OBSERVARE

Universidade Autónoma de Lisboa

e-ISSN: 1647-7251

Vol. 14, Nº. 1 (May-October 2023)

KHAZAR KHAGANATE IN THE REALMS OF SOVIET ACADEMIA:

FROM M. I. ARTAMONOV TO L. N. GUMILEV AND RUSSIAN NATIONALISTS

MICHAL RACYN

racyn@phil.muni.cz

Masaryk University graduate in Philological Area studies. Current he is a PhD student at

department of Slavonic Studies (Czech Republic). His dissertation project is focused on the

transformation and development of eurasianist concepts in time period from 1945 to 1991

Abstract

This paper deals with the reception of M. I. Artamonov's (1898–1972) and L. N. Gumilev's

(1912–1992) works focused on the history of Khazar Khaganate and their position in the

context of Soviet academia. The paper is based on the prosographical approach to the topic

and comparative analysis of primary texts published by Gumilev and Artamonov, mainly in

the 1960s and 1970s. The main aim of the study is to analyze and reflect on their findings in

the broader context of the Soviet academic discourse and intellectual milieu of Russian

nationalists. I argue that Gumilev’s radical revision of the history of Khazar Khaganate far

exceeded previous Artamonov’s findings and attracted the attention of Russian nationalist

groups of the post-Stalinist era mainly due to its antisemitic narrative. Furthermore, despite

the ever-present ambivalence of Gumilev’s contact with Russian nationalists during the 1970s,

he was heavily affected by the unstable relationship between Russian nationalists and the

official Soviet regime. During that time, Gumilev faced strong censorship of his texts, and his

most radical revisionist study focused on the Khazaria was eventually published only

posthumously in 1993.

Keywords

Khazar Khaganate; Soviet academia; Russian nationalism; antisemitism; M. I. Artamonov;

L. N. Gumilev

Resumo

Este artigo analisa a aceitação dos trabalhos de M. I. Artamonov (1898-1972) e L. N. Gumilev

(1912-1992) centrados na história de Khazar Khaganate e na sua posição no contexto da

academia soviética. O artigo baseia-se na abordagem prosográfica do tema e na análise

comparativa de textos primários publicados por Gumilev e Artamonov, principalmente nas

décadas de 1960 e 1970. O principal objectivo do estudo é analisar e reflectir sobre as suas

conclusões no contexto mais amplo do discurso académico soviético e do meio intelectual dos

nacionalistas russos. É defendido que a revisão radical da história de Khazar Khaganate por

Gumilev excedeu em muito as anteriores descobertas de Artamonov e atraiu a atenção dos

grupos nacionalistas russos da era pós-estalinista, principalmente devido à sua narrativa anti-

semita. Além disso, apesar da sempre presente ambivalência do contacto de Gumilev com

nacionalistas russos durante a década de 1970, ele foi fortemente afectado pela relação

instável entre os nacionalistas russos e o regime soviético oficial. Durante esse período,

Gumilev enfrentou uma forte censura dos seus textos, e o seu estudo revisionista mais radical

centrado na Khazaria acabou por ser publicado apenas postumamente em 1993.

JANUS.NET, e-journal of International Relations

e-ISSN: 1647-7251

Vol. 14, Nº. 1 (May-October 2023), pp. 1-16

Khazar Khaganate in the realms of Soviet academia:

From M. I. Artamonov to L. N. Gumilev and Russian nationalists

Michal Racyn

Palavras-chave

Khazar Khaganate; academia soviética; nacionalismo russo; antisemitismo; M. I. Artamonov;

L. N. Gumilev

How to cite this article

Racyn, Michal (2023). Khazar Khaganate in the realms of Soviet academia: From M. I.

Artamonov to L. N. Gumilev and Russian nationalists. Janus.net, e-journal of international

relations, Vol14 N1, May-October 2023. Consulted [online] in date of last visit,

https://doi.org/10.26619/1647-7251.14.1.1

Article received on November, 7 2021, accepted for publication on February, 10 2023

JANUS.NET, e-journal of International Relations

e-ISSN: 1647-7251

Vol. 14, Nº. 1 (May-October 2023), pp. 1-16

Khazar Khaganate in the realms of Soviet academia:

From M. I. Artamonov to L. N. Gumilev and Russian nationalists

Michal Racyn

KHAZAR KHAGANATE IN THE REALMS OF SOVIET ACADEMIA:

FROM M. I. ARTAMONOV TO L. N. GUMILEV AND

RUSSIAN NATIONALISTS

MICHAL RACYN

M. I. Artamonov in the context of Soviet research of the Khazar

Khaganate

Artamonov's academic work in the interwar period

The Khazar Khaganate or Khazaria was a state that existed from the second half of the

7th century until the mid-10th century, with a territory that approximately included

Crimea, the coast of the Caspian Sea, and what is now the Dagestan Republic of the

Russian Federation to the north

As recently pointed out by Victor Schnirelmann, the current academic approach to the

topic still holds an extensive number of contradictions related not only to the state border

of Khazaria but also to its core political, economic, and religious aspects (Schnirelmann,

2012b: 11). Yet, due to its general geographical location, the study of Khazar history has

naturally been of interest mostly to Russian and Soviet historians, since it was directly

related to the history of other peoples in Central Asia and around the river Volga and the

history of successor states in the geopolitical area.

One of the key and essential aspects of the soviet historiography of the Khazars has been

related to its alleged state religion – Judaism. This topic has regularly led to heated

discussions, particularly during the 20th century, and has been a key factor in

determining views on the history and overall importance of the Khazar Khaganate in the

realms of the Soviet intellectual milieu.

M. I. Artamonov, an archaeologist and historian, became a leading Soviet expert on the

Khazars in the 1930s. According to Peter Golden, the publication of Artamonov’s

monograph Outlines of the ancient history of the Khazars (Очерки древнейшей истории

Хазар) in 1936 marked the beginning of modern research into Khazar history (Golden,

2007: 28).

