Kaspias
10-03-2019, 09:08 PM
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.
At the very end of his work O. Karatai expresses a carefully phrased point that the term Mrvât, used by numerous sources, is a personal name of the Onogur (Hungarian) prince who headed his Slavic subjects (Hungarian name Morout, Hungarian pronunciation Marot). The name of the ruling prince gave the name to his subjects, Moravians, and to the name of his possession Moravia. The ruler of Moravia Marot was a father of Svjatopluk I (Svatopluk the Great, before 867–894) and grandfather of very tall Men-Marot (Turko-Bulgar men ‘great’). The decade of 895-905 was a Moravian hiatus, Moravian state was overrun by Magyars in 906/7. The two compilations of Gesta Hungarorum fill in the lacuna on the origin of the name Moravia.
The sequence of events appear this:
– ca. 560s Avars and First Türkic Kaganate partition the Hunnic state headed by Bulgars into western and eastern parts with border along Don river
– ca 623 Shambat (Samo of western sources) is a viceroy of the Bulgarian northwestern provinces. Shambat brings his charges Onogurs to Central Europe
– ca 630s Kurbat and Shambat denounce Avar supremacy
– ca 658 Shambat suffers military defeat and retreats to Kurbat's Great Bulgaria. Onogurs and Bulgars remain behind with their subject Slavs, and fall under Avar suzerainty
– ca 820s/830s - 846 Rise of local leader Moimar (Moimir, Moimir I)
– 846 Moimir is deposited by Franks' Louis II and replaced by Moimir's nephew Rastiz (a son of an Moimir's older reigning brother) who becomes Rastislav (846–870), apparently meaning “Rastiz over the Slavs”
– 869 Rastislav's nephew Svatopluk I, ca 867–894, replaced Rastislav
Thus, it appears that Moravians had a Türkic traditional Lateral Order of Succession (nephews succeed after the store of younger brothers runs out), and the namesake of Moravia Marot/Mrvât was a senior brother of Svatopluk I.
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). 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.
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). 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). (cf. account of Hudud 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).
Ugor/Ogurs, Magyars and the Rest
Magyars are called Ugors for their Oguric connection (Rona-Tas 1996: 284). 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). Thus, the Ogurs living in the form of pure tribal unions also would have this appellation.
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. 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, as well as the ethnonym Croat itself. 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. 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.
Volga Bulgars were by no means Ogurs or Onogurs, and they were never called so. 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.
740-840 After disintegration of Western Türkic Kaganate a part of Kimaks remained in Uigur Kaganate, and another part was independent. During that period evolved a nucleus of Kimak tribes. Head of tribe had a title "Shad Tutuk", i.e. "Prince Governing or Holding (power)". In Göktürk Kaganate, Shad (Crown Prince) was eastern governor and Yabgu (Head of maternal dynastic tribe) was western governor.
The Kimaks that remained in the Uigur Kaganate gained a fitting politonym “Uigur”, and could become an Irtish Yigurs subgroup of Kimaks after the fall of the Uigur Kaganate and the formation of the Kimak Kaganate, remaining at the same time ethnically the same Kimaks as the titular Kimaks of the Kimak Kaganate. Confusion between the names Uigur and Yigur, as suggested by O. Karatay, and likewise between the names Yigur and Ogur (Ugur), as suggested by A. Rona-Tas, is quite natural, but the historical timeline contravenes identification of the much later Uigur/Yigur Kimaks with much earlier Ogurs.
Masudî and Idrisî
Masudî in his Murűj 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.
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. 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 Rűm.” (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 Rűmî (Byzantine Greek?). They dress like the Arabs. They are on friendly terms with the Turks and the Rűm. 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. 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 Rűtâ, which rises from a mountain situated on the frontier between the Pečenegs, the Majgharî, and the Rűs”) (Hudud 1937: 76; 1962: 14). Thus, White Croatia remains as the unique (only) alternative.
Khazars' Pečenegs are west of the Khazars: not necessarily, Bechens were both east and west of the Khazar state, in 922 Ibn Fadlan crossed Bechens's territories east of the Khazaria. Which group of the Bechens were free and which were Khazar dependents is a mute question. Bechens displaced Onogurs (Magyars) west of the Khazaria's center, and thus were in the Khazar territory, thus the “Khazarian Pečenegs”.
