56 CHAPTER 1
Judaization of Khazaria.166 According to M. Artamonov, the destruction of
the Tsimliansk hillfort, considered the center of a local ruler, and the subse-
quent erection of Sarkel—this time as the center of the Khazar dynasty—in
its immediate vicinity, can be seen as evidence of the rebellions in Khazaria
that followed the Judaization of the khagan.167 This point of view cannot be
accepted either, since it appears that the Tsimliansk hillfort existed for quite a
while simultaneously with Sarkel.168
According to A. Novosel’tsev, during the first half of the eighth century the
Khazar khagan held all the power. After the defeat to the Arabs in 737, his pres-
tige began to fade and by the end of the eighth and the beginning of the ninth
century the shad had come to the forefront. He introduced Judaism as a state
religion and adopted the bek title, ousting the khagan and becoming the effec-
tive ruler of Khazaria by the second half of the ninth century. By the second
quarter of the tenth century, the diarchy had turned into a monocracy and the
khagan was “a prisoner, sacrificed to the people in years of disasters”. In other
words, in Khazaria the period of diarchy lasted from the end of the eighth cen-
tury until the first quarter of the tenth century.169
S. Pletneva is of a somewhat different opinion. According to her, the sacral-
ization of the power and person of the khagan is the main reason for the
Khazar dual kingship. The situation, known from sources to stem from the
tenth century, could therefore also be referred to the seventh to eighth centu-
ries, since “it seems only logical to assume that the archaic customs that were
known in the tenth century had naturally existed before that time as well”.170
The Khazar Correspondence (and the mentioned “chief prince” that khagan
Bulan addresses) gives grounds for the assumption that already during the first
half of the eighth century a co-ruler existed alongside the khagan, and he was
the one that held the actual power.171
Further on and somewhat unexpectedly, S. Pletneva develops her idea
regarding the ethnic interpretation of the dual kingship. She explains that
since only a member of the Ashina clan could become a khagan, the dual
kingship system served the interests of the conquered Bulgar nobility. The pres-
tige of the khagan’s power faded significantly during the wars with the Arabs
166 Bubenok 2004, 28–29; Mikheev and Tortika 2005, 179–180. According to Tortika and
Mikheev 2004, 115, the Khazar dual kingship is a legacy from the steppe tradition.
167 Artamonov 1962, 317–325.
168 Pletneva 1993, 48–69; see also Flerov 1991, 1996a, and 2002, 153.
169 Novosel’tsev 1990, 138–142.
170 Pletneva 1976, 32.
171 Pletneva 1976, 32–33.