The Ideology Of The Ninth And Tenth Centuries 55
Khazar dynasty, this old phantom of Khazarology, is losing its last claims to
authenticity”.162
Since the sources relating to the seventh century do not mention any inade-
quacies in the authority of the Khazar khagan, M. Artamonov assumes that the
Khazar dual kingship is a result of the Judaization of the Khazar nobility. The
khagan and pekh (bek) of Khazaria from the 830s, mentioned by Constantine
Porphyrogenitus and the Continuator of Theophanes, along with a vague
account regarding the sister of the Khazar king, made by Al-Masudi and prob-
ably referring to the early ninth century, lead him to believe that the dual king-
ship arose in Khazaria in the first half of the ninth century. It was then that
the figure of the bek emerged alongside the khagan, gradually gaining more
power, while the khagan himself merely became an honorary figure. According
to M. Artamonov, Judaism was adopted as an official religion in Khazaria (by
the rulers and a part of the nobility) during the time of Obadiah in the early
ninth century, as is stated in Al-Masudi’s account. Bulan, who, judging from
the Khazar Correspondence, was the first ruler of Khazaria (king or khagan)
to convert to Judaism around 730–740, was just the first Khazar “prince” that
turned to this faith. M. Artamonov presumes that his descendants were the
beks that forced the khagan to become a state symbol with religious rather
than political significance. This happened after the reforms of Obadiah (a
descendant of Bulan), who forced the khagan to convert to Judaism, which led
to a civil war in Khazaria. M. Artamonov bases his assumptions on Constantine
Porphyrogenitus’ account of the Kabar rebellion.163 In O. Pritsak’s opinion,
after the unsuccessful uprising of the Kabars the khagan was left only with
sacral functions.164
P. Golden, who also assumes that the khagan became a purely ceremonial
figure in the ninth century, criticizes at length M. Artamonov’s views on the role
of Obadiah and the civil war caused by his actions.165 O. Bubenok, V. Mikheev
and A. Tortika all oppose the connection between the Kabar rebellion and the
162 Zuckerman 2001, 315.
163 Artamonov 1962, 275–282 and 324–325; see also Constantine Porphyrogenitus. De
Administrando Imperio, ch. 39, in Litavrin and Novosel’tsev 1989, 163.
164 Golb and Pritsak 1997, 158.
165 Golden 1980, 98, 100, and 133–136; see also Golden’s criticism on the theory that the Khazar
dual kingship was a result of the Judaization in Golden 2007b, 155–157. By asking the ques-
tion, “why would Jewish “reformers” create a sacral monarchy still laden with pagan ele-
ments?” Golden 2007b, 157 assumes that the Judaization may have had relevance for the
way in which the khagan presented himself to the Jewish public and the Islamic-Christian
world.