The history of all Türkic people in the Balkans is even more muddled than that to the east of the Balkans. For the most of the Middle Age and the New Time periods, virtually all of the Central and Eastern European histories were created to cobble up, erase and obfuscate their history. For the most part histories were dynastic histories, later converted to imperial histories, with few selected bells and whistles aggrandizing a pre-dynastic period. A slim slice at the end of the past millennium saw re-emergence of the European states from under debris of the fallen empires, and an emergence of the national histories. The re-born states, by virtue of the times, were nation-states, and the produced histories were nation-histories. The see-saw swang back, and the obfuscated national histories now came to the front. That is, as the nation-state histories. The accents have changed, the old paradigm remained. Theretofore obfuscated nations went into a business of self-aggrandizing, cobbling up, erasing, and obfuscating the histories of their lesser countrymen. True, the histories were somewhat less muddled than the mockery of the imperial dynastic histories, in part because they had to pull to the light some other players as a staging background for self-embellishment, but still pretentious in spirit. A museum in a neighboring country could be more informative of the neighbor's history than its own museums. If not for the Internet, the national histories would endure as long as they were able to channel the flow. The Internet changed a whole ball-game. It gave a voice to the smallest minorities, it allowed to challenge the engrafted enforced myths, to laugh at the official accounts, and assert a different story. It's only been a few dozen years, but the playing field has changed dramatically. We can take a peek at the unadvertised events, dimly lit corners of history, and fundamentals covered by plasters of decorations.

A reader will encounter too many insights to list. Among the most interesting are:
–  Saragurs are White Ogurs, Onogurs are Black Ogurs.
–  Hungarians were Onogurs
–  Magyars are called (western, European) Bashkirs in many medieval sources, and, in turn, Bashkirs are called (eastern) Magyars by another group of sources.
–  Most importantly, precursors of the new insights were found and expressed by O. Karatay's predecessors, they were scattered as mysterious or unclear attestations, and they serve not a small role in the author's studies.

Page numbers are shown at the end of the page in blue. Posting notes and explanations, added to the text of the author, are shown in (blue italics) in parentheses and in blue boxes, or highlighted by blue headers.

17

Abstract

The White Croats are a medieval people of Slavic stock (in sight), from the north of the Carpathians, who had a kingdom of their own in early medieval. They did not have much influence in regional issues, thus there is no much mention about them in medieval sources. Their relationship with the Balkan Croats and contribution to formation of the latter are the issues increasing historical importance of this people.

However, their ethnic affiliation or ethnic origins of their nation-makers seems to be non-Slavic, as intimated by contemporary sources. The century-long debates for the Balkan Croats' Eastern origins are equally crucial for their northern relatives, too. This essay contains some new proposals for some mysterious people (Mrvât, Belye Ugry, etc.) attesting in medieval Islamic and Rus' books, for whom scholarship still looks for certain identities. They are related to the White Ogur realm, an early medieval tribal union of Turkic stock in western Eurasian steppes, from which the (proto) Croats derived. They were assimilated among the surrounding Slavic multitude, by changing their Oguro-Turkic language to Slavic, but by keeping their national name, as in the Danubian Bulgar case.

Keywords: White Croats, Croats, Ogurs, Mrvât, Bulgars, Western Turks, Magyars, Rus’, Moravians, Byzantium.

Povest' and DAI Passing to Each Other

The Russian Primary Chronicle, known as Povest', completed at the beginning of the 12th century by blending the data from contemporary Byzantine histories and local poorly remembered traditions (for the first two centuries of its content, the 9th and X), tells that Slavs for a long time lived north of the Carpathians and then started to spread all around, by the way changing their names in accordance with the places they went to. Examples are the Moravians and the Czech. Povest' counts also the White Croats, Serbians and Xorutans (Carantanians, ancestors of the Slovene) (Povest': 207).¹ Together with the below mentioned Lech (Polonian) people, these can be accepted then (ca 850 AD) formed Slavic nations. The denomination “White Croat” is of great interest at this point. The Chronicle goes on by mentioning the “only” Croats among the Poland-related Slavic tribes (Poljani, Drevljani, Radimiči and Vjatiči), all of which used to live in peace with each other (Povest': 210), likely in the area between Kiev and Krakow.

1 Here is clearly a Balkan context, but the author better knows about Galician White Croats, thus refer to them, and not the Balkanic ones, who never became ‘White’, but partly ‘Red’. On the origins and migrations of these Croats, see Mayorov 2006.
18

In 992 these Croats were attacked by Vladimir of Kiev, who was attacked in return home near Perejaslavl' by the Pečenegs (Povest': 283), who used to constantly plunder the White Croats, according to Constantine Porphyrogenitus (DAI: 153).

Constantine VII Porphyrogenitus (mid-10th century) also mentions the White Croats in a Slavic context: “But the Croats at that time were dwelling beyond Bavaria, where the Belocroats are now... The rest of the Croats stayed over against Francia, and are now called Belocroats, that is, White Croats, and have their own prince…” (DAI: 143) “The Croats who now live in the region of Dalmatia are descended from the unbaptized Croats, also called ‘white’, who live beyond Turkey (Hungary) and next to Francia…” (DAI: 147). The usage of the Slavic belo “white”, at first glance, consolidates the so-called Slavic identity claimed for this people, and backs the Russian chronicle.

