The “Internal” Ethnic Communities in Khazaria 225
the hierarchy stood the tributary vassals (they were often sedentary agricul-
tural and trade communities), the enslaved tribes, the slaves, etc.8
The Turks imposed various forms of “vassal-tax” dependency in their con-
quered territories. The communities that the Turks subjugated in Middle Asia,
for example, retained their social, economic and political systems, with their
sole obligation towards the khaganate being to pay tribute, the collection of
which was overseen by the tuduns. The local rulers received Turkic titles and
thus became part of the khaganate’s administrative system. In turn, they were
obliged to send out troops when the need arose. The subordination of the
Sogdian urban centers, for example, was limited to tribute payment.9
In the Uyghur Khaganate (744–840), the subjugated tribes were also taxed
and the tax collection process was overseen by officials sent by the central
authorities. Some of these tribes, however, were considered to be equal to
the Uyghurs (such as the Basmils and the Eastern Karluks).10 The Khakasian
state (the Kyrgyz Khaganate after 840), which succeeded the Uyghur one, also
used such a system.11 Besides the steppe empires, a similar structure was also
established in Caucasian Albania,12 whose traditions were close to those in the
Khazar Khaganate.
Indeed, the administrative system of the steppe empires was surprisingly
uniform in its ways of subjecting the peoples that had been conquered, sub-
jugated or otherwise absorbed. The Khazar Khaganate, however, differed in a
way. This may be due to either a lack of sufficient information on the various
khaganates, or to the simultaneous existence of practices in the Khazar state
that were specific to steppe empires, which were far apart both in time and
space. Khazaria was not familiar with and did not use the appanage-rota (ulus)
8 Golden 2003, no. 1, 50–51. Tortika 2006a, 50 is of a different point of view: according to
him, the term “inner” referred only to the ruling family or tribe, while “outer” (for example
“the common people”, “Budun” among the Turks, the “Black” Khazars or V-n-n-tr in the
Khazar Correspondence) was used for the subjugated nomadic tribes that did not associ-
ate their origins with a legendary or actual founder of the nomadic alliance.
9 Khazanov 1994, 255–257; Kliashtornyi and Sultanov 2000, 86–91; Gumilev 2004a, 171.
10 Khazanov 1994, 257; Gumilev 2004a, 413–419; Pletneva 1982, 89.
11 Pletneva 1982, 93.
12 Gadzhiev 2002, 230 and 240. There was no centralized state system in Sogd. The Sogdian
states formed a kind of conferedary, while each one of them had its own ruling dynasty.
This system existed until the end of the seventh century. Sogd did not have an orga-
nized state religion, although the majority of its population adhered to Mazdaism and
Zurvanism, which included some Hellenistic and Indian Buddhist influences. There was
also a religious tolerance towards other cults (such as Nestorianism and Manichaeism
(Frye and Litvinsky 1996, 466–467).