© koninklijke brill nv, leiden, ���5 | doi ��.��63/9789004�94486_ 008
Conclusion
Theoretical models are often used in the study of states from the past, as well as
in the search for the reasons behind their emergence or decline. Khazaria fits
into the general theory on steppe empires that existed in the Eurasian Steppe
from the first millennium BC until the middle of the second millennium AD.
The economy of the steppes was dominated by various forms of nomadic pas-
toralism. This is why science also uses ethnographic data on the nomadic com-
munities from the last couple of centuries. It is similar in content to the written
sources on the tribes that inhabited the steppes from the time of the Scythians
onwards. Their authors are, however, external observers who describe only
part of the lifestyle and traditions of the steppe communities. It would not be
too much to argue that both the written sources and the ethnographic data can
be deceiving in the study of states like the Khazar Khaganate. On the one hand,
steppe empires are remote in time and we do not have direct observations of
such structures; on the other, the accounts usually refer to a part of the popula-
tion, which is nomadic, but do not clarify the nature of the steppe state itself.
Archaeological finds play a significant role in the development of our
notions of the steppe statehood. They greatly expand our knowledge of the
economy and the ideology of steppe empires. However, their inclusion in the
theoretical postulations of various historians has been relatively slow. Time
is needed for the collection, publication and understanding of the archaeo-
logical material that covers a period of thousands of years and that is scat-
tered over the vast expanse of the Eurasian Steppe and its surrounding areas.
That is why even today the study of Khazaria (and other steppe empires) is
dominated by formulations based on the nomadic economy theory. It is no
coincidence that the term “nomadic empire” is often used as a synonym for
“steppe empire”, although this is not quite accurate in view of the mixed stock-
breeding and agriculture economy that most of these state entities had. When
using the term “nomadic empire”, historians are increasingly forced to explain
that it refers to either not completely nomadic or completely non-nomadic
states. The economy of the steppe states was usually comprised in equal parts
of various economic practices. The use of the term “steppe empire” would help
avoid any unnecessary clarifications.
According to quite a few scholars, since the centrifugal tendencies in the
steppe states were strong and many of the individual tribes or communities
that they consisted of had a semi-autonomous status, there was no inter-
nal integration between them and such states easily collapsed. Thus, steppe
empires are sometimes defined as confederations or federations. Power was