The Byzantine emperor Constantine goes on telling the story of these same Croats who “arrived to claim the protection of the emperor of the Romans Heraclius before the Serbs claimed the protection of the same emperor Heraclius… And so, by command of the emperor Heraclius these same Croats defeated and expelled the Avars from those parts, and by mandate of Heraclius the emperor they settled down in that same country of the Avars, where they now dwell.” (DAI: 147, 149) These are the days when Byzantium fought in two fronts with the Avars and Persians. We have greater details of this quarrel, especially in the Persian front with Xosroe II and his famous commander Šahrbaraz in Byzantine sources, especially Nikephoros and Theophanes. The Russian Primary Chronicle also seems to relate these happenings. After the Bulgars, who persecuted the Slavs, there came the White Ugors (Belye Ugry), and inherited domination over the Slavic lands. These White Ogurs went to Heraclius, who was at war with the Persian shah Xosroe (Xozdroe) in those days, like the Avars (Obry), who used to disturb both Heraclius and the Slavs (Povest': 210).² This is exactly what the Croats in DAI did.

In Povest' , the term Ugor is reserved for the Hungarians, hereinafter Magyars, but their coming to the Central Europe in the 7th century is out of question. The only newcomers in those days were the Oguric and Bulgaric tribes of Turkic stock, especially in the 6th and 7th centuries, besides the Avars. The White Croats of DAI and White Ugors of Povest', having the same ‘colour’, do the same things at the same time in the same environment, thus the both sources should be speaking of one and same people. In the 9th century, the conquering Magyars and relatively native White Croats were in extremely good relations: They “intermarry and are friendly with” each other (DAI: 143).³ (cf. account of Hudud below) Although Constantine tells at the end of the Part 31 that the former constantly plundered the latter (DAI: 153), this stress of love should be regarded seriously. Thus, our both sources seem to say about some common roots of the Magyars and Croats, beyond their Pannonnian neighbourhood. Povest' frankly claims this by calling the Croats as “White Ugors” and the Magyars as “Black Ugors”: “After these Avars, Pečenegs, and then Black Ugors came and passed before Kiev in the days of Oleg.” (Povest': 210). In another entry with exact time (the year 898) it repeats the story of the Magyar march to the Carpathians in more detail, now naming only Ugors without colour (Povest': 217).

2 Chronological setting here makes it impossible to estimate an Khazar = White Ogur equality, for instance, offered by Macartney (1930: 175), since the Western steppes were under Bulgar domination for a long time after even Herakleios or Xosroe, and Khazarian westward expansion towards the Slavic lands was out of question before the end of the VII century.
3 Croats of the Drava-Sava mesopotamia cannot be ruled out in this term.
18

Ugor/Ogurs, Magyars and the Rest

Magyars are called Ugors for their Oguric connection (Rona-Tas 1996: 284).⁴ Their cooperation and coexistence with the Onogurs, a branch of the broader Ogur confederation of Turkic tribes, who migrated to Eastern Europe in 463, brought about calling the Magyars as Onogurs (from which was born today’s widespread designation Hungar/Venger and resembling forms). So, can we match the Black Ogurs with the Onogurs? This should be done; even there had not been testimony of the Russian Primary Chronicle. Priscus, who gives first accounts of the coming of the Ogurs in 463, accounts these tribes: Σαράγουροι, Οΰρωγοι, Ονόγουροι (Priskos: 158). The second one seems to contain a metathesis and is to be corrected as Ogur. The other two contains this element and easy to read in Turkic respectively: White Ogurs and Ten Ogurs (Golden 1992: 93). Both of them prove to save the most elementary ways of ethnical denomination particular to Turkic world: (Con)federations are divided into two as ‘white' and ‘black’, or ‘inner' and ‘outer’; in the second stage, they or their greater parts are called according to number of the member tribes: Three Qarluks, Nine Oguz, Thirty Tatars, etc.

If there is the ‘White’, then there should be the ‘Black’, too. This reflects a tradition and method in organizing people and tribal unions among the Turks and other Eurasian people taking state traditions from the Turks. Not geography, but people are essential in administrative organization, since the Eurasian geography is usually monotonous and hardly has physical boundaries within it. There are no ‘upper' and ‘lower' lands, even directions are not usable because of the very mobility of tribes. Thus, there are ‘black' and ‘white' (in necessity, also ‘red’) branches of the same kind of people, as well as ‘inner' and ‘outer' ones. In almost all cases, the former ones, ‘white' and ‘inner’, refer to the superior/ruling group, whose population was naturally lesser than the common folk = black nation (Turk. kara budun, Mong. xara ulus). In the cases when political superiority was out of question, white was to be the lesser and smaller group. Almost all steppe polities and people of Turkic origin used this appellation: Huns, Bulgars, Khazars, Türgiš (aka Turgesh), Uigurs, Kumans, Tatars, etc. (Kafesoğlu 2001: 242-245, 271- 272).⁵ Thus, the Ogurs living in the form of pure tribal unions also would have this appellation.

4 No need, however, to think (in Slavic terms) Onoguri > Ongri > Ungri, and with disappearance of the nasal element > Ugri, as offered lastly, among others, by Rona-Tas (1996: 286). Slavs directly took the simple form Ogur/Ugor. The Onogur form is preserved in Wenger, Hungar, Ungar, etc.
5 Kafesoğlu also adds the usages ‘left' and ‘right’, but these are political and military appellations; people were hardly called so (I.e. Türkic people, in contrast with their neighbors, who did not discern the difference between the ‘left' and ‘right’ and the ethnic name, thus appear the ethnic “Kutriguri”, which means supra-ethnic “Right Wing” and the ethnic “Utriguri”, which means supra-ethnic “Left or Center Wing”). In his research on the origin of the name “White Russia”, Nicholas P. Vakar fails in producing an all-Eurasian connection, although he was aware of “some of” these kinds of appellations. His problem seems to be with chronology, which does not permit for pre-14th century usage of the form Belorus. He should, at least, have better analyzed the White Croat case, which frankly shows the very consolidation of this tradition of organizing/dividing people from early medieval days on in Eastern Europe. If the Rus' had qagan (Kagan) as their rulers from the 9th century on, then they would be expected to have black and white, too. Vakar tends to look for the case within the semantic relation of liberty and white, which is not uncommon in Central Asia. For instance, the Bulak tribe was called Alka Bulak (“White Bulak”) after it gained independence (Kaşgarlı Mahmut: 379). See also Traian (1994: 147-149) for a good evaluation of the ‘colorful' appelations, including in his search Romanians and Albanians, with doubtful results. He, however, in my opinion, fails by reconstructing new White Croatia and Serbia. Peoples took these names after they split off, and not from the very beginning. Besides, the tripartition obserwed in the region has nothing to do with the natives.
19

