|
Статья
|
The word “decline” is frequently, if contentiously used by historians. My PhD advisor, Ruth Macrides (of fondest memory) at the University of Birmingham, was not fond of the word. Despite wide disagreement about the word’s usage, it also fulfills the vague function of defining certain periods, even if the word choice is seldom explained. One example is Gibbon’s notorious characterization of Byzantium, “whose decline is almost coeval with her foundation [...] in the lapse of a thousand years,” [Gibbon, 1776, vol. VI, pp. LXIV:IV] constitutes a self-anathematizing position for Byzantinists. While Khazaria generally receives less impassioned defense from historians regarding “decline,” the word’s usage is perhaps merited since it separates a period of stability (9–10th century) from a later period of inexistence, even if historians disagree on the exact dating of the disappearance. Nevertheless, there are probable causes of Khazaria’s decline, which preceded the disappearance: the dissolution of Byzantium’s traditionally decent relationship with Khazaria, arguably due to the official adoption of Judaism instead of Christianity. This research will explore whether the underlying cause of Khazaria’s decline was due to might or money? The story begins with the Byzantine commitment and investment in Christianizing Khazaria – which is revealed above all in the well-known Notitiae Episcopatuum.
Composed in the mid-8th – mid-9th century, the Notitia Episcopatuum 3 records the Byzantine eparchy of Gotthia, an ecclesiastical region which theoretically covered most of Khazaria, primarily the Crimean and Taman’ peninsulas [Notitiae Episcopatuum, 1981, p. 42–45, 241–242; Komatina, 2013, p. 204; Obolensky, 1971, p. 174; Vasiliev, 1936, p. 97]. However, the precise dating and possession of Crimea and Taman’ by Byzantium, Khazaria or Rus’ is debated [Sorochan, 2014, с. 278–297; Chhaidze, 2018, p. 721–730; Slyadz, 2015, с. 161–174; Zuckerman, 2017, p. 311–336]. Nevertheless, this was a time of détente between Byzantium and Khazaria. The question arises: what happened to the détente, and does it relate to Khazaria’s disappearance?
Concurrently, the NE 3 outlined a metropolitan list of sees which sought to Christianize Khazaria [Notitiae Episcopatuum, 1981, p. 32–33; Vasiliev, 1936, p. 97–102; Obolensky, 1971, p. 174–175; Pritsak, 1978, p. 263–266; Науменко, 2005, c. 231–244; Shepard, 1998, p. 18–20; Howard-Johnston, 2007, p. 171–172; Olsson, 2013, p. 504–524; Zuckerman, 2006, p. 203; Dudek, 2016, map 4]. The suffragan list included the Chotzirs (Khazars) near Foullon (Foullai, present Crimean Koktebel)1, Astel/Itīl’ (in the Volga delta), the Chouales/Chwalisians2, the Onogours of Reteg (Terek River of the north Caucasus) [Vasiliev, 1936, p. 100; Obolensky, 1971, p. 174–175], the Huns3 and Tamatarcha/Tmutarakan’ [Moravcsik, 1967, p. 22–24; Chhaidze, 2013, p. 47–68]. An imperial eparchy, covering much of Khazaria in Pontic-Caspian Eurasia, from the lower Volga to the Caucasus to Crimea is visible. Yet it did not endure, ostensibly due to Byzantine disappointment with Khazaria’s adoption of Judaism instead [Shepard, 1998, p. 19; Obolensky, 1971, p. 174–175; Howard-Johnston, 2007, p. 172]. But when did relations sour? Regardless of the NE 3’s dating, Byzantine collaboration with Khazaria continued as late as 841, since the DAI records that emperor Theophilos ensured the construction of the Khazarian Sarkel fortress on the Don, near today’s Cimljansk in southern Russia [De Administrando Imperio, 1967, p. 42; Zuckerman, 1997, p. 210–222; Zhivkov, 2015, p. 243; Afanasyev, 2001, p. 47–51].
