© koninklijke brill nv, leiden, ���5 | doi ��.��63/9789004�94486_00�
Introduction
When the Khazar ruler Joseph wrote his response to Hasdai ibn Shaprut, a dig-
nitary of the Caliph of Córdoba Abd Al-Rahman (912–961), in the mid-tenth
century, he could have hardly imagined the approaching end of the Khazar
Khaganate, and probably to his own rule too. The king of Togarmah (the
khagan-bek?),1 Joseph, described Khazaria as a flourishing state, whose rulers
governed over numerous peoples and tribes, a state that was capable of stop-
ping the Rus’ and the other enemies of the Arab Caliphate from devastating all
of its lands.2 Joseph’s description of the Khazar Khaganate from the mid-tenth
century is not accepted by most historians. At the same time, Joseph’s letter in
its unabridged and abridged edition, together with the Cambridge Document,
are the only authentic Khazar written sources that exist today. This requires
greater caution in accepting or denying the authenticity of the information
they contain.
We should ask ourselves: why does the Khazar ruler’s view of his own coun-
try differ so much from those of most modern scientists? Did he want to depict
Khazaria as a powerful nation—and a kind of a defender of the Caliphate at
that—on purpose, in order to seek help from the Muslim countries3 (although
it is unclear how the Córdoba Umayyads could have helped Khazaria), or are
the described territorial possessions an expression of his claims?4 And what if,
ultimately, the solution to the posed questions does not lie in Joseph’s letter,
but in the modern view of Khazaria and the basis on which it is established?
This leads to the issue of the reasons why the Khazar Khaganate gradually lost
its influence and power. P. Golden, although having a relatively coherent the-
ory similar to that of D. Dunlop (for them both, see below), notes: “In Eastern
Europe, the two most important events (the rise of the Rus’ and the decline of
Khazaria) are still not fully elucidated”.
1 The subject of the ideology of the Khazar elite, a part of which is related to the idea of author-
ity over the descendants of the son of Japheth, Togarmah, is discussed elsewhere (see chapter
1.2) It is important to stress here that the use of this title (King of Togarmah) is not acciden-
tal in that it expresses a certain authority over the majority of the peoples, considered his
descendants.
2 Kokovtsov 1932.
3 Pletneva 1976, 12.
4 Artamonov 1962, 386–387.
5 Golden 1980, 263.