In Priscus, Ogur is common name of the other two: Saragurs and Onogurs. Thus, the Onogurs are obligatorily the Black Ogurs, having ten member tribes within their federation. And these Black and White Ogurs are the same people as the Beli and Černi Ugry of the Russian chronicle. The White Ogurs, who attacked on the Acatziri on the mid-Don region, and then interfered in Caucasian affairs in the south (Priscus: 161), disappear from sources together with the coming of the Avars.⁶ Sources do not tell about their encounter with the Avars, although we know well about the latter’s relations with the Alans, Onogurs and Kutrigurs, tribes living in the same region, on the migratory route of the Avars. It seems, the White Ogurs withdrew before the outrageous Avars to the north of the Carpathians, and became core of the future Croats. These northern (white) Croats preserved some Turkic features, at least during the first century, in their new home. This contains personal names of the Croatian elite,⁷ as well as the ethnonym Croat itself.⁸ Thus, the White Ogurs of the Oguric confederacy (not necessarily to be associated with the Bulgaric Turks) were the founder fathers of the Croatian state/nation.⁹ The author of the Povest', bishop Nestor, was unable to connect his current knowledge and old local traditions, plus narrations of Byzantine sources: The first one tells of a purely Slavic people just west to Kiev, and the second one narrates about a nation then non-existing. The second case is, however, full of problems. Nestor, who was much confused even with the chronology of the pre-Svjatoslav era, could hardly know about events of the Heraclius age. In our case, he does not use the Byzantine terminology, which never uses the terms White and Black Ogur, as far as we know, except the carelessly taken Saraguri of Priscus. Besides, Byzantine sources do not seem to be aware of the ethnical structure of the Ogur community. Thus, this knowledge can not be of Byzantine sources, as well as Slavic, since Kievan traditions were not sure of even Oleg and Igor’s time, as stated. Povest' is, on the other hand, the only source deciphering the Oguric ethnic organization. There should be some ‘insider' sources providing Nestor with the necessary data and horizons for those old days, and this or these sources can be Bulgaric with a great possibility. Volga Bulgar is justly candidate for this, as there was a flourishing literature there, and Bolgar (Bulgar), their capital, was a more illuminated cultural centre than Kiev. Close interaction between the two are well known and no need to describe its details, especially in the 12th century.

Rona-Tas is quite right by giving chance to the possibility that he established in explaining the name Yugra occurring in medieval sources for a people between the Volga Bulgar and Urals: Bulgars used to call the east (Bashkirian) and west (proper) Magyars as Ogri (Rona-Tas 1996: 435). Early medieval Islamic sources might have learned this name, even existence of this people, from the Bulgar Muslims of mid-Volga. The Rus' also did so, as they did not pass beyond the Bulgar khanate in those days, but took accounts about the east and easterners in Bulgar (city) from the Bulgars.

6 They are counted only in the list of Zacharias Rhetor (c.555), who in turn received the name likely from Priscus (Czeglédy 1971: 133-148).
7 “From them (White Croats) split off a family of five brothers, Kloukas and Lobelos and Kosentzis and Mouchlo and Chrobatos, and two sisters, Touga and Bouga, who came with their folk to Dalmatia and found the Avars in possession of that land.” (DAI: 143). Mikkola (1927: 158-160), solved these names, which have no any meaning in any language except Turkic, respectively as Külük, Alpel, Kösenci, Mügel, Korvat, Tugay and Buga. See also Rásony (1988: 84); Karatay (2003: 92-94).
8 “Croats in the Slav tongue means ‘those who occupy much territory’.” (DAI: 147). Slavic languages do not have such a word, dead or alive. There is a Turkic word occurring, for instance, in the Orxon (Orkhon) inscriptions of the beginning of the 8th century, contemporary to those “founding Croats”: “İlgerü, qurıġaru sülep tirmiş qubratmış” [By sending forces to east, west, he gathered (people around him)]. Kül Tigin Inscr. East 12 (Ergin, 1980: 69). I’m not, however, for the idea that the homonym and ethnonym Khorvat (> Croat) comes from this Turkish word/verb; instead, kür + bat “mighty prince” seems more possible, regarding the popularity of -bat ending names among the Ogurs and Bulgars, and that the consonant r is always before b/v in early versions of the name.
9 For this theory see Karatay (2002: 555-558); (2003: 65-96).
20

Volga Bulgars were by no means Ogurs or Onogurs, and they were never called so.¹⁰ However, they knew well who the Ogurs were. When the Arabic sources recorded the Yura country, the western Magyars were about to leave their land on the Don (likely Dentümoger) (Don's Magyars vs. Hetumoger ~ Seven Magyars ?). Thus, when they lived there, just west of the Volga Bulgar, habitants of the latter country (Volga Bulgars) called them Ogurs by referring to the Onogur component in the Magyar union. This name was later applied to the eastern co-nationals of Magyars, too. The very renowned Hungaro-Bashkirian relation makes this case fate of these people.