Artamonov’s publication focused on clarifying the circumstances in which the Khazar

Khaganate emerged and explaining the role it played in the formation of medieval Russia.

In the preface to his book, Artamonov criticized the marginalization of the topic of his

Maps depicting approximate borders of Khazar Khaganate from 600 c. e. to 850 c. e. were published in

2002 in monograph by Felix Kitroser (Kitroser, 2002). Digital reprints by Richard Burd are also available

online at Bibliotecapleyades.net website (see Burd, R. Maps of the Khazar Kingdom. bibliotecapleyades.net,

https://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/sociopolitica/esp_sociopol_khazar03.htm).

JANUS.NET, e-journal of International Relations

e-ISSN: 1647-7251

Vol. 14, Nº. 1 (May-October 2023), pp. 1-16

Khazar Khaganate in the realms of Soviet academia:

From M. I. Artamonov to L. N. Gumilev and Russian nationalists

Michal Racyn

monograph and the shortcomings that pervaded the historical research on non-Russian

Soviet nations in general (Artamonov, 1936: 4). One of the principal tenets of his text

was his argument that the Khazar Khaganate played a significant role in shaping the

Kievan Rus’ in its early days. Artamonov’s publication also stressed the high level of

political organization and independence of the Khazar Khaganate and its tight political

and economic connection with the surrounding states (Artamonov, 1936: 4).

As noted by Mark Bassin, Artamonov's 1936 monograph was quite clearly a reflection of

the general Soviet political tendencies at that time. To a large extent, it conformed to

the internationalism embraced by the Bolsheviks and the criticism of tsarist Russia

(Bassin, 2016: 85). However, regardless of the political connotations of the text, it was

first and foremost a foundation for a much more extensive historiographic and

archaeological study of the Khazars (Artamonov, 1936: 5).

This attracted the attention of the young L. N. Gumilev (1912–1992), who enrolled at

the Leningrad university in 1934. Since both his parents were prominent poets in

prerevolutionary Russia, Gumilev regularly faced the persecutions of the new regime,

which had a highly detrimental effect on his future academic career. In 1938 he was

accused of anti-Soviet activities and sentenced to five years imprisonment for the first

time. A second conviction followed in 1949. As a result, Gumilev spent more than ten

years in Soviet labor and correctional camps, and his academic and professional career

did not officially begin until the second half of the 1950s, shortly after his return to

Leningrad (Bassin, 2016: 15).

Gumilev and Artamonov met in 1935 on an archaeological expedition to the valley of the

Manych River. Under the lead of Artamonov, Gumilev joined another expedition in the

summer of 1936, which aimed to excavate the supposed site of the Khazar town of Sarkel

(Beljakov, 2012: 351). However, their collaboration was interrupted in 1938 due to

Gumilev’s first sentence. (Kozyreva, 2012: 835). Gumilev eventually returned to

Leningrad at the end of 1945 (Kozyreva, 2012: 835). However, during that time, WWII

put a stop to many of Artamonov’s activities as well. As his archaeological research was

suspended, he focused his energy on topics surrounding the history of the Slavs and the

Scythians (Plenteva, 1998: 206).

M. I. Artamonov’s academic work after WWII

Artamonov resumed his research on the Khazars in the second half of 1949. His new

archaeological expedition continued in the footsteps of the research started in the 1930s;

again, he focused his attention on the area situated left of the lower course of the Don

(Pletneva, 1998: 207). Gumilev briefly joined this expedition, only to be rearrested for

the second time in November 1949. This time, he received a 10-year sentence (Beljakov,

2012: 836). In the meantime, Artamonov continued his archaeological research, while

continuing to work on his key monograph on Khazar history.

The situation changed radically in late 1951 when a December issue of Truth (Правда)

featured sharp criticism of the existing historiographic view of the Khazars (Ivanov, 1951:

3). When viewed in a broader context, the publication of this article clearly reflected the

marked change in the discourse of internal Soviet politics. This had been characterized

JANUS.NET, e-journal of International Relations

e-ISSN: 1647-7251

Vol. 14, Nº. 1 (May-October 2023), pp. 1-16

Khazar Khaganate in the realms of Soviet academia:

From M. I. Artamonov to L. N. Gumilev and Russian nationalists

Michal Racyn

since the second half of the 1940s by a renewed war on cosmopolitanism, which was

viewed as undesirable in the Soviet environment. Stalin oversaw the closure of a number

of Jewish institutions, while the publication of some Jewish periodicals was restricted

(Zubov, 2010: 253). This antisemitic campaign intensified in May 1948 with the

declaration of the independent state of Israel and culminated in the early 1950s.

Famously, the campaign included the so-called doctor’s plot, a fabricated case designed

by Stalin to eliminate several elite Jewish doctors and start a new purge of the Communist

Party. Due to his sudden death in March 1953, the campaign eventually tapered off

(Malia, 2004: 315).

The criticism of the then-current research of Khazar history came at the height of the

anti-Semitic campaign. The attack was directed explicitly at the research of Artamonov,

who began to publish the results of the resumed archaeological expeditions at the end of

1949. The author of the article also criticized Artamonov's 1936 monograph and accused

him of attributing too much importance to the Khazar Khaganate and too little to the

independent development of medieval Russia. The article concluded that Artamonov’s

approach was completely wrong and unacceptable (Ivanov, 1951: 3). The archaeological

part of Artamonov’s research also came under scrutiny, since it allegedly failed to uncover

tangible evidence to substantiate Artamonov’s claims about the size and the level of

development of the Khazar Khaganate (Ivanov, 1951: 3).

The effect of these events on Artamonov's future academic activities was profound and

the devastating criticism of his papers caused several years of delay in the publication of

his monograph on the history of the Khazar Khaganate, even though it was almost

completed at that point. Moreover, these events led to a radical reassessment of the

whole Khazar historiography.

