Conclusion 269
maintained by military force, which depended not on the development of the
khaganate’s economy, but rather on external revenues (provided by plunder,
taxes or trade).1
The Khazar Khaganate is a steppe empire not because of its economy, but
due to a number of features, related to its ideology, material culture and state
structure. They are common or similar for a significant in size territory, exceed-
ing the steppe area, and do not depend on the level of sedentariness or nomad-
ism of its population. This is why theoretical formulations that define the types
and development of the empires in the Eurasian Steppe on the basis of their
economy are impossible or at least difficult to apply to Khazaria.
T. Noonan highlights the diversity of the Khazar economy. Centralized
power, along with military forces, ensured the accession of areas that were
suitable for agriculture (in the forest-steppe zone, for example). They were
used for the settlement of “nomadic” peoples (like the Bulgars: most of their
settlements were located in the steppe zone) or the accession of already sed-
entary populations. Preconditions arose for an economic and ethnic integra-
tion. Such a system (which was also typical for the Scythians) made the state
less vulnerable to hostile sedentary neighbors, climate changes or livestock
diseases. Thus, a diverse and relatively self-sufficient economy was the basis
for the political domination and the military power of the state.2 These find-
ings are additionally supported by fragmentary written records that indicate
a well-developed agriculture in the Khazar Khaganate. Similar conclusions
can also be made with regard to other steppe empires. For example, according
to archaeological evidence, the Kimek State had a semi-sedentary economy
during the ninth and tenth centuries, along with irrigation canals and monu-
mental architectural structures.3 And L. Kyzlasov writes about the significant
development of a sedentary economy among the Huns in Asia.4 The results of
archaeological excavations indicate that many of the existing theories on the
steppe state economy need reassessment. The examples in this regard are ever
increasing.
The study of the issues surrounding the emergence of statehood in the
steppe world in light of the relations between nomads and sedentary peoples
seems purely theoretical. The level of sedentariness and the form of depen-
dence of the sedentary communities (foreign (external) for the state itself ) are
1 On Khazaria, see the monographs of Dunlop 1962; Golden 1980; Artamonov 1962; Pletneva
1976; Novosel’tsev 1990; Gumilev 1997.
2 Noonan 1995–1997, 294–295.
3 Kumekov 1972, 88–89.
4 Kyzlasov 1998.