Magyars are called (western, European) Bashkirs in many medieval sources, and, in turn, Bashkirs are called (eastern) Magyars by another group of sources. This is very normal and very illuminating; Volga Bulgars also did the same, however by calling the both groups only Ogur. But in their case, there was no any oriental essential Ogurs; this is just a Bulgaric invention. Thus we should not search for them in Siberia, as Rona-Tas offers. The Kimek or Irtish Yigur tribe might be an offspring or diaspora of the wider Uyguric domain, but they are not necessarily related with the West Uralic Ugra people, whose name was likely only an attribution.

Masudî and Idrisî

Masudî in his Murûj al-Dhahab, written in mid-10th century, tells about Slavic countries and their rulers in an excerpt likely taken from Jarmî, who wrote exactly one century ago (before) than him. This provides us with the opportunity of learning about the mid-9th century. The date is secured with his reference to Dir as the first Slavic king (Mesudi: 189). He is mentioned, together with his brother Askold, as the first conqueror of Kiev in the name of the Rus' in the mid-9th century (Povest': 215). For Central Europe he defines respectively these people: Namcins (Nenmets - Slavic for German) with their king Garand, Menabins with their king Ratimir, Serbins, the Murave people, and the Harvatins (then the Sasin) (Mesudi: 189). The first is the Karantanians (Slovene ancestors) then under Frank (Nemac) rule. Namcin refers to the Franks and Garand to themselves. The third one is clearly warlike Serbs, as defined by the author. Between them we should look for the Balkan Croats. It is easy to see هرابت , a false pronunciation of Hrobat, in the Arabic form منابت . Not a later copier, but the author himself or an earlier copier of the source-book, who was confused with two Croatias, was responsible for this mistake. It is possible also that this mistake was produced from a different spelling then accepted thoroughly: Xrobat for the Dalmatian ones and Xorbat for the Trans-Carpathian ones. Ratimir was the formers' (Dalmatian Horvats') knez between 829-838. After that we find the Moravians, and then the (White) Croats. Their neighborhood to Saxony consolidates this probability. Unfortunately, there is no more detail about them.

10 In contrast, the Dabunian Bulgars were called W.n.n.d.r (Onogundur) in the widespread Jayhânî tradition of Islamic geography (Zimony 1992: 41, 155).
21

Idrîsî mentions Galicia, but do (does) not tell anything about the White Croats living there. He does not name also a country in (with) such a name. It is perhaps for they lost their importance as a people in those days (mid-12th century), estimated that their state disappeared on (at) the turn the new millennium. غرمسيه (Grmesah), counted among the Bohemian cities (Idrîsî: 375), can be rightly turned to غرعسيه (Grase), reflecting a Latinized or Dalmatian form, close to what it is today, and similar to what is reserved for the Balkan Croatia: جراسيه (Grasseh) (Idrîsî: قاروقيا .( 266 (Garokie) of the Outer Bashkirs (Idrîsî: 406, 408) would also be related to the Khorvats.

The Mrvât of Hudud al-^cÂlam

Anonymous Hudud al-^cÂlam, written in 982-3 in Afghanistan, regularly records a certain Mrvât people in Eastern Europe.¹¹ That he mentions this people four times in various (and every) occasion, and counts among the 51 inhabited lands of the world (Hudud 1937: 83; 1962: 59), displays the very emphasis by the author on this people. After several tests on other possibilities, Minorsky tended to identify them with the Moravians (Hudud 1937: 441). Accounts go such: “(Black Sea’s) eastern limit is formed by the confines of the Alâns; its northern limit is formed by the places (occupied by) the Pečenegs, the Xazars, the Mirvâts (مروات (Marwat)), the Inner Bulgars, and the Saqlâbs, its western limit is the country of the Burjâns; on its southern limit lies the country of Rûm.” (Hudud 1937: 53; 1962: 14).

Part 46 in the discussion of the inhabited lands is reserved for them: “East of it (Mrvât land) are some mountains, and some of the Khazarian Pečenegs; south of it, some of the Khazarian Pečenegs and the Gurz Sea; west of it, some parts of the latter (Gurz Sea), and the inner Bulgârs; north of it, some of the latter (Bulgârs) and the W.n.n.d.r (Onogur) mountains. They are Christians and speak two languages: Arabic and Rûmî (Byzantine Greek?). They dress like the Arabs. They are on friendly terms with the Turks and the Rûm. They own tents and felt-huts.” (Hudud 1937: 160; 1962: 190).

One may rightly search for some local people along the Don-Volga basin for the Mrvât. However the author does not mention the Burtas, about whom he knows well and allocated a part in the book, and who lived between the Khazars and Volga Bulgars, among those living north of the Black Sea. There were no in those days any significant local people apart from the Burtâs, as far as we know. Neither is helpful order of these nations in the text. The Pečenegs here are the Khazarian Pečenegs in the author’s terms, so they are west of the Khazars. This means the Magyars were far off the region.¹² After the Pečenegs, westward were the Kievan Rus' (represented here by the Saqlâb) (Σάκλάβωι = Σκλάβωι = Kipchak, Bulgar, Polovets, Saka, Scyth), White Croatia, Hungary, and Bulgaria. The latter is called Burjân, a denomination transferred from the Caucasus. Magyars are called with their own names and the new Magyar lands are well known by the author (for ex. “another river is the Rûtâ, which rises from a mountain situated on the frontier between the Pečenegs, the Majgharî, and the Rûs”) (Hudud 1937: 76; 1962: 14). Thus, White Croatia remains as the unique (only) alternative.