Bechens - Besenyo - Bosnyaks ca 850 AD
http://s155239215.onlinehome.us/turkic/btn_GeographyMaps/AD_850BesenyoBosniakia.jpg
The Gurz Sea is the Gurjan Sea, the modern Caspian Sea.
Saqlâbs are Slavs or Rus only in the Slavic historiography, especially Minorsky, who translated Saklab as Slavs and not Rus. According to Ibn Fadlan, Saklabs are neither Slavs nor Rus, they are Bulgars, that is noted in numerous comments to the various translation of the sources. The Arabic neme Saqlâb is the Greek Sklaboi (nom. Σκλαβόι, adj. Σκλάβων), the Greek Sklaboi is a Türkic agglutinative compound Sk + la + boi = “of tribe Sk” or “of people Sk”, where Sk is a stem found in numerous Türkic tribal names (cf. Slavs, Saklabs, Sakaliba, Saka, Scythians, Scandia, Seklers, Esgils, Scotts, Sakars, Sagadar, Sagays, Saha, and Σκλαβίνιοι), -la- is a Türkic adjectival and adverbial affix, thus Skla (Sakla, Sekla, Sikla, Sokla, Sukla, Sykla) is something with Sk property or a property of Sk tribe; boi in Türkic is “tribe, people”. The root Sak means “Piedmonter”, “Foot-hiller”, somebody who lives in the foothills, that was the initial location before the migration and dispersion, and that served as a proto-form for the Persian Saka and Greek Scythian. In the 9th c. Saklabs lived in the interfluvial of Don and Itil, centered on the modern Kalmykia, and they left the city Saksin, later Saksin-Bulgar, later Sarai Batu (48.5°N 45.0°E) in the land that was called Saksin Il “Saksin's land”.
Saksin and Saklan ca 1200
http://s155239215.onlinehome.us/turkic/btn_GeographyMaps/AD1200SaksinDeshtiKipchakPletneva_600pxw.gif
Thus, the Mrvâts lived north of the Caspian and north of some Bechens, south of (Itil) Bulgars and Volga (Onogur) Upland mountain range with Zhiguli Mountains, east of the northwestern bank of the Caspian and (inner) (N. Caucasus) Bulgars, west of the Volga (Onogur) Upland mountain range and some Bechens. The Anonymous Hudud al-cÂlam did not mention not only Burtases, but probably a dozen of other tribes neighboring Mrvâts, like the Khazars, Suvars, and Oguzes. The suggestion that Inner Bulgaria was located in the area of the Royal Cemetery (Mala Perschepino) can't be accurate for the 9th c. on, since the Bulgar centers moved and splintered after the rise of Khazars and migration of Bechens.
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):
https://i.ibb.co/znV79wk/Ads-z.png
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. 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.
Bulgaria did not defend its possessions from the Bechen intrusion, it started splintering after the rise of Khazars, and was further separated with the migration and entrenching of the Bechens. By the 9th c., the ‘upper' Inner Bulgar (modern Tatarstan) has been well-established compared with the emerging centers of the Danube Bulgaria (Burjan, realignment after the *****ukh migration), Crimea (Bershud), Pannonia (realignment after the fall of the Avars), N. Caucasus (historical Burjan), Karajar (Chernigiv-Sever principality). The area of the Atil-kuzu that included south-eastern Ukraine and Moldova, aka Kara (Black) Bulgar was divided between the old Kara Bulgar population, Bechens, and Onogurs (future Magyars) in a fairly stable mode, because the Bechen assault on the Atil-kuzu Onogurs came as a shock.
The Bulgars to the north of Danube is the area populated by the conglomerate of the Türkic tribes remaining from the Hunnic empire, plus the fragments of the Avar Kaganate, plus the local farming populations, mostly Slavs, last known as Kutrigurs in the Byzantine terminology. The appellation “Bulgars” reflects their acceptance of the Bulgar leadership in the post-Hunnic times. Burjan was a colloquial name for the N. Caucasus Bulgars and the Danube Bulgars.
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 Rűm” (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.
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). Iranic origins are not much visible for Croats or any other Central European people. 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. 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).
In that note he corrects the reading subanj (from Xwolson on, to be explained as South Slavic župan, a remnant of the Avar age) 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, 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.