The critical article clearly drew new boundaries from 1951, which gave an unequivocal

answer to the questions about the origin and importance of the Khazars (Ivanov, 1951:

3). This new trend in research into Khazar history quickly found its way into mainstream

Soviet academia. In 1953, the journal Soviet archeology (Советская археология)

published a paper by B. A. Rybakov, which again challenged the results of Artamonov’s

archaeological expeditions and focused on criticising his overestimation of the Khazarian

territory (Rybakov, 1953: 146). The article also repeatedly highlighted the parasitic

nature of the state and claimed that the Khazar economy was wholly dependent on

exploiting the important trade routes of East Europe (Rybakov, 1953: 131).

Artamonov eventually resorted to rethinking his theses and reworked a large part of his

monograph to avoid the threat of censorship. Gumilev, who returned to Leningrad in May

1956, again appeared on the scene. Shortly after his return, Artamonov offered him a

job in the State Hermitage Museum, and Gumilev joined him in his work on the

monograph as an editor. Between 1959 and 1962, Gumilev also led a series of

archaeological expeditions, whose findings were included in Artamonov’s monograph

(Beljakov, 2012: 357).

Artamonov’s History of the Khazars (Исторя Хазар) was eventually published in 1962.

In an attempt to stay within the recently set boundaries of the historiographic discourse,

he admitted to having erred and revised many of his previous conclusions. Artamonov

shifted his focus to Judaism, the Khazarian state religion, and postulated that the spread

JANUS.NET, e-journal of International Relations

e-ISSN: 1647-7251

Vol. 14, Nº. 1 (May-October 2023), pp. 1-16

Khazar Khaganate in the realms of Soviet academia:

From M. I. Artamonov to L. N. Gumilev and Russian nationalists

Michal Racyn

of Judaism had had a profound negative impact on the further development of the

Khaganate. In particular, Artamonov questioned the idea that the Khazar leaders of the

mid-8th century were able to freely convert to Judaism, arguing that the very nature of

Judaism forbade proselytism (Artamonov, 1962: 273).

According to Artamonov, as a result of these events, the Khazar elite became dissociated

from their people, and the chasms between the various classes of the religiously and

ethnically diverse Khazar Khaganate widened. Judaism was allegedly promoted by

Obadiah, a Khazar ruler who did not belong to the original line of Khazar khagans, but

whose Jewish ancestors probably held important positions in the administration of the

ruling family (Artamonov, 1962: 280). Artamonov argued, that with their help, Obadiah

gradually took control of the whole state and founded a new dynasty, creating dualism

within the state’s ruling classes. The original Khazar nobility lost all power and fell under

complete control of the new Jewish elite (Artamonov, 1962: 282).

Artamonov also claimed that adherence to Judaism also provided the new Khazar rulers

with a large degree of independence and reduced the religious pressure exerted by the

Byzantine Empire and the Arabic Caliphate (Artamonov, 1962: 281). However,

Artamonov’s assessment of the broader historical connotations of this move was far from

favorable (Artamonov, 1962: 457).

In a nutshell, Artamonov revised his view of Khazar history mostly in a way that would

fit the predefined narrative. However, he maintained a degree of objectivity despite the

enforced changes. While the final chapter of Artamonov’s book stressed that his previous

idealisation of the Khazars and the undue emphasis he had placed on their cultural

significance was wrong, it also contained sharp criticism of Rybakov’s ideas, particularly

his unsubstantiated effort to completely discount the historic role of the Khazar

Khaganate (Artamonov, 1962: 458).

Artamonov’s monograph concluded an important chapter in Khazar's historiography. His

long archaeological research brought the topic to the attention of the next generation of

Soviet academics; and in the 1960s, Gumilev became the most widely known

representative of this generation.

A radical revision of Khazar history in the works of L. N. Gumilev

L. N. Gumilev in the context of Soviet academia

L. N. Gumilev was undoubtedly one of the most remarkable and controversial Soviet

intellectuals of the second half of the 20th century. There have been many papers,

particularly since the 1990s, that studied his ideas and often reached contradictory and

ambiguous conclusions.

One of the ides that has always attracted significant interest, academic and otherwise, is

Gumilev’s proclaimed adherence to Eurasianism. While some see Gumilev as an

important representative and proponent of the original Eurasianist movement, with its

roots going back to the interwar Russian émigrés (Lavrov, 2007: 216), many experts are

wary of such sharp distinctions and are extremely critical of Gumilev’s alleged Eurasianist

theses (Laruelle, 2001: 459). Despite all the contradictory in the current research, it is

JANUS.NET, e-journal of International Relations

e-ISSN: 1647-7251

Vol. 14, Nº. 1 (May-October 2023), pp. 1-16

Khazar Khaganate in the realms of Soviet academia:

From M. I. Artamonov to L. N. Gumilev and Russian nationalists

Michal Racyn

without any doubt that Gumilev’s view on Eurasianism was formed mainly by P. N.

Savitsky and G. V. Vernadsky – two important representatives of the inter-war

Eurasianist movement, with whom Gumilev maintained a long-lasting personal

correspondence which stated shortly after Gumilev’s return to Leningrad (Beisswenger,

2013: 107).

Another frequently discussed topic is Gumilev’s concept of ethnogenesis, described in his

key theoretical monograph Ethnogenesis and the Biosphere (Этногенез и биосфера

Земли), officially published only in 1989, where he attempted to make the conclusions

of his previous, less abstract papers more generally valid in a much broader theoretical

context. To describe the process of ethnogenesis, he drew on his knowledge of history,

geography, archaeology, biology, and several additional disciplines. It was this

unorthodox approach that has made his arguments subject to many heated

interdisciplinary debates, past and present (Zilbet, 2012). Indeed, a key example of

Gumilev’s interdisciplinary synthesis and the following generalizations related to his

ethnogenesis theory can be precisely tracked in his Khazaria research.

Moreover, in the 1960s, some of Gumilev’s ideas began to gain traction among the

Russian post-Stalinist nationalists. In the decades that followed, their attitude to

Gumilev’s research would often shift from positive responses to sharp criticism (Bassin,

2016: 177). However, the first theme of Gumilev’s research that strongly resonated with

the Russian nationalists was his view of the history of the Khazar Khaganate.