11 According to Minorsky (Hudud 1937: 424, the unnamed author’s source was Hârûn b. Yahyâ.
12 There had passed about one century from the Magyar migration from the Don basin to the mid-Danube, when Hudud was written, but we have to be sure of the information being updated by medieval authors, since they might tell about very past times.
22

Hudud defines locations of those people according to each other in the parts 45, 46, and 47, dedicated respectively to the Inner Bulgars, Mrvâts and Pečenegs (Hudud 1937: 160; 1962: 189-190).

The Mrvât people occur also in Gardizî, who says: “The Magyars can see the N.n.d.r, as they live by a river. There is a huge mountain below the N.n.d.r, by the river. There emerges a river from this mountain. A Christian people live on the skirts of this mountain. They are called Mrvât. There is a distance of one day between them and the N.n.d.r. This is a crowded people. Their clothes are turban, shirt and cloak like Arabs…most of their trade is with Arabs.” (Şeşen 1998: 84). Note dressing like Arabs, common in the both sources.

Thus, we can draw such a scheme (only the Magyars are added according to Gardizî):

Rus Mountain	Magyar
Inner Bulgar		Vnndr Mountains
Saqlabs	Inner Bulgar
Mrvât	Pečenegs	Khazar Mountain
Burjân	Black Sea	Pečenegs Alans

Here is only problem with the Inner Bulgar, and the problem is solved if we delete them from the map. It is the Danubian Bulgar. Author of Hudud could not unify the ethnonyms Bulgar and Burjân, and located the former (Bulgar) to the north of Danube and the latter (Burjân) to its south.¹³ However there are chronological problems. Moldovan parts of Bulgaria were lost to Magyars and then Pečenegs some 90 years ago. The author does not know this fact. On the other hand, he is aware of a very actual case: Quarrel between the Danubian Bulgars and the Rus’. Compared to actuality of his geographical knowledge, this is very difficult, since the Bulgaro-Rus war means only Svjatoslav’s Balkan raid in 968. If the author knew this, then he would know the disappearance of Bulgar or Burjân from history between the Rus' and Byzantine just three years later. Thus, he has chronologically baseless, but historically important knowledge. There is another possibility: These Bulgars may be those leaving the Malaja Pereščepina findings in the northeast of Ukraine. Rona-Tas' claim that gravity and center of the Great Bulgaria was in the region around where is today Kharkov is not very satisfactory (Rona-Tas 2000), but once a significant Bulgar presence is almost certain in that region. Especially the ‘upper' Inner Bulgar in the above scheme well suits to that place. Author of Hudud might have used an old reference to them. In this case, confusion in inner regions of Eastern Europe is very expectable.

Otherwise, we know the very Pečeneg - White Croat quarrel, as refereed by Constantine Porphyrogenitus (see above), which means also close neighborhood. What is interesting is that, as before-mentioned, our author repeats the story of Constantine about the love affair between Turks/Magyars and White Croats: “They are on friendly terms with the Turks and Rûm” (Hudud 1937: 160; 1962: 190). We should better understand (discern) Magyars from his Turks, too, as he classify the former among Turkic peoples. Their friendship with the Byzantines is a process began from the Constantine Cyril mission on. Last for Hudud, مروات (Marwat) is easy to turn to هروات (Hirovat) (Hrvat) by changing only a letter resembling to the other.

13 By agreeing with the westernmost Islamic geography of the age, Idrîsî (391).
24

Ibn Rusta, Gardizî, Vernadsky and others

Vernadsky sees “quite likely” that the Svjatopluk dynasty of Moravia was of White Croatian (that is, Alanic in his view) origin (Vernadsky 1945: 258) (The difference between Saragurs and Alans is about like the difference between Iroquois and Americans: not every American is an Iroquois). Above accounts and explanations clearly show who the White Croats were. Vernadsky relies on Hauptman (1935: 325-353), champion of the Iranist ecole of the Croats, but the latter’s theory is by no means convincing, as he tries to solve the question by settling the proto-Croat case on a Sarmato-Iranic environment that he imaginarily reconstructed, and by not sing reliable historical proofs. Zdenko Vinski, another source of Vernadsky, reconstructs ethnical processes in the milieu what he calls ‘Outer Iran’, where was an intensive cultural interaction from Galicia to the Altai, in accordance with his acceptances, and not any proof (Vinski 1940).¹⁴ Iranic origins are not much visible for Croats or any other Central European people.¹⁵ Vernadsky, in evaluating accounts of Ibn Rusta and Gardizi about the White Croats, uses even the word kumys “mare’s milk” to claim that Moravian rulers were of nomadic, that is Alanic origin. Nomadism of the Alans is subject to debate, it seems they were migratory, and not nomadic.¹⁶ Alans and nomadism should not necessarily associate with each other, and, the most important, the Alans are not known with their kumys drinking costume (custom). After two years Vernadsky published a note on this cited essay: “Note on Zhupan” (Vernadsky 1947: 62).

