франков, но и принятие христианства болгарами. Оно позволило завершить процесс централизации Болгарии, уже начавшийся в первой половине IX в., и достичь – в сравнении с Хазарией – большей гомогенизации болгарской народности и, в результате, новой христианской имперской, или скорее – царской, модели государственности. This text was presented as a paper at the Eighth International Conference on Medieval History of the Eurasian Steppe entitled ‘Nomads and Their Neighbors in the Middle Ages’, Sofi a, 20–23 November, 2019. 2020 Article From ‘steppe empires’/‘super-complex chiefdoms’ To ‘early states’: The case of Danube Bulgaria and Khazaria (religious aspects) / Ts. Stepanov // Хазарский альманах. — 2020. — Т. 17. — С. 284-296. — Бібліогр.: 69 назв. — англ. XXXX-0128 https://nasplib.isofts.kiev.ua/handle/123456789/172381 en Хазарский альманах application/pdf Інститут сходознавства ім. А. Ю. Кримського НАН України |
| institution |
Digital Library of Periodicals of National Academy of Sciences of Ukraine |
| collection |
DSpace DC |
| language |
English |
| topic |
Статьи и публикации Статьи и публикации |
| spellingShingle |
Статьи и публикации Статьи и публикации Stepanov, Ts. From ‘steppe empires’/‘super-complex chiefdoms’ To ‘early states’: The case of Danube Bulgaria and Khazaria (religious aspects) Хазарский альманах |
| description |
Автор сравнивает два раннесредневековые государства, Хазарию и Дунайскую Болгарию, в период VIII – начала X вв., сквозь призму государственной модели и религии. В рамках IX в. Болгария, видимо, догнала и даже опередила Хазарию в отношении государственной модели. В основе этого развития стояло не только противостояние с двумя могущественнейшими христианскими государствами того времени – Византией и империей франков, но и принятие христианства болгарами. Оно позволило завершить процесс централизации Болгарии, уже начавшийся в первой половине IX в., и достичь – в сравнении с Хазарией – большей гомогенизации болгарской народности и, в результате, новой христианской имперской, или скорее – царской, модели государственности. |
| format |
Article |
| author |
Stepanov, Ts. |
| author_facet |
Stepanov, Ts. |
| author_sort |
Stepanov, Ts. |
| title |
From ‘steppe empires’/‘super-complex chiefdoms’ To ‘early states’: The case of Danube Bulgaria and Khazaria (religious aspects) |
| title_short |
From ‘steppe empires’/‘super-complex chiefdoms’ To ‘early states’: The case of Danube Bulgaria and Khazaria (religious aspects) |
| title_full |
From ‘steppe empires’/‘super-complex chiefdoms’ To ‘early states’: The case of Danube Bulgaria and Khazaria (religious aspects) |
| title_fullStr |
From ‘steppe empires’/‘super-complex chiefdoms’ To ‘early states’: The case of Danube Bulgaria and Khazaria (religious aspects) |
| title_full_unstemmed |
From ‘steppe empires’/‘super-complex chiefdoms’ To ‘early states’: The case of Danube Bulgaria and Khazaria (religious aspects) |
| title_sort |
from ‘steppe empires’/‘super-complex chiefdoms’ to ‘early states’: the case of danube bulgaria and khazaria (religious aspects) |
| publisher |
Інститут сходознавства ім. А. Ю. Кримського НАН України |
| publishDate |
2020 |
| topic_facet |
Статьи и публикации |
| url |
https://nasplib.isofts.kiev.ua/handle/123456789/172381 |
| citation_txt |
From ‘steppe empires’/‘super-complex chiefdoms’ To ‘early states’: The case of Danube Bulgaria and Khazaria (religious aspects) / Ts. Stepanov // Хазарский альманах. — 2020. — Т. 17. — С. 284-296. — Бібліогр.: 69 назв. — англ. |
| series |
Хазарский альманах |
| work_keys_str_mv |
AT stepanovts fromsteppeempiressupercomplexchiefdomstoearlystatesthecaseofdanubebulgariaandkhazariareligiousaspects AT stepanovts otstepnyhimperijksverhsložnymvoždestvamirannimgosudarstvamdunajskaâbolgariâihartiâreligioznyjaspekt |
| first_indexed |
2025-11-28T18:50:06Z |
| last_indexed |
2025-11-28T18:50:06Z |
| _version_ |
1850061162992893952 |
| fulltext |
Ts. Stepanov
FROM ‘STEPPE EMPIRES’/‘SUPER-COMPLEX
CHIEFDOMS’ TO ‘EARLY STATES’: THE CASE
OF DANUBE BULGARIA AND KHAZARIA
(RELIGIOUS ASPECTS)1
Within the scope of a conference paper, it would prove diffi cult to
outline every aspect of the correlation between the type of state and the
religion/religions professed in it, which is why here I shall mainly attempt
to outline a general framework for this correlation. My study is based
on data concerning two early medieval states, Khazaria and Danube
Bulgaria. The analysis will be mostly limited to sources from the 8th–
9th centuries. These two states have been chosen quite deliberately, since
their typology of origin is similar in many details, as well as the time – the
fi rst half and, respectively, the middle of the 7th century, and the place
of their emergence – the region north of the Caucasus and surrounding
the Caspian Sea, the Black Sea and the Sea of Azov, and, fi nally, due to
the fact that both states adopted one of the three monotheistic religions
as a ‘state’ religion. Of course, for those interested in a more general
and comparative perspective on the issue of the connection between
the adoption of one of the world religions with the process of state
development in steppe Eurasia, I would like to recommend the well-known
1 This text was presented as a paper at the Eighth International Conference on Medi-
eval History of the Eurasian Steppe entitled ‘Nomads and Their Neighbors in the Middle
Ages’, Sofi a, 20–23 November, 2019.