Gumilev’s revisionist approach to the history of the Khazar Khaganate

Considering that Gumilev was a long-time colleague of Artamonov, it was only natural

that he followed in his footsteps and took on Artamonov’s research on Khazar history.

The archaeological expeditions that he began to organize in 1959 generated

supplementary material for Artamonov’s monograph published in 1962. However, the

expeditions under Gumilev’s leadership continued and he regularly published his findings

in a series of papers titled Landscape and ethnos (Ландшафт и этнос).

In 1966, Gumilev published a summary of these expeditions in his book The Discover of

Khazaria (Открытие Хазарии). As a historian, Gumilev clearly followed in Artamonov’s

footsteps, reiterating the same arguments that Artamonov made, highlighting the wide

chasm that arose between the ruling Jewish elite and the Khazar people. Like Artamonov,

he viewed the Jewish rulers as usurpers who seized power in a coup (Gumilev, 1966:

107). However, historiography did not encapsulate the whole of Gumilev’s research, and

he emphasized that his book was a “biography of a discovery”, as he called it, rather

than a traditional academic text (Gumilev, 1966: 181).

Gumilev’s research was a synthesis of several disciplines, taking advantage of

archaeological findings as well as geographical and climatological data, which he carefully

compared with written sources. As a result of this synthesis, he reached novel and

surprising conclusions. Gumilev argued that, contrary to all existing presumptions,

Khazars were mostly sedentary or semi-nomadic people. This was supposedly caused by

This is an extensive series of 14 papers published on a regular basis in the journal Nature (Природа). The

last of these was published in 1973. (Kozyreva, 2012: 842–860).

JANUS.NET, e-journal of International Relations

e-ISSN: 1647-7251

Vol. 14, Nº. 1 (May-October 2023), pp. 1-16

Khazar Khaganate in the realms of Soviet academia:

From M. I. Artamonov to L. N. Gumilev and Russian nationalists

Michal Racyn

the level of the Caspian Sea, which had been much lower during the 6th century than it

was at the time of Gumilev’s expeditions in the early 1960s. Much of the Khazar

population at that time lived in the natural delta of the Volga River created by the lower

sea level. However, major climate changes led to a rise in the Caspian Sea level by

several dozen meters during the 10th century and the Khazar settlements disappeared

under the sea surface (Gumilev, 1966: 92). In Gumilev’s opinion, Khazar Khaganate was

the 'Caspian Netherlands' (Gumilev, 1966: 92) that gradually became the 'Russian

Atlantis' (Gumilev, 1966: 127).

Examined within the wider context of its time, Gumilev’s innovative historiographical and

geographical analysis of Khazaria can be as well understood as the beginning of Soviet

environmental history (Bassin, 2016: 135). Moreover, his paper describing the marine

transgression of the Caspian Sea was published just as its level was beginning to fall

again (Beljakov, 2012: 359). In the 1960s, this phenomenon led to a suggested 'project

of the century', which was supposed to turn the direction of the natural flow of several

Russian rivers and divert it towards the shrinking sea. The project was never fully

implemented, mainly because the level of the Caspian Sea began to quickly rise again

towards the end of the 1970s (Beljakov, 2012: 360). However, from the very beginning,

starting in the late 1950s and early 1960s, Gumilev actively criticized the absurdity of

such megalomaniac projects and pointed out their negative environmental impact

(Bassin, 2016: 135).

In the relatively encouraging political atmosphere of the post-Stalinist era, his criticism

of the Russian environmental policy soon found a sympathetic audience and the first

supportive voices came from among the Russian nationalists. In those early days,

environmental protection quickly became an important part of their program and one of

the few 'positive' aspects of the new movement (Shlapentokh, 1990: 277). The Russian

nationalist movement then began to show a more profound interest in Gumilev’s

environmental views in the early 1970s, when it enjoyed the surprising strong support

of the then Soviet authorities.

Gumilev and the new wave of Russian nationalism

The first intellectuals to support the pro-Russian nationalist idea had close ties to the

Village Prose literary movement, whose authors became actively involved in the new

direction of official Soviet politics shortly after Stalin’s death. In the early 1960s, their

works strongly influenced the budding liberal and conservative factions of the Russian

nationalist movement. The two factions were later joined by a third, radical faction

(Brudny, 1998: 17).

As pointed out by Brudny, until the end of the 1970s, the representatives of all three

nationalist factions were given relatively free rein (Brudny, 1998: 18). Although

surprising, this freedom was the direct result of the so-called inclusive politics that

prevailed in the USSR at the time. While ideas connected with the liberal opposition were

strongly suppressed, the nationalists seemingly enjoyed the official support of the Soviet

regime. However, inclusive politics was primarily a mechanism to suppress the

undesirable reform activities started by Khrushchev in the second half of the 1950s.

Nationalist groups, while critical of the government, were viewed as easier to control,

JANUS.NET, e-journal of International Relations

e-ISSN: 1647-7251

Vol. 14, Nº. 1 (May-October 2023), pp. 1-16

Khazar Khaganate in the realms of Soviet academia:

From M. I. Artamonov to L. N. Gumilev and Russian nationalists

Michal Racyn

which made them a particularly useful tool for Khrushchev’s successors (Brudny, 1998:

16).

In the mid-1960s, the supporters of Russian nationalism began to form so-called Russian

clubs backed by two journals: Our contemporary (Наш современник) and Young Guard

(Молодая гвардия). Both journals served as their main publishing platforms. Some

nationalist authors also published in the Leningrad journal Russian literature (Русская

литература) founded in 1958 under the auspices of the Academy of Sciences of the USSR

(Brudny, 1998: 173).