14 Vinski says, for instance, that the Croats were indeed Alans, and the Kasegs were Croaticized Circassians; the both groups fled to Visla before the Huns (1940: 21). But, according to which source(s), apart from the so-called “Iranic environment”? What we need in general is an elaborative study on to much (what) degree and to what speed identities changed or exchanged in Eurasia. This is not Gaul; this is Eurasia, which is very strange to the concept ‘native’. Almost everybody is newcomer or returnee in this region. The stereotypical ethnic mechanism in Eurasia is that a tribal or political group X becomes dominant in a tribal union Y and spreads its name to all over the member tribes as a superior identity. The factual process is usually so, and it does not matter what we call the case: A dramatic population growth among the X tribesmen, invasion of the region and people (of the union) by the tribe X, change of self-denomination towards X among the union members, change of identity, change of language, etc. (For a brief and abbreviated definition of these ethnical processes, see Golden (1992: 1-14, 379-382). In these circumstances, not people but little groups, cores or bands used to change their identities in exact sense. This is what we lack in our studies on Eurasian ethnic history.
15 See a critique of the current theories on Croatian origins in Karatay (2003: 9-18).
16 This is not suitable place to discuss whether the Alans were nomadic or migratory. I’ll refer only to a pair of sources: Am. Marcellinus and Jordanes. The former depicts the steppe, though his very ‘military intelligence’, in a Herodotian way, including the Alans (who were formerly known as Massagetae), among those living in carts (Alemany 2000: 33, 36). An account of Lucianus informing that the Scythians and Alans had common traits, except some differences like hair length, can also be added to this argument carts (i.e. carts argument) (Alemany 2000: 94). Only these two, among about 200 authors mentioning the Alans, define their sight as nomadic. Otherwise, it seems, they were nomads as much as the Goths or Vandals were nomads. Marcellinus' accounts are very general and speak on all of the Eurasian steppe people, counting all of them together with the professional wanderers. On the other hand, Jordanes, who would naturally best know about the Alans than any of those 200 authors, says that Huns and Alans had only bravery in common, and were greatly different in nature, lifestyle and looks (Alemany 2000: 132). Nomad should resemble nomad, but the Alans did not look like the Huns, true nomads…
24

In that note he corrects the reading subanj (from Xwolson on, to be explained as South Slavic župan, a remnant of the Avar age¹⁷) in Ibn Rusta, and records the true version offered by N. N. Martinovich: subaj. He writes down its meaning also as “army chief”, but does not interrogate in which language it means army chief. Thus, he makes a greater mistake while he was apologizing. Because, if the reading subaj (< subašı “head of army”, widely used even by the Ottomans) is true, then this contributes to only our knowledge about Turkic origins of the White Croats. Though I’m not inclined to a southerner Moravia centered in the Drava-Sava mesopotamia, as offered by Boba, but to northern one as in general acceptance,¹⁸ I’m not in a position to speak on origins of the Moravian rulers; thus I abstain from any White Croatian connection, too, except unknown possibilities.

Ibn Rusta says: “Their king is Subanj, to whom they give their allegiance, and from whom they take orders, and his dwelling is in the middle of the country, and the most distinguished man known to them is one who is called king of the kings whom they name Sviat Malik (a compound of Slavic sviat “saint” and Semitic malik “king”, apparently initially from a Slavic source, suitable for Svjatopluk ~ Svatopluk I of Moravia) and he is more important than Subanj, and Subanj is his deputy, and the king has riding animals. He does not eat any food except mare’s milk. He has excellent coats of mail, strong and precious, and the city in which he lives is called “جرواب”(Girwab). ¹⁹

Account of Gardizî is that “their leaders put a crown on his head. All of them obey him and submit. Their grand ruler is called Svît Malik. His deputy is called Sûbenj (سوبنج ) (Subenj). Their capital city is Jarâvt (جراوت ) (Jiraaut ~ Horvat or Chirvat)” (Gardizî: 276; Şeşen 1998: 86).

We should add Aufî of the 13th century to this list with his same content: “They have a chief, who is accepted as king among them. They call him سويت  (Saviyat). And they have also a regent, who is called سونج  (Sumnaji). And they have a city, which is called حرران  (Hararani).” (Şeşen 1998: 94).

And Hudud: “The Saqlâb king is called S.mût-swyt (or Bsmût-swyt). The food of their king is milk. They dress mostly in linen stuffs… They possess two towns: (1) Vâbnît is the first town on the east of the Saqlâb and some (of its habitants) resemble the Rûs. ( خرداب ( 2 (Kharydab), a large town and the seat of the king.” (Hudud 1937: 159; 1962: 188).²⁰

17 Minorsky (1937: 431), offers even the *shûbâng? form, again not leaving the župan connection. This title is difficult to set here, firstly, as it referred to a (sub)regional leader likely assigned by the Avar center in the Balkans. According to Klaić (1990: 15-16), župan organization was established as autonomous Slavic administrative units only in the lands, where the Avars were in hegemony. Secondly, we do not know whether this inferior title became a superior one, the highest after the king (associating with the dual kingdoms of the Khazars and Magyars) among the central European Slavs (OTD p. 151: ČOBAN assistant head of the village village [ČOBAN помощник сельского старосты (МК 202₁₇)]. Čoban, жупан, zupan, *shubang? are all allophonic variations of the original).
18 Moravia is accepted to be the proto-state of today’s Slovakia. It is west to the traditional White Croatia, thus any interaction between them was always on the agenda. This state is indebted to Rastislav, mid-9th century king, who invited the missionary brothers Constantine Cyrill and Methodius to Christianize his own people, for very scholarly interest in historiography. Imre Boba in his Moravia’s History Reconsidered, however, relocated this state in (to) what is the ancient Sirmium and what are today Croatia’s eastern provinces. That the Russian Primary Chronicle recounts the Moravians and Czech together in one sentence and the other three (-White- Croats, Serbians and Carantanians) in another -Balkanic- context, prevent me from thinking of a southern Moravia. But perhaps a Moravian southward expansion was in question in the absence of the Avar power, and Frank annals inspiriting Boba and his followers to look for a North Balkan Moravia should be speaking of these regions. See for evaluation of Boba’s theory: Bowlus 1987.
19 Translation taken from Vernadsky (1945: 258), who copies Macartney (1930: 211), but ignores his reading Suwayyat Balk, which would easily go to Svjatopluk. Y. Z. Yörükân, contemporary to Macartney, reads likewise Seviyyet Belk (2004: 295). Cairo edition of Ibn Rusta reads and corrects it as Swialpolk (Ibn Rusteh: 162), which is unnecessary.
20 Minorsky (Hudud 1937: 430) offers some corrections for the city name.