To discern language and ethnicity based on international words is utterly impossible, whether in modern or ancient times. The kumys was an ancient international word as much as kebab, shawarma, burek and sarai are international words now; the difference is only in the magnitude of their spread, within a narrow belt inside and surrounding the ancient Türkic population vs. the modern globalization. The paths for the spread to English or other languages irrelevant, be it via Slavic, Armenian, or Romance; the ultimate origin is pertinent. Thus, Alans could use the name kumys independently of their linguistic and ethnic origin. Only more specific lexicon, like subašı “head of army”, “Flat-lander”, Masgut (Massaget) “Head tribe”, can be used as diagnostic.
To stipulate that all nomads are alike is a daring proposition. Mongols turned-nomads, for example, were different than the Tele Dinlin nomads, Enisei Kirgiz nomads were different than the Uigur nomads, and so on without an end. In addition to genetic composition, the environment also created differentiated nomads. Alans, for one, were a product of the Aral estuaries, with abundant vegetation and protected winter refuges, they did not have to venture into meridional pasturing routs, their herds could contain ruminants unable to travel long distances, and they had more chances for symbiotic interaction with the farmers. At the same time, technological exchanges and use of identical raw materials produced by pastoralism served to level off differences in pastoral lifestyles. Chinese annals corroborate the European records that Masguts-Alans were pastoralist nomads, the initial Chinese term for Alans 奄蔡 “Vast steppe” was a semantical calque of the Türkic word alan “field, level ground”, and then the term was changed to a phonetic rendition A-lan (A 阿 + Lan 蘭). While the name Alan was generic, applied to numerous tribes, the name Masgut was specific, denoting only the ruling tribe.
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).
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 Sűbenj (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.műt-swyt (or Bsműt-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 Rűs. ( خرداب ( 2 (Kharydab), a large town and the seat of the king.” (Hudud 1937: 159; 1962: 188).
Moravia ca 900 AD within borders of Czechia
http://s155239215.onlinehome.us/turkic/btn_GeographyMaps/AD1000CzechiaInModernBorders.gif
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, and (2) no source quoting Jarmî gives the ruler’s and capital’s names, except Hudud’s above quoted parts. The form in Hudűd 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. 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.
https://i.ibb.co/1XdvCSr/Ads-z.png
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 source 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.
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. 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.
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.
At the very end of his work O. Karatai expresses a carefully phrased point that the term Mrvât, used by numerous sources, is a personal name of the Onogur (Hungarian) prince who headed his Slavic subjects (Hungarian name Morout, Hungarian pronunciation Marot). The name of the ruling prince gave the name to his subjects, Moravians, and to the name of his possession Moravia. The ruler of Moravia Marot was a father of Svjatopluk I (Svatopluk the Great, before 867–894) and grandfather of very tall Men-Marot (Turko-Bulgar men ‘great’). The decade of 895-905 was a Moravian hiatus, Moravian state was overrun by Magyars in 906/7. The two compilations of Gesta Hungarorum fill in the lacuna on the origin of the name Moravia.
The sequence of events appear this:
– ca. 560s Avars and First Türkic Kaganate partition the Hunnic state headed by Bulgars into western and eastern parts with border along Don river
– ca 623 Shambat (Samo of western sources) is a viceroy of the Bulgarian northwestern provinces. Shambat brings his charges Onogurs to Central Europe
– ca 630s Kurbat and Shambat denounce Avar supremacy
– ca 658 Shambat suffers military defeat and retreats to Kurbat's Great Bulgaria. Onogurs and Bulgars remain behind with their subject Slavs, and fall under Avar suzerainty
– ca 820s/830s - 846 Rise of local leader Moimar (Moimir, Moimir I)
– 846 Moimir is deposited by Franks' Louis II and replaced by Moimir's nephew Rastiz (a son of an Moimir's older reigning brother) who becomes Rastislav (846–870), apparently meaning “Rastiz over the Slavs”
– 869 Rastislav's nephew Svatopluk I, ca 867–894, replaced Rastislav
Thus, it appears that Moravians had a Türkic traditional Lateral Order of Succession (nephews succeed after the store of younger brothers runs out), and the namesake of Moravia Marot/Mrvât was a senior brother of Svatopluk I.
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). 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.
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). 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). (cf. account of Hudud 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).
Ugor/Ogurs, Magyars and the Rest
Magyars are called Ugors for their Oguric connection (Rona-Tas 1996: 284). 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). Thus, the Ogurs living in the form of pure tribal unions also would have this appellation.