The debate in nationalist circles revolved mostly around the position of ethnic Russians

in the Soviet Union. One faction in particular, the statists (государственники) highlighted

the unfavorable status of ethnic Russians compared to the non-Russian nations of the

Soviet Union and claimed that it had a significant detrimental effect on Russian statehood

and national awareness (Shlapentokh, 1990: 212). Very soon, the Jewish community

became the main target of this criticism. While Khrushchev’s criticism of Stalin’s cult of

personality put a temporary stop to xenophobic domestic policy, and the official campaign

against the threat of cosmopolitism ended with a public disclosure that the 'doctors' plot'

was fabricated, antisemitism never completely disappeared from the Soviet political

discourse (Brudny, 1998: 42). It resurged in the mid-1960s; this time, under the guise

of fighting against world Zionism (Bassin, 2016: 187).

In this political atmosphere, Gumilev’s revised version of Khazar history from 1966

received a warm welcome among the nationalists, as Gumilev’s carefully substantiated

arguments laid the groundwork for their own anti-Semitic activities (Bassin, 2016: 189).

Their interest in his work grew in the following years with Gumilev’s rather theoretical

papers, which aimed to give more general validity to his previous historiographic

arguments.

In 1974, Gumilev successfully defended his second dissertation called Ethnogenesis and

the Biosphere (Этногенез и биосфера земли) (Kozyreva, 2012: 838). However, he was

unable to publish it as a monograph under the same name, and until 1989, it was only

accessible through one deposited copy (Beljakov, 2012: 505). Despite this difficulty, the

individual chapters of Gumilev’s major theoretical work achieved almost a cult-like status

among the Russian nationalists (Bassin, 2016: 182).

Gumilev’s next major opportunity to expand on his historiographic and theoretical

arguments came in 1976 when he was asked to contribute to a series of popular-science

compilations titled Prometheus (Прометей). The books were published by Young Guard

(Молодая гвардия), a publishing house that also published the eponymous nationalist

journal (Gumileva, 1993: 6).

Gumilev was asked to contribute a rather long paper on the history of the Khazar

Khaganate and its contact with other political entities in the area. The resulting text was

a culmination of his views on Khazar history. In many aspects, it went further than

Artamonov’s forced revision as well as Gumilev's previous work on the topic – as in this

case, he used Khazar history to illustrate important aspects of his complex theory of

ethnogenesis.

JANUS.NET, e-journal of International Relations

e-ISSN: 1647-7251

Vol. 14, Nº. 1 (May-October 2023), pp. 1-16

Khazar Khaganate in the realms of Soviet academia:

From M. I. Artamonov to L. N. Gumilev and Russian nationalists

Michal Racyn

Gumilev’s zigzags of the history

Gumilev began his text with a description of the general geography of the Eurasian

continent, noting its diversity and changeability. In his opinion, geography had a

significant impact on the genesis and formation of almost all the ethnic groups (referred

to as ethnos)

in Eurasia, including the Khazars.

According to Gumilev, the Khazar people arrived in the flooded Volga Delta in the 3rd

century. They found sufficient natural resources in the area, and the delta also served as

natural protection against the dangerous nomads that lived in the surrounding steppes

(Gumilev, 1993: 378). Gumilev describes this time in idyllic terms and remarks upon the

balance between the Khazar ethnos and its environment. Using Gumilev’s terminology,

the Khazars (descendants of previous ancient inhabitants of the western part of central

Eurasia) were in the homeostasis phase, one of the last stages of ethnogenesis (Gumilev,

1993: 380).

The situation changed dramatically in the late 6th century with a conflict between the

Khazars and the Göktürks (tiurkiuty in Gumilev’s terminology), who used the Khazar

territory as a base for their military incursions and mingled with the local inhabitants

(Gumilev, 1993: 384).

Passionarity (ппассионарность) is a central concept within Gumilev’s theory of

ethnogenesis. It refers to the increased capacity of an individual to take action. Those

who are endowed with this special energy (passionaries) can exert a strong influence

over other people and drive radical social changes (Gumilev, 2001: 303). In the case of

the Khazars, it was their long-term contact with the Turks that resulted in a new wave

of passionarity. Their influence strengthened in the early 7th century, as the Turkic

Khaganate dissolved into several separate territories. From the mid-7th century, the

Khazar Khaganate was ruled by Turkic khans and the biracial descendants of the two

ethnoses became known as Khazars.

Gumilev presented the contact between the Khazars and the Göktürks in overwhelmingly

positive terms and credited the nomadic Göktürks for the subsequent political and

cultural progress of the Khazars. He described the relationship between the two ethnoses

as symbiotic, and this symbiosis lasted over a hundred years. In Gumilev’s classification,

both the Khazars and the Göktürks belonged to the same Eurasian superethnos, which

allowed the Khazars to spread their influence quickly without the need for destructive

military campaigns (Gumilev, 1993: 388).

Each of the above-mentioned ethnoses in Eurasia (including the Slavic ethnos) occupied

its own ecological niche. Any conflict within this environment could have been caused

only by a change in the level of passionarity. Gumilev maintains that such a change

occurred in the 9th century and was caused by the activities of the Jewish community

within the Khazar Khaganate. In Gumilev’s system, the Jewish people are a superethnos

composed of individual groups that inhabit the entire Eurasia, from Germany to Iran.

In Gumilev’s terminology, ethnos refers to a population group with specific behavioural stereotypes, which

arise primarily as a reaction to biological and geographical factors. However, the use of this term is not

entirely consistent throughout Gumilev’s works (Gumilev, 2001: 201–260).

JANUS.NET, e-journal of International Relations

e-ISSN: 1647-7251

Vol. 14, Nº. 1 (May-October 2023), pp. 1-16

Khazar Khaganate in the realms of Soviet academia:

From M. I. Artamonov to L. N. Gumilev and Russian nationalists

Michal Racyn

Despite obvious external differences, such as culture and ideology, these groups maintain

certain internal unity and characteristic features. Of these, Gumilev highlighted the lack

of their own territory, centralised government and a permanent army (Gumilev, 1993:

390).