285Ts. Stepanov
article of Anatolii Khazanov, published in 1994 and entitled ‘The spread
of world religions in Medieval nomadic societies of the Eurasian steppes’
[Khazanov, 1994, p. 11–33; also see: Stepanov, 2010, p. 64–84, 119–125;
Petrukhin, 2016, p. 285–291].
This is the moment to say a few words as to when a given political
formation can be viewed as a ‘state’, and here I shall be using defi nitions
and criteria proposed by the “scientifi c qagan” of steppe Eurasian stud-
ies, Prof. Peter Golden. In his opinion, and on a basic level, in order to
speak of a ‘state’ we should have, fi rstly, a defi ned territory, usually with
a metropolis; secondly, a centralized, supreme leadership (ruling house
or clan) supported by an ideology (often combined with a religious sys-
tem) justifying its rule; thirdly, centralized administrative offi ces (and offi -
cers) to carry out the management of the polity; fourth, these offi cers to
have the monopoly over the means of force (to prevent fragmentation, for
instance), and fi fth, a system of taxation, including tribute, to support the
polity. To this may be added some kind of institutional memory plus some form
of writing. In his words, the typical nomads used different types of farm-
ing based on the varying environmental conditions and, consequently,
did not create the same forms of political organizations; in addition, they
rarely achieved and met all of the above criteria (for more details, see:
[Golden, 2018, p. 317–332]).
It has long been known that while Christianity became the choice of
the Danube Bulgarians, the Khazar elite embraced Judaism. At the same
time, it should be noted that there is an important difference between
the two cases with regard to the above-mentioned religions: the fact that
in Khazaria, from the very beginning, e.g. some time between, rough-
ly, ca. 740 and ca. 861 [Golden, 2007, p. 56] Judaism became the reli-
gion mainly of the state‘s elite and their immediate circle, while the rest
of the population remained true to either their pagan (traditional) faith or
to one of the other two monotheistic religions, Islam or Christianity. In my
view, this fact will play a signifi cant role in relation to the further fate of
both state formations. I presume that one of the main reasons for the fi -
nal disappearance of Khazaria, in general between 965 and 969, as a re-
sult of the strikes of Kievan Rus‘ against the Khazars, would be due to the
lack of homogeneity in Khazar society, which, in turn, came as a conse-
quence of the lack of a single and exclusive religion in the khaganate. It
is important to be noted, however, that “missionary activities were forbid-
den by Judaism” and, therefore, “the converted ruler [of Khazaria] did not
need to convert all his subjects as was the case in Christian and Muslim
286 «Хазарский альманах». Том 17. Москва 2020
traditions” [Petrukhin, 2016, p. 289; also see: Khazanov, 1994, p. 18]. This
fact is crucial for one who wants to better understand the difference be-
tween Danube Bulgaria after its Christianization and the Khazar lands af-
ter the adoption of Judaism there.