25

Cf. Anonymous Mujmal al-Tawârîh of the 12th century: “… Ruler of the Slavs is called سويت (Sawyet) and سوينه (Saweinahu).”(Şeşen 1998: 35).

Ibn Rusta is primary, of course, compared to Gardizi, being half a century earlier than the latter, but neither Gardizi’s forms are negligible (should be ignored). Ibn Rusta might have taken majority of his nordic knowledge from Jarmî, but not name of the Slavic grand ruler, for Svjatopluk was a contemporary of Ibn Rusta, if another one with the same name did not live in the first half of the 9th century,²¹ and (2) no source quoting Jarmî gives the ruler’s and capital’s names, except Hudud’s above quoted parts. The form in Hudûd may be a test of writing Svjatoslav, whose very fame in the steppe should have gone to the anonymous author, contemporary of the Russian qagan.²² If so, we may confidently say that Jarmî did not have any Svjato-; thus Masudî has no him, too; Ibn Rusta added name of the Moravian Svjatopluk, as true Slavic ruler (to separate from the Rus and South Slav kings); Gardizî (followed by Aufî) borrowed from him and repeated the same forms. As for the (capital) city: Place of the letter alf would be helpful in analysis.

All of the four consonants in the four forms above resemble to each other in respective order. Aufî’s form can be excused for its remoteness from Ibn Rusta and the common source, Jarmî. Hudud makes a good copy with Swyt, milk, dressing, etc., of Ibn Rusta, trying to add its own information, as well as ب (ve “with, for, through”) at the end. Gardizî’s alf in the mid reflects his accelerated and condensed style, though estimating a Hrâvat form is plausible (cf. above Menâbit of Masudî). On the other hand, Gardizî might have saved the true letter at the end: ت (t). In any way, we should look for a Horvat here, as the White Croats were significant at the beginning of the tradition, in Jarmî’s time. This is the most reasonable and plausible unification of the above four forms, all of whom speak of the same thing, and none of whom agree with each other.

Though Islamic accounts on Eastern Europe were studied in a very satisfactory level, it seems we may find more of them than what is available to us currently. They are likely hidden in very details. Their search might even lead to new inventions or enlightenment of obscure dates and cases in history of the region. For instance, the East Slavic Λενζανήνοι (Lenzaninoi) tribe mentioned by Constantine (DAI: 59) and never mentioned by any other source²³ is probably لوزانه (Leuzani) of Masudî (Mesudî: 75; Şeşen 1998: 49), owing (allowing) that a later copier changed the second letter ن (nun) with و (waw). Thus, we should pay more attention to those accounts.

21 This is even possible. See Masudî’s data above, reflecting the scene before the mid-9th century, with Dir and Ratimir. But absence of a Svjato- in Masudî is troublesome.
22 Montgomery’s note that Ibn Rusta and Hudud do not share the same source in terms of the Rus' (Montgomery 2001: 84) can be applied here, too, though I never agree with him (Montgomery) on weakness of the former’s (Ibn Rusta) scientific value (literary value or form is out of our scope here).
23 Obolensky associates them with Polonians through Hungarian Lengyel, Lithuanian Lenkai “Polonian” (DAI 1962: 34-35). Cf. also Lav.zâ.âne of Masudî (Mesudî 2004: 75; Şeşen 1998: 49) and Lwznw, the Khazar’s enemy mentioned by the Schechter Document (Schechter 1912: 219; Golb & Pritsak 1982: 121) (The connection of Khazars with Leuzani extends the Khazars' projection way beyond conventional maps and descriptions).
26

An endnote: the two earliest Hungarian chronicles, the Anonymous Gesta Hungarorum (ca. 1205) and the Getsa Hungarorum of Simon Kézai (ca.1285) gives the name ‘Morout' (Hung. pronunciation ‘Marot’), as a Morivan king.²⁴ The manuscripts are frank (clear) in meaning a personal name, but one may claim here a connection with the concerning nation’s name, and thus this form may represent a Latin version of the Arabic ‘Mrvât’. This would remain as an association, since there is no any other clue that Marot is linked with the denomination of the Moravians by the early Hungarians.²⁵