According to Gumilev, two branches of the Jewish superethnos shaped the Khazar

Khaganate: the Persian (Mazdakite) Jews and the Byzantine Jews. The former group

arrived in Khazar territory during the 5th century. These people allegedly forwent many

of the teachings of the Talmud and co-existed peacefully with the Khazars for the next

200 years (Gumilev, 1993: 402). In the first half of the 8th century, the Persian Jews

joined the Khazars in their fight against the Arabic Caliphate. Supposedly, the success of

the Khazar offensive was, to no small degree, due to the Jewish leader Bulan, who later

led the conversion of his people back to Jewish traditions and abandoned Mazdakism,

which was originally practiced by this group. Importantly, Bulan was a proponent of

Karaite Judaism, rather than Rabbinic Judaism (Gumilev, 1993: 403).

After establishing this strict division of the Jewish peoples in Khazaria, Gumilev presented

each group as having different characteristics. According to Gumilev, the Persian Jews

did not pose any threat to the indigenous Khazar population. This Jewish community

subsisted on the natural resources that were available to them, primarily on herding, and

their interests were identical to the interests of the Khazars (Gumilev, 1993: 402).

However, the arrival of Byzantine Jews in the 8th century caused serious problems.

Gumilev was doubtful about the reasons for their emigration and challenged the

information that the Jews left the Byzantine Empire due to the onset of forced

Christianisation. He was in no doubt about the circumstances of their arrival (Gumilev,

1993: 404).

According to Gumilev In the mid-8th century, these Jewish traders (or Radhanites as

they were called by Gumilev), gained control of the trade routes between China and

Europe, while a new northern route opened from Iran to the River Kama (Gumilev, 1993:

407). The Khazar Khaganate was at the crossroads of these two routes and soon became

an important center for Jewish traders (Gumilev, 1993: 409). These traders subsequently

settled in all the major towns of the Khazar Khaganate and eventually took over

diplomatic and economic control. The naive assumptions of the local Göktürk khans made

it easy for them to become part of the ruling elite (Gumilev, 1993: 409).

Based on the above thesis, Gumilev presents the most crucial idea of his study and

another term of his ethnogenesis theory: the concept of the Jewish-Khazar chimera,

which laid the groundwork for the descriptions of the many negative consequences of

Jewish activities in Khazaria.

In Gumilev’s terminology, a chimera (химера) is a form of contact between two ethnic

groups, which results in a parasitic relationship between the indigenous and the newly

arrived ethnos. In the case of the Khazar Khaganate, the Byzantine Jews played the role

of the parasitic ethnos: they planned a coup, distanced themselves from the Khazar

people, and resorted to violence to seize power in the Khaganate. These events disrupted

the further development of the Khazar ethnos. This is what Gumilev’s zigzag – a term he

used in the title of his study – refers to: a disruption of the natural course of history

(Gumilev, 1993: 413).

JANUS.NET, e-journal of International Relations

e-ISSN: 1647-7251

Vol. 14, Nº. 1 (May-October 2023), pp. 1-16

Khazar Khaganate in the realms of Soviet academia:

From M. I. Artamonov to L. N. Gumilev and Russian nationalists

Michal Racyn

However, Gumilev’s revised version of the Khazar history went even further. Building on

his concept of an ethnic chimera, he devoted the second part of his text to an analysis

of the relationship of the chimera with the surrounding states. He challenged the existing

written sources; in particular, he attempted to reinterpret the information contained in

Nestor’s Tale of Bygone Years. He proposed that the author of the chronicle purposely

adapted the content to suit the political situation of his time and misrepresented many

key historical events (Gumilev, 1993: 439).

In this context, Gumilev paid particular attention to the arrival of the Varangians in

Kievan Rus’, an event which he described in remarkably negative terms. In his opinion,

the actions of the new Varangian rulers in the late 9th century were the direct cause of

a prolonged war with the Khazar Khaganate. To fill in this time gap, Gumilev used several

Arabic sources from that time. In his interpretation of this material, he arrived at another

controversial argument (Gumilev, 1993: 441). Gumilev describes the late 9th and early

10th century as the peak of the Jewish-Khazar dominance in Eastern Europe. The local

Slavic inhabitants were controlled by Varangian intruders, who in turn were forced to pay

a regular tax to the Khazar Khaganate (Gumilev, 1993: 447). In Gumilev’s opinion, the

Varangian rulers brought political turmoil to the Kievan Rus’ while failing entirely in all

their military incursions (Gumilev, 1993: 457).

The situation changed only in the second half of the 10th century when Princess Olga

and her son Svyatoslav appeared on the political scene and reestablished - according to

Gumilev – the previous Slavic tradition interrupted by the Varangian invasion (Gumilev,

1993: 461). Another war between the Kievan Rus’ and the Khazar Khaganate broke out

soon after, probably in the late 950s, when Olga converted to Orthodox Christianity and

established a close alliance with the Byzantine Empire. Svyatoslav followed in his

mother’s footsteps and conquered Atil in a victorious military campaign in 965. According

to Gumilev, this was the end of the local ruling elite and the Jewish-Khazar chimera was

obliterated from Eurasia (Gumilev, 1993: 469).

Publication of Gumilev’s findings

Gumilev’s highly controversial and revisionist study brought him remarkably close to the

then-current interests of Russian nationalists. While his interpretation of the Khazar

history was, on the surface, entirely dissociated from modern politics, it clearly reflected

the anti-Semitic mood that escalated during the 1970s. Norman theory, which was

another hotly debated topic at the time and was criticized by many nationalists, was also

involved (Bassin, 2016: 196).

Gumilev’s study sided with nationalists and provided them with a number of new

arguments. In short, Gumilev completed his assignment with care. The text he submitted

to the Young Guard (Молодая гвардия) was innovative and grounded in his own

research, which combined a number of disciplines. Nevertheless, it was never published

in the series as intended. Although Gumilev completed the text in 1976, the production

process dragged on until 1979 when it was officially rejected, although Gumilev received

the promised payment (Belajkov, 2012: 573). Eventually, a shortened version of the

study became part of his monograph Ancient Russia and the Great Steppe (Древняя Русь

и великая степь) published in 1989. The original version of the Zigzags of history (Зигзаг

JANUS.NET, e-journal of International Relations

e-ISSN: 1647-7251

Vol. 14, Nº. 1 (May-October 2023), pp. 1-16

Khazar Khaganate in the realms of Soviet academia:

From M. I. Artamonov to L. N. Gumilev and Russian nationalists

Michal Racyn

истории) was first published only posthumously as a part of a compilation titled

Ethnosphere: the history of people and the history of nature (Этносфера: история людей

и история природы) (1993). Furthermore, both Young Guard (Молодая гвардия) and

another nationalist journal, Our contemporary (Наш современник), refused to publish

other articles by Gumilev that focused on the Khazars during the 1970s (Bassin, 2016:

188).