At the same time, what do we see in Danube Bulgaria? By adopting a
single religion that was obligatory for all subjects of the state, the Danube
Bulgars succeeded in creating a far more homogeneous society after the
second half of the 9th century (post 860s), thus upholding themselves as
a people and their state idea even two centuries after Danube Bulgaria
came under the rule of the Byzantine basilei in 1018. Let us focus on the
following: the conquest of the Khazars by Sviatoslav of Kiev was accom-
plished quite quickly, from the middle to the end of the 960s. It was in that
same time, when the attacks of this same Russ’ian prince against the
Danube Bulgarians also led to a serious disturbance in the state life of
the Bulgarian tsardom. But the conquest of the eastern part of the tsar-
dom in 971, i.e. almost simultaneously with Khazaria‘s demise under the
attacks of Kievan Rus’, although begun by Sviatoslav from 968 onwards,
was not carried out by them, but by the most powerful Empire in Europe
and the Eastern Mediterranean of the time, Byzantium. The Byzantines,
however, were forced to wage relentless wars with the western part of
the Bulgarian tsardom for more than thirty years, before fi nally placing it
under their full control in 1018. It seems, then, that since Byzantium, the
most powerful state of the time, needed so many years and several mili-
tary campaigns and operations in the lands of the Bulgarians in order to
completely conquer them, this endurance of the Bulgarian resistance must
be due not only to the martial qualities of the Bulgarians themselves, but
also to reasons of a structural and mental nature. First of all, we should
mention the Christian faith and the gradual imposition of a greater homo-
geneity in Bulgarian society, but at the same time also the introduction of a
somewhat different cultural and political model, that of the Christian ‘tsar-
dom’. During the 10th century, the Bulgarians incorporated in this model
the new Christian (in essence, Byzantine) political doctrines, while retain-
ing some features from their own pagan past, which I might describe as
‘steppe imperial’. A few years ago, I expressed the opinion that this ‘double
legitimization’ was a key feature of the early medieval society in Bulgaria
during the post-Christianization period and, in general, until the 11th cen-
tury [Степанов, 2007, с. 197].
Did such or a similar ‘double legitimization’ exist in Khazaria after the
adoption of Judaism? And if so, why did it not provide the society with
287Ts. Stepanov
suffi cient stability and homogeneity? A number of scholars have already
commented on the doubling between Judaism and the Turkic (and steppe)
principle in Khazaria (see: [Zhivkov, 2015, p. 17–126] with the literature cited
there), so here, again, we have a synthesis between a monotheistic religion
with the so-called nomadic (Turkic) statehood. The latter has recently been
marked with the term ‘super complex chiefdom’ (to cite Nikolai Kradin, for
instance) [Kradin, 2003, p. 73–87; Kradin, 2009, p. 25–51; Крадин, 2016,
c. 91–115; also see: Тортика, 2006, с. 141, 503–504], while some authors
still prefer the older defi nition, ‘steppe empire’ or ‘khaganate/qaganate’
[Grousset, 1939; Golden, 2001, p. 39–45; Степанов, 2005; Тортика,
2006, c. 134–145; Stepanov, 2010]. Boris Rashkovskii, for instance, claims
that after the Judaization, the Khazar ruling elite retained their traditional
Turkic ethnic identity, the latter being clearly visible in the letter written by
the khagan-bek Joseph to Hasdai ben/ibn Shaprut of Cordoba. Rashkovskii
concludes that this correspondence is an example of a ‘double ethno-con-
fessional identity’ [Рашковский, 2014, c. 252–271, at 268]. Against this
background, it should be said that the Danube Bulgarians had an even more diffi -
cult fate than the Khazar elite did, after they adopted Christianity after 864, and
then a bit later (after 893) also the Slavic alphabet. As a result, the Bulgarian
elite did not only have to unite the Bulgarian ‘principles’ with Christianity,
like the Khazars did with the Turkic ‘principles’ and Judaism, but also to
add the Slavic ‘principle’ to the Bulgarian one, in its sense of a sacred
language for all the subjects of Danube Bulgaria from the 890s onwards.
Nevertheless, after their Christianization, the Danube Bulgarians managed
to create a more homogenous state than Khazaria!