Two 8th–9th-century hagiographies provide useful information about Khazar tolerance for Christianity. The hagiography of Ioannes of Gotthia, compiled anonymously in the early 9th century, tells the story of a certain Ioannes from Parthenitai (present Alushta) in Crimea who became the bishop of Crimean Gotthia. He led a failed rebellion against the Khazar domination of Doros (present Mangup; 22 km east of Sevastopol) and died after returning to Amastris on the northern Anatolian coast in 791–792 [Mogarichev et al., 2007, p. 192–193; Auzépy, 2006, p. 80; Alf’orov, 2013, p. 360–367; Vasiliev, 1936, p. 89–97]. The hagiography presents the khağan as an oppressive figure, but not Jewish; “there had been hopes in John's lifetime for the conversion of Chazaria to Christianity” [Ioannes of Gotthia, Vita, tr. Huxley, 1978, p. 164]. Likewise, the hagiography of Abo of Tiflis presents a general Khazar tolerance of Christianity, whose Christianity was still a work-in-progress by 786 [Abo of Tiflis, Vita, tr. Lang, 1976, p. 115–133; Peeters, 1934, p. 21–56; Howard-Johnston, 2007, p. 169; Vasiliev, 1936, p. 96]. These hagiographies’ significance is bound to Gotthia’s status as an eparchy in the NE 3 during the iconoclast era [Obolensky, 1971, p. 174; Feldman, 2013, p. 27–56].
The Gotthia metropolitanate’s disappearance demonstrated mutual estrangement due to the khağan’s Judaisation – which is well known from the Khazarian sources such as Khazarian Correspondence (including King Joseph’s Reply to the letter of Hasdai ibn Shaprut and the Schechter Text) [Shepard, 1998, p. 20; Zhivkov, 2015, p. 210]. Further textual evidence appears in the 9th c. Slavonic Vita Constantini, which again hints at an imperial endeavour to restore ecclesiastical influence in Khazaria: Konstantinos-Kyrillos (that is, Cyril/Kyrillos and Methodios) was delegated to Khazaria for the religious debates (ca. 860–861) [Vita Constantini, tr. Kantor, 1983, p. 43–63; Olsson, 2013, p. 504–524; Preiser-Kapeller, 2020]. While this source presents the task as successful for the Christian delegation, the Khazarian sources are written in Hebrew. Along with the Vita Constantini, an epistle of Patriarch Nicholas Mystikos (ca. 920) reveals equal effort to Christianise Khazaria, although its ultimate failure is reflected by his description of Khazaria as “that deluded nation” (‘τὸ ἐξηπατημένον ἔθνος’ – line 14, [Nicholas Mystikos, Epistles, eds./tr. Jenkins and Westerink, 1973, p. 391]). This demonstrates a begrudging Christian acknowledgment of Khazaria’s Judaisation, although it omits naming Judaism specifically.
By the mid-10th century, two sources credited to emperor Konstantinos VII reveal distinctly mixed Christian feelings about Khazaria. The De Administrando Imperio (ca. 948–952 [De Administrando Imperio Commentary, eds. Dvornik et al., 1962, p. 5–6]) indicates Khazarian potential vulnerability to the north-Caucasian Alans. Without specifically indicating a de facto “breakdown of détente” with Byzantium, the DAI suggests a Byzantine interest in Khazarian weakness [De Administrando Imperio, ed./tr. Moravcsik and Jenkins, 1967, p. 10–12; Stephenson, 2000, p. 33; Zhivkov, 2015, p. 145–146; Huxley, 1990, p. 80; Howard-Johnston, 2007, p. 181–183; Novoseltsev, 1990, p. 219]. However, later, based on the three-nomismata gold seal used to address the khağan in his De Ceremoniis (ca. 956–959 [De Ceremoniis, tr. Moffatt, Tall, 2012, p. XXV]), Konstantinos recognizes him as the foremost northern ruler [De Ceremoniis, 1829–1830, p. 690–691; Howard-Johnston, 2007, p. 172; Zhivkov, 2015, p. 145–146]. Nevertheless, the Schechter Text (ca. 949 [Zuckerman, 1996, p. 68–80]) illustrates a clearer degeneration of Byzantine-Khazarian relations:
“[But in the days of Benjamin] the king, all the nations were stirred up against [Qazar] {Khazaria}, and they besieged the[m with the aid of] the king of Maqedon {Byzantium}. Into battle went the king of ‘SY’ {Burtās} and TWRQ[‘….] {Oğuz} [and] ‘BM {Black Bulgars} and PYYNYL {Pečenegs} and Maqedon; {…} the king of Alan fought against Qazar, for the king of Greece enticed him. {…} Romanus [the evil o]ne sent great presents to HLGW {Oleg} king of RWSY’ {Rus’} inciting him to (do) his evil”4.
