EASTERN CROATS ON THE MAP OF EUROPE
HAH Institute of Archeology of Ukraine
Bukovyna Center of Archaeological Research at Chernivtsi State University named after
Yu. Fedkovich
Despite the fact that disputes about the location of Greater Croatia have been going on since at the end of the 18th century, the issue of localisation of the territory of settlement of Croats in Europe still remains relevant.
After all, there are few sources in which historians and geographers talk about the land of the Croats. These are, first of all, "The Tale of Bygone Years" and the book "On the Management of the Empire" by Constantin Bagry the Native (Porphyrogenet), on which all researchers of the Croatian question, without exception, were based. Among the following sources are the geographical treatises of Ibn-Ruste, Gardizi, al-Marwazi and anonymous authors "Hudud al-alem" and "Najmal at-tabarih", "Cheska, Chronicle" by Kozma of Prague, the geographical tract of Alfred the Great and the book of al-Masudi.
To the information concerning the population of Prykarpattya during the time of the Croats (without its name), you can also include excerpts from the geographical treatise of al-Bakuvit a story about the temples of the Slavs al-Masudi.
The most famous references to Greater Croatia are the books "On the Management of the Empire" and "The Tale of the Bygone Years", the information of which is also valuable because it is presented with different sources - Byzantine, Frankish and Russian with the use of geographical landmarks. Both sources of Porphyrogenet - the Frankish (Croats live beyond Bavaria) and the Byzantine (Croats - beyond the Ugrian) provide the same region of settlement.
White Croats are placed near Frangia (Franconia), that is, the possessions of Otto I, and more specifically - for Bavaria. In another place, Porphyrogenet clarifies: "Otto is the great king of Saxia" [18, p. 131], i.e. Saxony. Another country, whose northern borders border White Croatia, there is Turkey (Hungary). The third landmark is the neighborhood of White Croats with non-Christian Sorbs [18, p. 570]. The commentator of Porphyrogenet's book H. Litavrin believes that these landmarks make it possible to localize the area of settlement of White Croats from Western Slovakia to Eastern Carpathians, that is, the Carpathian-Tatra region. However, bearing in mind Porphyrogenet's report that White Croatia was suffering from invasions of the Pechenegs, he believes that her lands extended far to the east, covering the Carpathian Mountains and possibly Kraków [18, p. 370].
The key to the interpretation of this phrase of Porphyrogenet is the localisation of the White Sorbs, the author mentions them three times in the book - in ch. 31, where he twice calls them unbaptized, and also neighbors of the Croats [18, p. 137, 141]; and in Sect. 32, where he places them behind Hungary, in the "Boyko" country, where they border Franconia and Greater Croatia, which is also not baptized and is called White [18, p. 141].
The White Sorbs, with whom the White Croats bordered, were placed by the researchers in different places. According to one of the versions, White Sorbs lived on the territory of modern Lusatia and are the ancestors of the current Serbs [18, p. 370]. According to another, more fantastic version, which was followed by the supporters of the East Croatian theory of White Croatia, the white Sorbs were placed on the territory of Transcarpathia and partly in Prikarpattia and, according to reports of their living in the "Boyko" country, they are the ancestors of modern Boykos [18, p. 141].
Some researchers considered it possible to recognize both of these versions as legitimate, scattering the Sorbs from the region between the Oder, the Elbe and the Saale to the Upper Vistula [24, with. 182 - 183], relying mainly on the message of Porphyrogenets that the Zhlums, who are Sorbs, came from the land of the "Lichyks" on the Vistula [18, p. 149]. With H. Lovmyanskyi, insisting on the transcription of "litikaviki", i.e. "lestkovichi", which transmitted in the chronicle of Vidukinda, believes that the Lychiks are the subjects of Lestek, mentioned in the chronicle of Galla Anonymous and the grandfather of Meshka I, i.e. the entire tribe of the Poles, the federation of which also included Zhlums - Sorbs [54, p. 486-488]. This allowed him to identify the White Croats as neighbors of the Lychians with the Vistula [54, p. 488].
At the same time, we should mention the geographer of the 10th century. al-Masudi, who placed the "Sorbian" tribe between Milchans, Czechs (Dulebs) and Germans, i.e. to the north of the Czech Republic [16, p. 67]. Therefore, the first version should be considered correct, since it is indicated by the boundary with Saxony, Milsk, as well as the reading of the word "Boyko" as "Bohemia", the territory of which stretched far to the north, partially capturing Lusatia as well. Thus, we can see that most of Porphyrogenet's documents talk about those Croats who inhabited the interfluve of the Oder and Saale, up to and including the Sudetenland. Obviously, it should be placed there White Croatia.
By the way, since in the Middle Ages the sides of the world were defined differently by colors, then the "white" Croats should be considered Western Croats, i.e. Porphyrogenet may not have named them in such a way to distinguish them from the southern and eastern ones [46, p. 53].