And so, both political formations had the same starting point, the
steppe empire. For Khazaria it was legitimate, since most probably a rep-
resentative of the Ashina clan fl ed to Khazaria after the collapse of the
Western Turkic Khaganate, thus enabling the Khazars to prolong the ex-
istence of the First Turkic Khaganate (see: [Артамонов, 1962, c. 170–
171; Гадло, 1979, c. 136; Голден, 1993, c. 211–233, at 219; Golden, 1990,
p. 263; Семёнов, 2010, c. 5–14, at 7; Семёнов, 2018, c. 289–301, at 293;
cf. Новосельцев, 1990, c. 89, 134; Цукерман, 2002, c. 521–534]. At the
same time, the state formation of Kubrat could not be called a ‘khaga-
nate’, if the information preserved in the sources is to be strictly adhered
to, although in reality it was just that (details see, in: [Степанов, 2016,
с. 193–212]). As the Bulgars set foot on the Balkan Peninsula, howev-
er, the descendants of the Kubrat Bulgars led by Asparukh (d. 701), oc-
cupied lands of the Christian Roman Empire/Byzantium and so for them
288 «Хазарский альманах». Том 17. Москва 2020
the fi rm ‘response’ to the Roman/Byzantine basic postulates was more
than obligatory, at least during the fi rst century of Danube Bulgaria’s exis-
tence (more see in: [Божилов, 1995, c. 11–72, esp. 17, 44–49; Божилов,
2017, c. 38, 376–379, 397–399, 414; Степанов, 1999, passim; Stepanov,
1998, p. 247–254]. In terms of typology, both Bulgaria and Khazaria had
to overcome similar obstacles in their path of development, both resist-
ing very strong opponents in the south during the 7th–9th centuries. The
Danube Bulgars, as has already been said, faced off against the Christian
Byzantines, while the Khazars stood against the Muslim Arabs, respec-
tively. In this ‘challenge-and-response’ situation, both political formations
reached, in my opinion, a stage of ‘early statehood’ already before the
end of the 8th century. The Khazars, however, were quite typical follow-
ers of the ‘steppe empire’, since formally their domains were located in
the steppe of Western Eurasia to a far greater degree than those of the
Bulgars, and, besides, they ruled over ethnic groups that were far more
diverse in origins and levels of (economic) development in comparison
with the Danube Bulgars.
It was Tatiana Kalinina who has recently once again raised the ques-
tion of whether Khazaria could be called a ‘steppe empire’, after having
existed for so many years. For her, the written sources do not offer a clear
answer [Калинина, 2015, c. 134]. She cites Nikolai Kradin and his vision
of Khazaria as a “quasi-imperial state-like structure”. Kradin names the six
most signifi cant signs of this type of statehood, namely: 1) the dominance
of clan ties; 2) the existence of offi cials dependent on redistribution; 3) the
lack of a legalized governance system in written form, which is also con-
fi rmed by Al-Masoudi and Ibn Hawqal (cf. the issue of the various judg-
es in Khazaria); 4) the lack of an institutionalized judicial sphere, i.e. there
are no special judicial authorities; 5) the absence of a well-defi ned model
in the redistribution and tax collection from subjects; and 6) very poor de-
velopment of the state apparatus: the availability of data only regarding a
khagan, shad/beq and some titles of offi cials and civil servants (e.g., tu-
dun) [Крадин, 2007, c. 81]. On this basis, the conclusion of T. Kalinina is
as follows: Khazaria was a “poorly developed state with a mixed nomadic
and sedentary population that declined because of the underdevelopment
of state structures” [Калинина, 2015, c. 134].
On the contrary, István Vásáry claims that Khazaria was marked by
some very important characteristics of statehood, namely a well devel-
oped tax system and а state hierarchy. Moreover, he adds, the khaganate
was “the most developed state in Eastern Europe” in the 8th–9th centuries
289Ts. Stepanov
[Вашари, 2017, с. 211]. While he is right claiming that Khazaria was the
most powerful and developed state in Eastern Europe in the 8th centu-
ry, Vásáry missed the fact that Danube Bulgaria not only managed to
catch up with the Khazars in the fi rst half of the 9th century, but even to
surpass Khazaria in the second part of that same century [Степанов,
Forthcoming; also see Флёров, 2011, c. 220, 222–223].
I believe, nevertheless, that linking the decline and subjugation of
Khazaria solely to the underdevelopment of the state structures is not suf-
fi cient to explain the above processes, if we fail to explicitly include as an
additional factor the lack of homogeneity due to the presence of too many
religions in the Khazar khaganate.
With the exception of the much stronger control over long-distance
trade among the Khazars (details see in: [Noonan, 1985, p. 243–258;
Noonan, 2007, p. 207–244; Kovalev, 2004, p. 97–129; Zhivkov, 2015,
p. 147–170]), both of the here compared state formations demonstrate
a similar level of economic development during the 8th–9th centuries,
traceable mostly thanks to archaeological finds. This development,
of course, could not be described as ‘feudalism’ and remains to be
adequately typologized (on feudalism in Khazaria see: [Плетнёва, 1982,
с. 10, 103, 106]; contra: [Тортика, 2006, c. 33, 504; Калинина, 2015,
c. 129]; also see: [Флёров, 1993, c. 119–133; Флёров, 2010, c. 113–136,
esp. 125 ff.; Noonan, 1995–1997, p. 253–318]). Especially for Bulgaria,
on that same problem, see: [Даскалов, 2018, c. 294–330], and also:
[Степанов, 2002, c. 23–38].