CITED WORKS

Alemany, Agustí, (2000) Sources on the Alans. A Critical Compilation, Leiden-Boston-Köln.
Boba, I., (1971) Moravia’s History Reconsidered, The Hague.
Bowlus, C. R., (1987) “Imre Boba’s Reconsiderations of Moravia’s Early History and Arnulf of Carinthia’s Ostpolitik (887-892)”, Speculum, 62/3, pp.552-574.
Constantine Porphyrogenitus, (1962) De Administrando Imperio. Vol.II: Commentary, ed. F. Dvornik - R. J. H. Jenkins - B. Lewis - Gy. Moravcsik - D. Obolensky - S. Runciman, London.
Constantine Porphyrogenitus, (1967) De Administrando Imperio, ed. Gy. Modravcsik - R. J. H. Jenkins, Washington.
Czeglédy K., “Pseudo-Zacharias Rhetor on the Nomads”, Studia Turcica, ed. Ligeti L., Budapest, 1971. pp.133-148.
Ergin, Muharrem, (1980) Orhun Abideleri, 7. ed., İstanbul.
Gardizî, (1347/1968) Zayn al-Ahbâr, ed. Abd al-Hayy Habîbî, Teheran.
Gesta Hungarorum: Béla király jegyzőjének könyve a magyarok cselekedeteirnek könyve a magyarok cselekedeteiről, ed. D. Pais, G. Györffy, Budapest, 1977.
Golb, Norman - Pritsak, Omeljan, (1982) Khazarian Hebrew Documents of the Tenth Century, Ithaca.
Golden, P. B., (1992) An Introduction to the History of Turkic Peoples, Wiesbaden.
Györffy, Gy., A Magyarság Keleti Elemei, Budapest, 1990.
Hauptmann, L., (1935) “Kroaten, Goten und Sarmaten”, Germanoslavica, III, pp.325-353.
Hudūd al-̉Ālam, (1937) ed. V. Minorsky, London.

24 According to the Anonymous, there was a certain Marot, ruler of Moravia, and his grandson, the real rival of the Hungarians, was called ‘Mén-Marot' by Hungarians for he was very tall (Turko-Bulgar word men ‘great’). See Gesta Hungarorum: Béla király jegyzőjének könyve a magyarok cselekedeteirnek könyve a magyarok cselekedeteiről, ed. D. Pais, G. Györffy, Budapest, 1977, P. 89. Simon Kézai, on the other hand, presents Marot as father of our Svjatopluk. See Simon of Kéza. The Deeds of the Hungarians. Ed. L. Veszprémy - F. Schaer. Budapest, 1999, P. 75.
25 Györffy Gy. A Magyarság Keleti Elemei. Budapest, 1990. P. 84.
27

Hudūd al-̉Ālam, (1340/1962) ed. M. Sotoodeh, Tehran.
Ibn Rusteh, (1955) Les Atours Précieux, ed. Gaston Wiet, Cairo.
Idrîsî, (1840) Geograpqhie d’Édrîsî, II, ed. P. Amédée Jaubert, Paris.
Kafesoğlu, İbrahim, (2001) Türk Milli Kültürü, 21. ed., İstanbul.
Karatay, Osman, (2002) “Ogur Connection in the Croatian and Serbian Migrations”, Türkler, ed O. Karatay et all, Vol I, Ankara, pp.553-561.
Karatay, Osman, (2003) In Search of the Lost Tribe. The Origins and Making of the Croatian Nation, Çorum.
Kaşgarlı Mahmut, (1999) Divan-ı Lügât-it-Türk, ed. B. Atalay, I, Ankara.
Klaić, Nada, (1990) Povijest Hrvata u srednjem vijeku, Zagreb.
Mayorov, A. V., Velikaja Xorvatija: etnogenez I rannjaja istorija slavjan Prikarpatskogo regiona, St. Petersburg, 2006.
Macartney, C. A., (1968) The Magyars in the ninth Century, Cambridge (repr. of 1930).
Mesudî, (2004) Murûc ez-Zeheb (Altın Bozkırlar), ed. D. A. Batur, İstanbul.
Mikkola, J. J., (1927)“Avarica”, Archivum für Slavische Philologie, XLI, pp.158-160.
Montgomery, James E., (2001) “İbn Rusta’s Lack of ‘Eloquence’, the Rūs, and Samanid Cosmography”, Edebiyat: Journal of the Middle Eastern Literatures, XII/1, pp.73-93.
Povest' vremennyx let po Lavrent’evskoj letopisi, (1950) ed. D. S. Lihačev - B. A. Romanov, Moskva-Leningrad.
Priscus, (1829) in Corpus Scriptorum Historiae Byzantina, ed. B. G. Niehbuhr, Bonn.
Rásony, Lászlo, (1988) Tarihte Türklük, 2. ed, Ankara.
Rona-Tas, András, (1996) Hungarians and Europe in the Early Middle Ages, Budapest.
Rona-Tas, András, (2000) “Where was Khuvrat’s Bulgharia?”, Acta Orientalia Hungaricae, 53, pp.1-22.
Schechter, Solomon, (1912/1913) “An Unknown Khazar Document”, Jewish Quarterly Review, New Series, 3:2, s.182-219.
Simon of Kéza, The Deeds of the Hungarians, ed. L. Veszprémy - F. Schaer, Budapest, 1999.
Şeşen, Ramazan, (1998) İslam Coğrafyacılarına Göre Türkler ve Türk Ülkeleri, 2nd ed., Ankara.
Traian, Stoianovich, (1994) Balkan Worlds: The First and Last Europe, New York - London.
Vakar, Nicholas, P., (1949) “The Name White Russia”, The American Slavic and East European Review, VIII/3 (Oct. 1949), pp.201-213.
Vernadsky, G., (1945) “Great Moravia and White Chorvatia”, Journal of American Oriental Society, Vol 65 No 4 (Oct. Dec. 1945), pp.257-259.
28

Vernadsky, G., (1947) “Note on Zhupan”, Journal of American Oriental Society, Vol 67 No 1 (Jan. Mar. 1947), p.62.
Vinski, Zdenko, (1940) Uz Problematiku Starog Irana i Kavkaza s osvrtom na podrijetlo Anta I Bijelih Hrvata, Zagreb.
Yörükân, Y. Ziya, (2004) Müslüman Coğrafyacıların Gözüyle Ortaçağ’da Türkler, İstanbul.
Zimony, István, (1990) The Origins of the Volga Bulghars, Szeged.
29