214 CHAPTER 4
time suffered a “crushing blow”.195 M. Artamonov himself explained in 1962
that the Pravda article provoked “some sort of ” interference in science. The
article was followed by the publication of works, which “belittled” the historical
significance of the Khazars and the state they had created.196 During the 1960s,
the publication of a number of fundamental works on the history of Khazaria
became possible.197 Through them, the image of the Khazar Khaganate as a
“small parasitic state” and “a commercial state that hindered international
trade” in the tenth century was introduced into Soviet science. The ones “to
blame” for this were the Jews and Judaization.
L. Gumilev also fits into this scheme, albeit in a different way. He believes that
the beginning of the tenth century was the time when the khaganate wielded
its strongest political influence. This influence was not due to the Khazars, but
to the Jews and the commercial capital. The Khazars were actually the most
suppressed minority in their own land. According to the terminology of the
Russian scientist, between the eighth and the ninth centuries the Khazar soci-
ety was an “ethnic chimera” (as a result of the impossibility for the Jews and
the steppe peoples to form a homogenic community), and in the tenth century
it became a “socio-political” one.198 This conclusion is based on L. Gumilev’s
theory of political anti-systems (among them are Judaism, Manichaeism, the
Bogomil movement, but also Marxism and communism). Through the “zigzag
195 Pletneva 1999, 9.
196 Artamonov 1962, 37; it is probably worth wondering why Artamonov 1962, 357–358 claimed
in this work that the Saltovo culture (its Alanian version in the forest-steppe zone) was
destroyed by the Khazars. In 1958, he adhered to the more commonly accepted view that
the Saltovo culture was destroyed by the Pechenegs, though (as far as can be understood
from his writings) not immediately after their invasion (Artamonov 1958, 82–83). I think
that the exclusion of the connection between the Saltovo culture and the Khazars was
intended to provide an opportunity for a more thorough research of its Alanian version,
at the very least.
197 Along with the work of M. Artamonov, B. Zakhoder’s book, Kaspiiskii svod svedenii o
Vostochnoi Evrope I. Gorgan i Povolzh’e v IX–X vv., was published in 1962; it deals with the
main questions regarding the history of Khazaria. In 1966 L. Gumilev published Otkrytie
Khazarii. And in 1967 came the work of S. Pletneva, Ot kochevii k gorodam. Saltovo-
maiatskaia kul’tura.
198 Gumilev 1997, 149, 156–176, 213, and 245. Thus, after Prince Sviatoslav’s campaign in
965, “the demise of the Jewish commune in Itil gave freedom to the Khazars and all the
other neighboring peoples” (Gumilev 1997, 242). Especially noteworthy is the depiction
of Kievan Rus’ as a liberator and protector of the peoples, oppressed by Khazar rule,
including the Khazars themselves. In Petrukhin’s view, the Soviet doctrine is outdated
and officious (Petrukhin 2006a, 19). A certain return to this obsolete doctrine, especially
regarding the issue of the Khazar khaganate’s size and influence, can be seen in the article
of Galkina 2006.