Clearly this involved the khağan’s conversion to Judaism.
The ultimate reason for Khazaria’s disappearance is typically drawn from the Russian Primary Chronicle (PVL) under the year 965, when the Rus’ prince Svjatoslav allegedly assaulted Sarkel and Itīl’:
“Svyatoslav sallied forth against the Khazars. When they heard of his approach, they went out to meet him with their Prince, the Kagan, and the armies came to blows. When battle thus took place, Svyatoslav defeated the Khazars and took their city of Bela Vezha [Sarkel]. He also conquered the Yasians and the Kasogians”5.
However, the PVL’s 10th-century chronology is notoriously unreliable, which is compounded by an entirely different dating of the campaign in other sources: dated to 985 by al-Muqaddasi and in the Pamjat’ of Jakov the monk, and 969 by ibn Hauqal [Память и похвала Якова мниха и Житие князя Владимира, tr. Hollingsworth, 1992, p. 165–181; Golden, 2001, p. 60; Konovalova, 2003, p. 171–190; Ibn Hauqal, 2012a, p. 175; Pletneva, 1976, p. 71]. This conveyed confusion about exactly when and where Svjatoslav defeated the Khazars: ca. 965–985 and either in Sarkel, Itīl’ or both [Al-Mas’ūdī, 1958, p. 113; Zuckerman, 1995, p. 237–270; Petrukhin, 2007, p. 261–262]. Negligible present archaeological evidence can confirm the time or location of Svjatoslav’s assault(s) against the Khazars [Artamonov, 1962, p. 426; Pletneva, Makarova, 1983, p. 62–77; Flerov, 2002, p. 151–168]. Yet Khazaria survived Svjatoslav’s assault, since the PVL mentions 11th–12th century Khazars as Rus’ allies, captors and even kin [Povest’ Vremennykh Let, tr. Cross and Sherbowitz-Wetzor, 1953, p. 97, 134, 168, 203; Dunlop, 1954, p. 353; Bubenok, 2014, c. 31; Khotko, 2014, p. 181–189; Colarusso, 2014, p. 77]. Actually, Khazars allegedly captured Oleg Svjatoslavich and dispatched him to Constantinople in 1079 where he married Theophano Mouzalonissa, known as a Rus’ archontissa by her lead seal [Chhaidze, 2015, p. 268–293]. Byzantine authors like Leon Diakonos and Ioannes Skylitzes as well as Islamic authors like al-Mas’ūdī, al-Istakhrī, al-Muqaddasī, Ibn Hauqal also mention Khazars long after Svjatoslav’s 10th-century campaign [Talbot, Sullivan, 2005, p. 153; Leon Diakonos, 2000, p. 272–273; John Skylitzes, 2010, p. 336; Ioannis Skylitzes, 1973, p. 854–855; al-Mas’ūdī, 1958, p. 51, 95, 106–107; al-Istakhrī, 2012; al-Muqadassī, 2012; Ibn Hauqal, 2012, p. 153–159, 171–178]. While the commonly held reason for Svjatoslav’s campaign related to zero-sum competition for finite tribute from nearby communities, according to the work of Jonathan Shepard and Marek Jankowiak, it may be rather due to gradual 10th-century silver shortages in Khazaria, from where both the Khazars and the Rus’ had previously accessed a steady flow of silver bullion mined and minted in what is present-day Afghanistan, to be traded northward through the Caucasus for amber, wax, musk and above all, fur and slaves [Koptev, 2010, p. 189–212; Gruszczyński, Jankowiak and Shepard (eds.), 2021; Jankowiak, 2013, p. 137–148]. This was the result of restructured silver trade routes in the early 10th century, likely due to confessional alliances.