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. 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, as well as the ethnonym Croat itself. 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. 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.
Volga Bulgars were by no means Ogurs or Onogurs, and they were never called so. 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.
740-840 After disintegration of Western Türkic Kaganate a part of Kimaks remained in Uigur Kaganate, and another part was independent. During that period evolved a nucleus of Kimak tribes. Head of tribe had a title "Shad Tutuk", i.e. "Prince Governing or Holding (power)". In Göktürk Kaganate, Shad (Crown Prince) was eastern governor and Yabgu (Head of maternal dynastic tribe) was western governor.
The Kimaks that remained in the Uigur Kaganate gained a fitting politonym “Uigur”, and could become an Irtish Yigurs subgroup of Kimaks after the fall of the Uigur Kaganate and the formation of the Kimak Kaganate, remaining at the same time ethnically the same Kimaks as the titular Kimaks of the Kimak Kaganate. Confusion between the names Uigur and Yigur, as suggested by O. Karatay, and likewise between the names Yigur and Ogur (Ugur), as suggested by A. Rona-Tas, is quite natural, but the historical timeline contravenes identification of the much later Uigur/Yigur Kimaks with much earlier Ogurs.
Masudî and Idrisî
Masudî in his Murűj 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.
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. 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 Rűm.” (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 Rűmî (Byzantine Greek?). They dress like the Arabs. They are on friendly terms with the Turks and the Rűm. 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. 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 Rűtâ, which rises from a mountain situated on the frontier between the Pečenegs, the Majgharî, and the Rűs”) (Hudud 1937: 76; 1962: 14). Thus, White Croatia remains as the unique (only) alternative.
Khazars' Pečenegs are west of the Khazars: not necessarily, Bechens were both east and west of the Khazar state, in 922 Ibn Fadlan crossed Bechens's territories east of the Khazaria. Which group of the Bechens were free and which were Khazar dependents is a mute question. Bechens displaced Onogurs (Magyars) west of the Khazaria's center, and thus were in the Khazar territory, thus the “Khazarian Pečenegs”.
Bechens - Besenyo - Bosnyaks ca 850 AD
http://s155239215.onlinehome.us/turkic/btn_GeographyMaps/AD_850BesenyoBosniakia.jpg
The Gurz Sea is the Gurjan Sea, the modern Caspian Sea.
Saqlâbs are Slavs or Rus only in the Slavic historiography, especially Minorsky, who translated Saklab as Slavs and not Rus. According to Ibn Fadlan, Saklabs are neither Slavs nor Rus, they are Bulgars, that is noted in numerous comments to the various translation of the sources. The Arabic neme Saqlâb is the Greek Sklaboi (nom. Σκλαβόι, adj. Σκλάβων), the Greek Sklaboi is a Türkic agglutinative compound Sk + la + boi = “of tribe Sk” or “of people Sk”, where Sk is a stem found in numerous Türkic tribal names (cf. Slavs, Saklabs, Sakaliba, Saka, Scythians, Scandia, Seklers, Esgils, Scotts, Sakars, Sagadar, Sagays, Saha, and Σκλαβίνιοι), -la- is a Türkic adjectival and adverbial affix, thus Skla (Sakla, Sekla, Sikla, Sokla, Sukla, Sykla) is something with Sk property or a property of Sk tribe; boi in Türkic is “tribe, people”. The root Sak means “Piedmonter”, “Foot-hiller”, somebody who lives in the foothills, that was the initial location before the migration and dispersion, and that served as a proto-form for the Persian Saka and Greek Scythian. In the 9th c. Saklabs lived in the interfluvial of Don and Itil, centered on the modern Kalmykia, and they left the city Saksin, later Saksin-Bulgar, later Sarai Batu (48.5°N 45.0°E) in the land that was called Saksin Il “Saksin's land”.
Saksin and Saklan ca 1200
http://s155239215.onlinehome.us/turkic/btn_GeographyMaps/AD1200SaksinDeshtiKipchakPletneva_600pxw.gif
Thus, the Mrvâts lived north of the Caspian and north of some Bechens, south of (Itil) Bulgars and Volga (Onogur) Upland mountain range with Zhiguli Mountains, east of the northwestern bank of the Caspian and (inner) (N. Caucasus) Bulgars, west of the Volga (Onogur) Upland mountain range and some Bechens. The Anonymous Hudud al-cÂlam did not mention not only Burtases, but probably a dozen of other tribes neighboring Mrvâts, like the Khazars, Suvars, and Oguzes. The suggestion that Inner Bulgaria was located in the area of the Royal Cemetery (Mala Perschepino) can't be accurate for the 9th c. on, since the Bulgar centers moved and splintered after the rise of Khazars and migration of Bechens.
