272 Conclusion
in contrast to the primary empire China, and could not exist without interact-
ing with a real (primary) imperial state.15
This view is also shared by N. Kradin. According to him, the steppe empire
was a “semi-periphery” or a “satellite” of the neighboring agricultural state. At
the same time, the “metropolis” of the steppe empire was a periphery of the
conquered agricultural societies.16 This theory artificially shifts the centers
that were important for the development of the steppe communities them-
selves. It reduces the role of the steppe ruler to that of a military leader and a
redistributor of agricultural spoils.17
Historians that follow the above-cited model usually do not pay enough
attention to the sacralized authority that was typical for all state entities in the
steppes. Through his ability to communicate with the world of the gods the
ruler ensured the well-being of his subjects. It is no coincidence that power
was passed on only among members of the “royal” family. Since sacral power
belonged to the family, the personality of the ruler was not essential. If he
failed to fulfill his duties (including ensuring the fertility of the land) he could
be deposed (killed) and replaced with a relative. This is why other families
rarely tried to usurp the royal throne in the steppe empires. It is important
to bear in mind that the ruler accepted death (the length of his rule, equiva-
lent to the duration of his life) already during the ritual of his enthronement.
Upon ascending the throne he ceased to belong to “this world” and become
“otherworldly”. Thus he acquired his supernatural abilities. The notion of sov-
ereignty in Khazaria comes extremely close to the classic motif in J. Fraser’s
“The Golden Bough”.
Most historians do not deny the existence of an agricultural economy in
the steppe empires, while stressing that it had developed in limited areas of
low productivity, among foreign agricultural communities that had been
conquered by the nomads, or among forcibly resettled farmers. It is usually
asserted that the nomads harbored nothing but contempt for the sedentary
lifestyle, since to them settling down meant dropping out of the community
and the loss of important opportunities for support and protection.18 What is
15 Barfield 2001a and 2001b. Pritsak 1981a, 11 also sees the steppe empires as “mirroring” the
sedentary ones, although in a different sense. For instance, the idea of a universal gover-
nance and the introduction of a universal law and order apply to both kinds of societies.
16 Kradin 1994; Kradin 2001a, 38–39 and 251–252; Kradin and Skrynnikova 2006, 53.
17 See for instance the works of N. Kradin, although he does note the importance of cha-
risma for the rulers of the steppe states.
18 Khazanov 1994, 83–84 and 199; Kradin 2001a, 96; cf. Stepanov 2002b, 28, according to
whom the Alans, Bulgars, Khazars, Uyghurs and the Magyars have demonstrated “many