Numismatic evidence suggests that previously, 8th–9th century silver, slave, and fur trade routes between the Islamic Caliphate in the south and Khazaria and the emerging Rus’ in the north had benefitted the Khazarian khağan somewhat as a middleman, passing through the Caucasus, into Khazaria and then northward [Noonan, 1984, p. 151–282; Zhivkov, 2015, p. 147–170; Petrukhin, 2005, p. 76–78; Franklin, Shepard, 1996, p. 87]. However, based on both al-Mas’ūdī and finds of Islamic dirhams and their analysis in the extensive research of Thomas Noonan and Roman Kovalev, the situation changed by the mid-10th century, when the routes shifted to the east of the Caspian Sea, bypassing Khazaria toward Khwārazmia and Volga Bulgaria – after the Volga Bulgar ruler, Almuš, had adopted Islam in the early 920s, as recorded by ibn Fadlān [Al-Mas’ūdī, 2012, p. 137; Noonan, 2000–2001, p. 140–219; Kovalev, 2002, p. 197–216; 2004, p. 97–129]. Despite Svjatoslav’s alleged campaign in 965 (inherited from the unreliable PVL), the underlying cause of Khazaria’s decline was ultimately due to a loss of revenue, by about four fifths, from the early 10th century restructuring of Islamic trade routes [Noonan, 2007, p. 234–238]. Although there is no hard evidence for the primary reason for this early 10th-century trade route restructuring, the khağan’s endeavor to impose suzerainty on Volga Bulgaria in an effort to supplement their declining revenue coincided with Almuš’s conversion to Islam in the 920s. It is possible this resulted in a brief period of cooperation between the Khazars and the Rus’ [Zhivkov, 2015, p. 154–156; Gumilyov, 2000, p. 215–219; Margoliouth, 1918, p. 82–95]. Regardless, the reorientation of Islamic trade evidently reflected a greater interest to do direct business with other Muslims in Volga Bulgaria instead of indirectly through Khazaria, where, according to Ibn Fadlān, “the Jews” had reduced Almuš, by then a Muslim, to “slavery” [Ibn Fadlān, 2012, p. 29]. Whether or not Khazaria conclusively collapsed in 969, 985 or 1016, regardless of how well developed were Khazaria’s internal markets, the reduction of customs revenues meant that the khağans could not pay their soldiers as well as they had been previously, which greatly contributed to Khazaria’s decline during the generation before Svjatoslav’s campaigns, and was likely therefore the real, underlying reason for the disappearance of Khazaria as an independently sovereign ecumenical force [Zhivkov, 2015, p. 168–170; Huxley, 1990, p. 80; Golden, 1980, p. 111; Noonan, 2007, p. 243–244].
|
2. The location is uncertain; theories have been proposed from the Caspian coastline to Pannonia [Vasiliev, 1936, p. 99–100; Çoban, 2012, p. 56; Türk, 2012, p. 242–243; Berend, 2014, p. 203–204; Dobrovits, 2011, p. 392].
3. The see of the Huns is also debated. It is identified with the Black Bulgars and/or Magyars in the Don River region [Vasiliev, 1936, p. 100–101; Zhivkov, 2015, p. 127–129], or in the Kuban River region of southern Russia [Obolensky, 1971, p. 175].