It seems to me that the greater dynamics in the process of the cre-
ation and development of the state and its structures can be seen among
the Danube Bulgars, which is probably yet another reason for the latter
to be able to build a state more stable than the Khazar one. I shall permit
myself to propose the following model for the description of this dynam-
ics in the political process in Danube Bulgaria from the late 8th to the ear-
ly 10th century (more details see in: [Степанов, Forthcoming]). And so, at
the end of the 8th century, there are still a number of features present that
are typical for the ‘steppe empire’ stage. By the fi rst few decades of the
9th century, however, a movement towards the establishment of the typi-
cal ‘early state’ can be observed; this stage will last until the 860s. The in-
creased centralization of Bulgaria during the rule of Krum (802–814) and
Omurtag (814–831) [Николов, 2005, с. 88–98, with the literature cited
there], and especially after the Christianization gave a new impetus to the
development of a more modern statehood in comparison with the Khazar
290 «Хазарский альманах». Том 17. Москва 2020
one. The Bulgar Omurtag imitated the Byzantine basilei following some
Byzantine rituals, titles, fashions, etc. [Бешевлиев, 1992, с. 82–84, 87–
88; Stepanov, 2001, p. 1–19; Curta, 2006, p. 162–163; Sophoulis, 2012,
р. 291, 303–305; Sophoulis, 2015, p. 63–74], which, in the words of Panos
Sophoulis [Sophoulis, 2015, p. 63–74], was aimed at facilitating the incor-
poration of the conquered Christian population into the Bulgar khanate. For
Sophoulis, however, the question as to the identifi cation of the Christians
with the khanate after 814 is still problematic and thus, he says, it is “hard
to determine” whether all these Omurtag’s measures were indeed success-
ful [Sophoulis, 2015, p. 69].
Also, to the pressure from Byzantium, which contributed to the in-
creased centralization and ‘modernization’ of the Danube Bulgars in the
fi rst half of the 9th century, we should also add the ‘pressure’-and-chal-
lenge provided by the Franks after 820s (details see in: [Gjuselev, 1966,
S. 15–39; Ronin, 1985, р. 39–57; Данчева-Василева, 1999, с. 70–
71; Божилов, 2017, c. 316–320. Especially on the ‘modernization’, see:
[Степанов, 2000, c. 212; Stepanov, 2005, р. 263–279, and cf. Curta,
2006, p. 157–159]. Khazaria clearly did not endure such strong pres-
sure during the 9th century, either from the Arabs, from Byzantium, or
Khwarezm (although there is evidence of Christians and Muslims among
the Khazars, as well as of missionary work carried out in the Khazar
lands by representatives of these two monotheistic religions) (details see
in: [Dunlop, 1954 (2nd ed., 1967); Golden, 1992, р. 241–243; Стефанов,
2003, с. 173–196; Петрухин, 2019, c. 213–231]! Following the 870s,
Danube Bulgaria began to advance towards the type of state known as
‘barbarous state’, i.e. like the Western European states after the col-
lapse of the Roman Empire, which saw the synthesis of the Roman-and-
Christian principles with Germanic ones. Later, during the reign of the
Bulgarian Tsar Simeon (893–927), after the fi rst decade of the 10th cen-
tury, the Bulgarians progressed towards a new cultural and political
model, the so-called Christian ‘tsardom’s model. However, it still bore
certain features of the ‘steppe heritage’, which is evident in the state ad-
ministration and especially in the title practice (more see in: [Бакалов,
1985; Степанов, 1999; Степанов, 2007, 197–204; Атанасов, 1999;
Гюзелев, 2007; Жеков, 2007; Славова, 2010]). This fi nding, in turn,
goes hand in hand with the above conclusion, namely the existence of
an exclusive religion among the Bulgarians after the third quarter of the
9th century, which allowed for an even greater homogenization of the
society in Danube Bulgaria. It is thus clear from the proposed model of
291Ts. Stepanov
Danube Bulgaria’s development that I do not share the opinion of the
late Bulgarian professor Ivan Bozhilov, who maintained in a number of
his books and articles from the past three decades that the Bulgar state-
hood prior to the Christianization could be described with the term ‘bar-
barous’ state (for instance see: [Божилов, 1992, c. 3–34; Божилов,
1995, c. 11–76; Божилов, 2017, c. 37, 412–414]). The careful handling
of facts makes it possible to outline quite clearly and far more precise-
ly the stages in the dynamic development of the political state model of
Bulgaria from the late 7th to the early 10th century. In this regard, I com-
pletely agree with Peter Golden, that “statehood is usually a process that
evolves over time. It can be interrupted. It can be accelerated” [Golden,
2018, р. 317–332].
