70 chapter one
Th is source, dated aft er the establishment of Judaism as a state religion
in the Khazar khaganate, leaves no doubt about the religious tolerance
typical for the ‘Steppe Empire’. It was this tolerance that made the
Byzantines rethink the establishment of a broad network of missionary
bishoprics among the remote “barbaric” people as is apparent from a
slightly mysterious source—the list of the eparchies of the Byzantine
church, which is preserved in a single manuscript (Par. 1555A) from
the fourteenth century. Some specialists date it to the late eighth cen-
tury (the earliest possible date is 787 A.D.) and others—to the late
ninth century.^208 Number 37 in this list is “the eparchy of Gothia”
and it includes “Doros metropolitan [present-day Mangup in Crimea]
(bishops of ) the Hotsirs, Astel, Khvalis, the Onogurs, Reteg, the Huns,
Tamatarkha”.^209 All these ethnonyms and toponyms (Khvalis—the
present-day Caspian Sea, Reteg—the Terek River, Tamatarkha—
Taman, Astel—probably Itil, on the Volga estuary, or Samosdelka
site?) give reason for S.A. Ivanov to accept that the Doros metropoli-
tan included huge territories from the Caucasus and territories sur-
rounding the Caspian Sea and that this Constantinople project—for an
intensive missionary activity in Khazaria—was developed as a concept
during the reign of emperor Basil I (867–886) when the missionary
activity of Constantinople was at its zenith.^210 Notwithstanding all this,
S.A. Ivanov is inclined to accept that the plan about the establishment
of Christianity in Khazaria through Byzantine missionary activity “was
never put into practice”.^211
Something similar happened far to the east. Before being converted
to Manichaeism, the Uighur khagan asked for a preliminary explana-
tion of the main principles of the religion through a religious debate.^212
As it was already mentioned, the Uighurs chose Manichaeism aft er
762/763 A.D., which was not welcome by the Chinese. Maybe the
opposition to China and the desire of Bögü khagan (759–779) to dem-
onstrate his independence from the Middle Kingdom and the T’ang
dynasty were the ‘engines’ of this decision. However, we should not
neglect the possibility that it was a clever move for manipulating the
(^208) Notitiae 1981, 20–32; Ivanov 2001, 30.
(^209) Notitiae 1981, 241–242; Ivanov 2001, 30; Ivanov 2003, 127–128.
(^210) Ivanov 2001, 30; Ivanov 2003, 147–149.
(^211) Ivanov 2003, 334.
(^212) Dunlop 1954, 155, n. 113; Mackerras 1990, 330; Golden 1992, 174 f. For the
Manichaeism in Central Asia also see, Haussig 1992, 232 ff .; Lieu 1998; Lieu 1985.