Mark Bassin concludes that Gumilev’s contributions were rejected due to their anti-

Semitic nature, which was found to be too radical (Bassin, 2016: 188). His controversial

revision of Khazar history has been sharply criticized by Viktor Shnirelman (Shnirelman,

2012a: 515) and other contemporary researchers (Rossman, 2002: 34). Although some

experts claim that Gumilev’s alleged anti-Semitism is simply a misinterpretation of his

ideas, the negative depictions of Jews in his works are difficult to miss (Saraev, 2012:

933). However, Bassin’s argument is somewhat paradoxical since Gumilev’s negative

portrayal of Jews perfectly matches one of the main ideas that unified the individual

nationalist factions in Russia. As noted by Vladimir Shlapentokh in the early 1990s:

“For many Russophiles, particularly ‘patriots’, hatred of the Jews has become

the most important element of their credo, a sort of shibboleth that allows

them to recognize one another. This hatred is, for them, a most significant

social phenomenon in which they are deeply involved at an emotional level,

and which could probably push them to do things against their personal

interests. During the 1970s Jews, their activities, and their innumerable abject

flaws were by all accounts the main topic of private communication among

these Russophiles, who also tried to raise the Jewish issue at all public

gatherings, either directly or indirectly” (Shlapnetokh, 1990: 221).

An additional description of Gumilev’s relationship with the Russian nationalists was

formulated by Brudny. However, Brudny sees Gumilev as being associated with the

nationalists mainly since the 1980s and, accordingly, focuses on Gumilev’s writings on

other topics, which were published to mark the 600th anniversary of the Battle of Kulikovo

(Brudny, 1998: 186). Nevertheless, Brudny’s detailed analysis of Soviet inclusive politics

is particularly useful for shedding light on Gumilev’s position in the 1970s. At the time

Gumilev finished his study, the attitude of the Soviet regime to the activities of the

Russian nationalists underwent a major change (Brudny, 1998: 114). The growing

nationalist opposition to Brezhnev’s policies was met with a sharp rebuke from the regime

and the nationalists received several clear warnings during the second half of the 1970s.

Our contemporary (Наш современник) and several other nationalistic periodicals were

particularly criticized for their publications.

The push against the Russian nationalists was escalated by Yuri Andropov, who

succeeded Brezhnev in November 1982 and remained in the office of the General

Secretary of the Soviet Communist Party until his death in February 1984. In April 1981,

he initiated the persecution of Sergei Semanov, a prominent member of the Russian club;

Gumilev was personally acquainted with him (Beljakov, 2012: 582). However,

Andropov’s ambitions plans were never fulfilled, and the repression of Russian

nationalists only deepened their dissatisfaction with official Soviet politics (Brudny, 1998:

JANUS.NET, e-journal of International Relations

e-ISSN: 1647-7251

Vol. 14, Nº. 1 (May-October 2023), pp. 1-16

Khazar Khaganate in the realms of Soviet academia:

From M. I. Artamonov to L. N. Gumilev and Russian nationalists

Michal Racyn

126). In other words, the rejection of Gumilev’s study in 1976 and the subsequent

systematic obstruction of his other papers were closely related not only to the antisemitic

narrative of his texts but also to the latest developments in the complicated, obscure,

and often counterproductive efforts of the USSR to control Russian nationalist groups at

the time when Gumilev focused his research on Khazaria.

Conclusion

In the context of Soviet academia, the history of Khazar Khaganate always represented

a highly contradictory topic. During the 20th century, academic view on the subject was

repeatedly altered by the official regime, which led to significant discourse transformation

– in the forefront of these shifts stood primarily two soviet historians: M. I. Artamonov

and L. N. Gumilev.

Already in the 1930s, Artamonov published several crucial texts focused on Khazaria and

eventually became the leading Soviet expert on the topic. Although in the first half of the

1950s, Artamonov was accused of overstating the historical significance of the Khazaria,

and his earlier works were discredited entirely by the official Soviet academia. Under

regime pressure, the historian carried out a rigorous revision of his earlier studies and in

1962 published a seminal monograph entitled Histoy of the Khazars (История Хазар).

However, despite the forced revision, his work on the topic has created solid ground for

further research and strengthened academic interest in the topic.

In the 1960s Artamonov’s works were followed and further developed mainly by

Leningrad's historian L. N. Gumilev. In the circumstances of the new Bolshevik regime,

Gumilev was forced to interrupt his university studies at Leningrad University several

times and eventually spent several years in Soviet gulags and labor camps. Even though

his academic career practically began only in the late 1950s, in the following years,

Gumilev elaborated a vast body of work overarched by the complex theoretical concept

of ethnogenesis backed by his field research initially explicitly related to the history of

Khazaria. Gumilev’s interdisciplinary approach to the issue brought many new, although

controversial, conclusions.

Although Gumilev’s most controversial study focused on the history of Khazaria was

officially published only posthumously in 1993, the resonance of his overall radical

revisionist approach to the topic significantly overshadowed the previous findings of

Artamonov. At the same time, Gumilev’s questionable assessment of the influence of

Judaism on the overall development of Khazaria soon attracted significant attention from

the newly emerged movement of Russian ethnic nationalists supported by post-Stalinist

changes in the soviet academic and the overall soviet intellectual milieu. Although

Gumilev never entirely endorsed the Russian nationalist movement, and his relationship

with the movement representatives remained very ambivalent, his persona and work

significantly influenced the overall direction of the movement. Besides his Khazar

research in the 1960s and 1970s, it became apparent especially in the early 1980s when

Gumilev shifted his academic focus to 13th and 14th century Russia: this time, the

Russian nationalists reacted with an assault on his 'dangerous' Eurasianism concepts,

which eventually led to significant internal disruption among individual representatives

of the movement and further escalated in parallel with the collapse of the Soviet Union.