At the same time, Khazaria, from the very beginning of its existence
as a state in the mid-7th century and until its demise, and regardless of
the gradual adoption of Judaism there during the 8th–9th centuries (on this
very controversial problem see: [Pritsak, 1981, № XI; Zuckerman, 1995,
p. 238–270; Shepard, 1998, p. 11–34; Kovalev, 2005, p. 220–253; Golden,
2007, p. 123–162; Бубенок, 2016, с. 65–81]), shall remain fi rst of all a kha-
ganate, i.e. will bear the distinctive features of the ‘steppe’ statehood and
thus shall not achieve the homogenization of its subjects within a single
‘national’ body.
To conclude, let me point to two statements, the fi rst one by Valerii
Flerov, namely that Danube Bulgaria was created “in line with European
and not Asian history” [Флёров, 2010, c. 124], and the second one – by
Peter Golden, who claims that other states of nomad origin like those of the
Bulgars (on the Balkans and along the Volga River) were a result of con-
quest; at the same time they were “formed beyond the western steppes”
[Golden, 2018, p. 317]. So, it seems that both these claims are quite in
place when comparing the historical path of Bulgaria with Khazaria and,
in particular, when we search for correlation between the type of state and
its religion as signifi cant factors in the dynamic development of these two,
and in general also other, political formations of the Early Middle Ages.
292 «Хазарский альманах». Том 17. Москва 2020
Литература
Артамонов М. И. История хазар. Л., 1962.
Атанасов Г. Инсигниите на средновековните български владетели. Корони,
скиптри, сфери, оръжия, костюми, накити. Плевен, 1999.
Бакалов Г. Средновековният български владетел (Титулатура и инсигнии).
София, 1985.
Бешевлиев В. Първобългарски надписи. Второ преработено и допълнено
издание. София, 1992.
Божилов Ив. Раждането на средновековна България (нова интерпретация) //
Исторически преглед, 1992, № 1–2, 3–4.
Божилов Ив. Седем етюда по средновековна история. София, 1995.
Божилов Ив. История на средновековна България. Т. 1: Варварска България.
София, 2017.
Бубенок О. Б. Так когда же хазары приняли иудаизм? // Хазарский альманах.
Т. 14. М., 2016.
Вашари И. История на стара Вътрешна Азия. Превод от унгарски Цв. Лакова.
София, 2017.
Гадло А. В. Этническая история Северного Кавказа IV–X вв. Л., 1979.
Голден П. Государство и государственность у хазар: власть хазарских кага-
нов // Феномен восточного деспотизма: Структура управления и власти.
М., 1993.
Гюзелев В. Кавханите и ичиргубоилите на българското ханство-царство
(VII–XI в.). Пловдив, 2007.
Данчева-Василева А. Западноевропейската политика на средновековна
България през IX–XI в. // Старини, I, 1999.
Даскалов Р. Големите разкази за Българското средновековие. Б. м.: Рива, 2018.
Жеков Ж. България и Византия. Военна администрация VII–IX в. София, 2007.
Калинина Т. М. Проблемы истории Хазарии (по данным восточных источ-
ников). М., 2015.
Крадин Н. Кочевники Евразии. Алматы, 2007.
Крадин Н. Политическая антропология о происхождении государства //
Древнейшие государства Восточной Европы 2014. Москва, 2016.
Николов Г. Н. Централизъм и регионализъм в ранносредновековна България.
София, 2005.
Новосельцев А. П. Хазарское государство и его роль в истории Восточной
Европы и Кавказа. М., 1990.
Петрухин В. Я. Русь христианская и языческая. Историко-археологические
очерки. Санкт-Петербург, 2019.
293Ts. Stepanov
Плетнёва С. А. Кочевники Средневековья. Поиски исторических законо-
мерностей. М., 1982.
Рашковский Б. Хазары и иудаизм в библейских комментариях Йефета бен
Эли. Новый средневековый еврейский источник по истории Восточной
Европы // Judaica Ukrainica. В. III. Киев, 2014.
Семёнов И. Г. О происхождении династии хазарских каганов и времени об-
разования Хазарского каганата // Восток / Oriens. 2010. № 5.
Семёнов И. Г. К языковой принадлежности гуннов Восточного Кавказа //
Archivum Eurasiae Medii Aevi. Bd. XXIV. Wiesbaden, 2018.