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):
https://i.ibb.co/znV79wk/Ads-z.png
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. 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.
Bulgaria did not defend its possessions from the Bechen intrusion, it started splintering after the rise of Khazars, and was further separated with the migration and entrenching of the Bechens. By the 9th c., the ‘upper' Inner Bulgar (modern Tatarstan) has been well-established compared with the emerging centers of the Danube Bulgaria (Burjan, realignment after the *****ukh migration), Crimea (Bershud), Pannonia (realignment after the fall of the Avars), N. Caucasus (historical Burjan), Karajar (Chernigiv-Sever principality). The area of the Atil-kuzu that included south-eastern Ukraine and Moldova, aka Kara (Black) Bulgar was divided between the old Kara Bulgar population, Bechens, and Onogurs (future Magyars) in a fairly stable mode, because the Bechen assault on the Atil-kuzu Onogurs came as a shock.
The Bulgars to the north of Danube is the area populated by the conglomerate of the Türkic tribes remaining from the Hunnic empire, plus the fragments of the Avar Kaganate, plus the local farming populations, mostly Slavs, last known as Kutrigurs in the Byzantine terminology. The appellation “Bulgars” reflects their acceptance of the Bulgar leadership in the post-Hunnic times. Burjan was a colloquial name for the N. Caucasus Bulgars and the Danube Bulgars.
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 Rűm” (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.
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). Iranic origins are not much visible for Croats or any other Central European people. 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. 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).
In that note he corrects the reading subanj (from Xwolson on, to be explained as South Slavic župan, a remnant of the Avar age) 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, 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.
To discern language and ethnicity based on international words is utterly impossible, whether in modern or ancient times. The kumys was an ancient international word as much as kebab, shawarma, burek and sarai are international words now; the difference is only in the magnitude of their spread, within a narrow belt inside and surrounding the ancient Türkic population vs. the modern globalization. The paths for the spread to English or other languages irrelevant, be it via Slavic, Armenian, or Romance; the ultimate origin is pertinent. Thus, Alans could use the name kumys independently of their linguistic and ethnic origin. Only more specific lexicon, like subašı “head of army”, “Flat-lander”, Masgut (Massaget) “Head tribe”, can be used as diagnostic.
To stipulate that all nomads are alike is a daring proposition. Mongols turned-nomads, for example, were different than the Tele Dinlin nomads, Enisei Kirgiz nomads were different than the Uigur nomads, and so on without an end. In addition to genetic composition, the environment also created differentiated nomads. Alans, for one, were a product of the Aral estuaries, with abundant vegetation and protected winter refuges, they did not have to venture into meridional pasturing routs, their herds could contain ruminants unable to travel long distances, and they had more chances for symbiotic interaction with the farmers. At the same time, technological exchanges and use of identical raw materials produced by pastoralism served to level off differences in pastoral lifestyles. Chinese annals corroborate the European records that Masguts-Alans were pastoralist nomads, the initial Chinese term for Alans 奄蔡 “Vast steppe” was a semantical calque of the Türkic word alan “field, level ground”, and then the term was changed to a phonetic rendition A-lan (A 阿 + Lan 蘭). While the name Alan was generic, applied to numerous tribes, the name Masgut was specific, denoting only the ruling tribe.
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).
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 Sűbenj (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.műt-swyt (or Bsműt-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 Rűs. ( خرداب ( 2 (Kharydab), a large town and the seat of the king.” (Hudud 1937: 159; 1962: 188).
Moravia ca 900 AD within borders of Czechia
http://s155239215.onlinehome.us/turkic/btn_GeographyMaps/AD1000CzechiaInModernBorders.gif
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, and (2) no source quoting Jarmî gives the ruler’s and capital’s names, except Hudud’s above quoted parts. The form in Hudűd 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. 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.
https://i.ibb.co/1XdvCSr/Ads-z.png
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 source 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.
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. 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.