JANUS.NET, e-journal of International Relations

e-ISSN: 1647-7251

Vol. 14, Nº. 1 (May-October 2023), pp. 1-16

Khazar Khaganate in the realms of Soviet academia:

From M. I. Artamonov to L. N. Gumilev and Russian nationalists

Michal Racyn

References

Artamonov, Michail (1936). Ocherki Drevneyshey Istorii Khazar. Leningrad:

Gosudarstvennoe Sotsialno-Ekonomicheskoe Izdatelstvo.

Artamonov, Michail (1962) Istoriia Khazar. Leningrad: Izdatelʹstvo Gosudarstvennogo

Ėrmitazha.

Bassin, Mark (2016). The Gumilev Mystique: Biopolitics, Eurasianism, And The

Construction Of Community In Modern Russia. Ithaca (NY): Cornell University Press.

Beisswenger, Martin (2013). Was Lev Gumilev A „Eurasianist?“: A New Look At His

Postwar Contact With Petr Savitskii. Ab Imperio, 13(1). 85–108.

Beljakov, Sergej (2012). Gumilev Syn Gumileva. Moskva: Ast.

Brudny, Ytzhak (1998). Reinventing Russia: Russian Nationalism And The Soviet State,

1953–1991. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

Golden, Peter (2007). The World Of The Khazars: New Perspectives. Leiden: Brill.

Gumilev, Lev (1966). Otkrytie Khazarii. Moskva: Nauka.

Gumilev, Lev (2001). Ėtnogenez I Biosfera Zemli. Sankt-Peterburg: Izdatelʹskiĭ Dom

Kristall.

Gumileva, Natalya (1993). Ot Sostavitelia. Gumileva, Natalya, (Ed). Ėtnosfera: Istoriia

Liudeĭ I Istoriia Prirody. Moskva: Izdatelʹskiĭ Dom Kristall. 5–8.

Ivanov, P. (1951). Ob Odnoĭ Oshibochnoĭ Kontseptsii. Pravda. 359(12196). 3.

Kitroser, Felix. Jazaria. Córdoba: Marcos Lerner Editora Córdoba, 2002.

Kozyreva, Maria (2012). Osnovnye Daty Zhizni I Deiatelʹnosti L. N. Gumileva. Burlaka,

Dmitrij (Ed). L. N. Gumilev: Pro Et Contra. Sankt-Peterburg: Nauchno-Obrazovatelʹnoe

Kulʹturologicheskoe Obshchestvo. 832–841.

Lavrov, Sergej (2007). Lev Gumilev: Sudʹba I Idei. Moskva: Aĭris-Press.

Malia, Мartin (2004). Sovětská Tragédie: Dějiny Socialismu V Rusku V Letech 1917–

1991. Praha: Argo.

Laruelle, Marlène (2001). Histoire D’une Usurpation Intellectuelle: L. N. Gumilev, «Le

Dernier Des Eurasistes»? Analyse Des Oppositions Entre L. N. Gumilev Et P. N. Savickij.

Revue Des Études Slaves 73, no. 2/3 (2001): 449–459.

Pletneva, Svetlana (1998). Mikhail Ilarionovich Artamonov: K 100-Letiiu So Dnia

Rozhdeniia. Rossiĭskaia Arkheologiia. 41(4). 202–214.

Rybakov, Boris (1953). K Voprosu O Roli Khazarskogo Kaganata V Istorii Rusi. Sovetskaia

Arkheologiia XVIII. 128–150.

Sand, Shlomo (2009). The invention of the Jewish people. London: Verso.

JANUS.NET, e-journal of International Relations

e-ISSN: 1647-7251

Vol. 14, Nº. 1 (May-October 2023), pp. 1-16

Khazar Khaganate in the realms of Soviet academia:

From M. I. Artamonov to L. N. Gumilev and Russian nationalists

Michal Racyn

Saraev, Aleksandr (2012). V Poiskakh Khazarii (Kommentarii). Burlaka, Dmitrij (Ed) L.

N. Gumilev: Pro Et Contra. Sankt-Peterburg: Nauchno-Obrazovatelʹnoe

Kulʹturologicheskoe Obshchestvo. 934–937.

Shnirelman, Viktor (2012a). Evraziĭtsy I Evrei. Burlaka, Dmitrij (Ed). L. N. Gumilev: Pro

Et Contra. Sankt-Peterburg: Nauchno-Obrazovatelʹnoe Kulʹturologicheskoe Obshchestvo.

479–518.

Shnirelman, Viktor (2012b). Hazarskij mif: ideologiâ politicheskogo radikalizma v Rossii

i ee istoki. Moskva Ierusalim: Mosty kultury Gesharim, 2012.

Rossman, Vadim (2002). Lev Gumilev, Eurasianism And Khazaria. European Jewish

Affairs. 32(1). 30–51.

Shlapentokh, Vladimir (1990). Soviet Intellectuals And Political Power: The Post-Stalin

Era. New Jersey: Princeton University Press.

Voronovich, Aleksej (2013). Istoriia Izdaniia Monografiĭ L. N. Gumileva,

Posviashchennykh Passionarnoĭ Teorii Ėtnogeneza. Noveĭshaia Istoriia Rossii. 6 (1). 34–

47.

Zilbert, Maks., ed. (2012). Lev Gumilev: teorija ėtnogeneza ; velikoe otkrytie ili

mistifikacija? ; [Sbornik statej k 100-letiju do dnja roždenija učenogo]. Moskva: AST.

Zubov, Andrej (2010). Istoriia Rossii. Khkh Vek: 1939–2007. Mockva: Ast.