80 CHAPTER 1
presumed that in Bulgaria, the highest posts (six in number) were hereditary,
i.e. they belonged to certain families, which indicates the presence of old
Iranian traditions in the Bulgarian government system.279 The Turkic system
was different, since senior positions were distributed among members of the
ruling family (such as the yabghu and shad titles, for example). Since the posi-
tion of the bek in Khazaria was also hereditary, could the Khazar system have
been similar to the Bulgarian one, in terms of family involvement in senior
positions?
Interpreting the theory of O. Pritsak, according to whom the left wing of
the steppe empires was ruled by and belonged to relatives of the ruler through
the female line of descent, V. Giuzelev comes to the conclusion that the
kavkhan was the supreme ruler of the so-called “father-in-law” tribes, which,
by virtue of tradition, gave him the second-ranked position in the state.280
T. Zhumaganbetov assumes that the Tengri cult incorporates the male and
the female principles, reflected in the concurrent rule by representatives of the
khagan (male) and the khatun (female) family. As a symbol of the dual nature
of state sovereignty, Tengri and Umay are spouses. The interaction between
the two ruling families, represented by the khagan and his khatun, ensured the
survival of the state.281
Assuming such a hypothesis is valid, is it permissible to argue that the Bulgar
rulers took wives only from one family, since the position of the kavkhan was
hereditary? In this case, one could look for a parallel among the Khazars,
which would bring us back to the ethnic interpretation of the bek’s position in
the khaganate. According to the Armenian Geography from the eighth century,
the khatun or the wife of the khagan came from the Barsils,282 and Barsilia
should have occupied the left (eastern) part of Khazaria. Furthermore, also
noteworthy is the account (from the ninth century) of a khatun, sister to the
Khazar king, who convinced the starving Khazars to submit to God’s will.283
The account implies that the khatun in question had royal prerogatives.
D. Dunlop, however, doubts this account’s authenticity, stating that there is no
evidence to support the idea of Khazar women having played a significant role
279 Stepanov 2002a, 6–9.
280 Giuzelev 2007, 113.
281 Zhumaganbetov 2006, 158.
282 Dunlop 1967, 45; Magomedov 1994, 51; Zuckerman 2001, 329; Tortika 2006a, 211. Of particu-
lar interest is also the fact that among the Huns the representatives of families that were
exogamous partners of the ruling family held judiciary positions (see above). A direct
parallel to the judiciary function of the bek in Khazaria can be made here.
283 Dunlop 1967, 188; Artamonov 1962, 275.