Славова Т. Владетел и администрация в ранносредновековна България.
Филологически аспекти. София, 2010.
Степанов Цв. Власт и авторитет в ранносредновековна България (VII – ср. IX в.).
София, 1999.
Степанов Цв. Средновековните българи. Нови факти, интерпретации, хи-
потези. София, 2000.
Степанов Цв. Цивилизационно равнище на българите до Х век: другите
за нас и ние за себе си // История на българите: изкривявания и фал-
шификации. Т. 1. София, 2002.
Степанов Цв. Българите и Степната империя през Ранното средновеко-
вие: Проблемът за Другите. София, 2005.
Степанов Цв. Защо българите «изискват своето» и «не дават чуждото»
или за дългия път от «степната империя» до християнското царство //
Проблеми на прабългарската история и култура. Т. 4. Част 2. (Доклади
от Петата Международната среща «Прабългарите и техните съседи
през V–Х в.». Варна, април 2004). София, 2007.
Степанов Цв. Болгарские государственные образования IV–IX вв.: От вож-
дества к раннему государству // Древнейшие государства Восточной
Европы 2014. Отв. ред. Т. Н. Джаксон. М., 2016.
Степанов Цв. Българската държавност през IV – средата на IX век:
проблеми на типологията // Плиска – Преслав: В чест на 70-го-
дишнината на доц. Павел Георгиев / Ред. Ив. Йорданов и др.
(Forthcoming).
Стефанов П. (архимандрит). Религиите на хазарите // Българи и хазари
през Ранното средновековие / Ред. Цв. Степанов. София, 2003.
Тортика А. А. Северо-западная Хазария в контексте истории Восточной
Европы. Харьков, 2006.
Флёров В. С. О социальном строе в Хазарском каганате (на материалах
Маяцкого могильника) // Социальная дифференциация общества (по-
иски археологических критериев). М., 1993.
294 «Хазарский альманах». Том 17. Москва 2020
Флёров В. С. «Города», «замки», «феодализм» в Хазарском каганате.
Проблемы исследований // Хазары: Миф и история / Ред. А. К. Алик-
беров и др. Москва–Иерусалим, 2010.
Флёров В. С. «Города» и «замки» Хазарского каганата. Археологическая
реальность. Москва–Иерусалим, 2011.
Цукерман К. О происхождении двоевластия у хазар и обстоятельства их
обращения в иудаизм // Материалы по археологии, истории и этногра-
фии Таврии. Вып. IX. Симферополь, 2002.
Curta F. Southeastern Europe in the Middle Ages 500–1250. Cambridge, 2006.
Dunlop D. The History of the Jewish Khazars. Princeton, N. J., 1954 (2nd ed., 1967).
Gjuselev V. Bulgarisch-fränkische Beziehungen in der ersten Hälfte des IX. Jhs. //
Byzantinobulgarica, II, Sofi a, 1966.
Golden P. Khazar Studies. An Historico-Philological Inquiry into the Origins of the
Khazars. Vol. 1. Budapest, 1980.
Golden P. The Khazars // The Cambridge History of Early Inner Asia / Ed.
D. Sinor. Cambridge, 1990.
Golden P. An Introduction to the History of the Turkic Peoples. Ethnogenesis and
State-Formation in Medieval and Early Modern Eurasia and the Middle East.
Wiesbaden, 1992.
Golden P. Ethnicity and State Formation in Pre-Činggisid Turkic Eurasia.
Bloomington, IN, 2001.
Golden P. The Conversion of the Khazars to Judaism // The World of the Khazars:
New Perspectives. Selected Papers from the Jerusalem 1999 International
Khazar Colloquium Hosted by the Ben Zvi Institute / Eds. P. B. Golden,
H. Ben-Shammai and A. Róna-Tas. Leiden–Boston, 2007.
Golden P. The Stateless Nomads of Central Eurasia // Empires and Exchanges
in Eurasian Late Antiquity: Rome, China, Iran, and the Steppe, ca. 250–750 /
Eds. N. Di Cosmo and M. Maas. Cambridge, 2018.
Grousset R. L’empire des steppes. Paris, 1939 (repr. 1960).
Khazanov A. The Spread of World Religions in Medieval Nomadic Societies
of the Eurasian Steppes // Nomadic Diplomacy, Destruction and Religion
from the Pacific to the Adriatic / Eds. M. Gervers and W. Schlepp.
Toronto, 1994.
Kovalev R. K. What Does Historical Numismatics Suggest about the Monetary
History of Khazaria in the Ninth Century? – Question Revisited // Archivum
Eurasiae Medii Aevi. Vol. XIII. Wiesbaden, 2004.
Kovalev R. K. Creating Khazar Identity through Coins: The Special Issue Dirhams
of 837/8 // East Central and Eastern Europe in the Early Middle Ages / Ed.
F. Curta. Ann Arbor, 2005.
295Ts. Stepanov
Kradin N. Nomadic Empires: Origins, Rise, Decline // Nomadic Pathways in Social
Evolution / Eds. N. Kradin et al. Moscow, 2003.
Kradin N. State Origins in Anthropological Thought // Social Evolution & History.
VIII. 2009. № 1.
Noonan Th. Khazaria as an Intermediary between Islam and Eastern Europe
in the Second Half of the Ninth Century: The Numismatic Perspective //
Archivum Eurasiae Medii Aevi. Vol. V. Wiesbaden, 1985.
Noonan Th. The Khazar Economy // Archivum Eurasiae Medii Aevi. Vol. IX.
Wiesbaden, 1995–1997.
Noonan Th. Some Observations on the Economy of the Khazar Khaganate //
The World of the Khazars: New Perspectives. Selected Papers from the
Jerusalem 1999 International Khazar Colloquium Hosted by the Ben Zvi
Institute / Eds. P. Golden, H. Ben-Shammai, and A. Róna-Tas. Leiden–
Boston, 2007.
Petrukhin V. Choice of Faith in the Turkic Empires: East and West – the Uighurs
and the Khazars // Central Eurasia in the Middle Ages. Studies in Honour
of Peter B. Golden / Ed. by I. Zimonyi and O. Karatay. Wiesbaden, 2016
[Turcologica, Bd. 104].
Pritsak O. The Khazar Kingdom’s Conversion to Judaism // Pritsak, Om., Studies
in Medieval Eurasia. London, Variorum Reprints, 1981.
Ronin V. The Franks on the Balkans in the Early Ninth Century // Etudes bal-
kaniques. 1985. № 1.
Shepard J. The Khazars’ Formal Adoption of Judaism and Byzantium’s Northern
Policy // Oxford Slavonic Papers [New Series] 31, 1998.
Sophoulis P. Byzantium and Bulgaria, 775–831. Leiden–Boston, 2012.
Sophoulis P. Incorporating the Other: Shaping the Identity of the Christian
Community in Early Medieval Bulgaria // Cyrillomethodianum. XX.
Thessaloniki, 2015.
Stepanov Cv. Periphery as Universe // Byzantinoslavica. LIX. 1998. № 2.
Stepanov Ts. The Bulgar Title Reconstructing the Notions of Divine
Kingship in Bulgaria, AD 822–836 // Early Medieval Europe. X. 2001. № 1.
Stepanov Ts. Rulers, Doctrines, and Title Practices in Eastern Europe, 6th–9th Cen-
turies // Archivum Eurasiae Medii Aevi. Vol. XIV. Wiesbaden, 2005.
Stepanov Ts. The Bulgars and the Steppe Empire in the Early Middle Ages: The
Problem of the Others. Leiden–Boston, 2010.
Zhivkov B. Khazaria in the Ninth and Tenth Centuries. Leiden–Boston, 2015.
Zuckerman C. On the Date of the Khazars’ Conversion to Judaism and the
Chronology of the Kings of the Rus Oleg and Igor // Revue des Études
Byzantines. LIII. 1995.
296 «Хазарский альманах». Том 17. Москва 2020
Ц. Степанов
От степных империй к сверхсложным вождествам
и ранним государствам: Дунайская Болгария и хартия
(религиозный аспект)
Резюме
Автор сравнивает два раннесредневековые государства, Хазарию
и Дунайскую Болгарию, в период VIII – начала X вв., сквозь призму госу-
дарственной модели и религии. В рамках IX в. Болгария, видимо, догнала
и даже опередила Хазарию в отношении государственной модели. В осно-
ве этого развития стояло не только противостояние с двумя могуществен-
нейшими христианскими государствами того времени – Византией и им-
перией франков, но и принятие христианства болгарами. Оно позволило
завершить процесс централизации Болгарии, уже начавшийся в первой
половине IX в., и достичь – в сравнении с Хазарией – большей гомогени-
зации болгарской народности и, в результате, новой христианской импер-
ской, или скорее – царской, модели государственности.
К л ю ч е в ы е с л о в а : Дунайская Болгария, Хазария, «раннее»
государство, суперкомплексное вождество, религии.
|