At the same time, Porphyrogenet's individual data do not allow us to identify the Croats described by him only with Western ones. Information about Eastern Croats can be attributed to the story "About peoples that border with the Turks (Ugrians)" Hungarians, who at that time lived, obviously, already in Pannonia, in the west they border the Franks, in the north - with the Pechenegs, in the south - with Moravia, the country of Sviatopulk [18, p. 53]. It should be noted that there is an obvious error here. Moravia could not be south of the Ugrians and the Pechenegs at the same time, because it is geographical nonsense. Most likely, the author (or his scribe) is completely mechanically swapped Moravia with the Pechenegs. Therefore, it should be read "from the north (side) - Great Moravia... and from the south - Pechenegs". We see that the description of border lands occupies three sides of the world - north, west, south. The east remains, and here Porphyrogenet writes: "the Croats border the Turks near the mountains" [18, p. 53]. Obviously, this is the people which bordered the Ugrians in the east. It makes no sense to identify these Croats with Westerners, since the Sudetenland is located not only to the northwest of Pannonia, but also separated from it by the territory of Moravia.
The next message that can be attributed to the Eastern Croats is chapter 31 of the aforementioned treatise. In it, Greater Croatia, like neighboring Sorbia, is characterized as a pagan country. It has few troops, so it is more accessible to attacks by the Franks, Hungarians, and Pechenegs [18, p. 141]. Here again we see a combination of two completely different geographical areas. To White Croatia, which was near Saxony, really attacked both the Franks and the Hungarians and by no means the Pechenegs, who at that time lived in the neighboring Danube region of Middle Transnistria - Pobuzhzhi [40, p. 3-17], in 886 - 912 they pushed out the Ugrians from Atelkuz (between the rivers Bug and Siret) to the north, to upper Dniester, forcing them to cross the Carpathians [37, p. 4-8]. Just from here, from the Middle Transnistria, the Pechenegs could make raids on the settlements of Croats, but not White Croats, but Easterners who lived in the Carpathians. Obviously, this part of the message concerns them precisely, since the author then measures the distance from the land of the Croats to the Black Sea in ZO days Based on the average speed of merchant rolls (15-20 km per day), this the distance is equal to the route from the mouth of the Dniester to its sources.
So, we see that only two mentions of Porphyrogenets can be attributed to Eastern Croats - the one where the Croats border the Ugrians near the mountains (Carpathians) and the one where it is measured from Croatia to the Black Sea. Moreover, the first can be attributed to the Croats of Transcarpathia and partly of the Eastern Carpathians, and the second - to the Croats of Precarpathia. The rest of the mentions concerns the Czech Croats who lived in the Laba and Jizera basins, where, in fact, White Croatia should be placed. The majority of scientists are inclined to this opinion [55, p. 255].
As for the relationship between the names "Great" and "White Croatia", it can be seen that Porphyrogenet combined them artificially, combining under this name information about both Western and about Eastern Croats. This is explained by the author's rather approximate idea of the territory described by him. In general, if we examine the use of the term "Velyka" in history, then most often among different peoples it defines the region of original settlement - the ancestral home. For the Germans, it is Great Sweden in the Black Sea region, for the Crimean Scythians, it is Podniprovsko - Podnistrovska Velika Scythia, for Polynesians – Greater Hawaii, in Hungarian - Great Hungary [8, p. 517]. Similar hyperbolisation of the ancestral homeland characteristic of almost all nations. Therefore, it can be assumed that for the White Croats, Carpathian Croatia was Great, and for Dalmatians, both Carpathian and Sudeten Croatia. Only this can explain the combination of these two names. So, in the scientific circulation of Great Croatia should be considered the entire northern territory settlement of Croats.
The next source that mentions the Croats is the "Orozius of King Alfred". This treatise is dated quite early (890-893). In it, the Croats are located to the east of the Dalemen, who are identified with the tribe that inhabited the area of Glomache above Laba [55, p. 249]. To the north of the Croats is the country of Megda, beyond which all the way to the Sarmatians who live in the Riphean Mountains [22, p. 25]. Despite all variants of the interpretation of "Megda's country" [53, p. 57], if we recall the English character of King Alfred's book (although it is written in Latin), then this toponym should be read as "Majda", i.e. Magyar.
Then the Croats mentioned in Orozia turn out to be southern Croats, to the west of whom lived the Dalmatians, to the north - the Hungarians, to the east of which - the Sarmatians, that is, the Pechenegs. Kozma of Prague (XIII century), quoting in his "Czech Chronicle" the text of the charter of the Bishopric of Prague from 1086, places "Croats and other Croats" [17, p. 15] in the north-east of the Czech Republic, between the Psovani and Zličani it follows that the Croats should be localized in the Sudetenland region [55, p. 286].
The first report on the existence of Croats in Czech sources is a mention in the "Life of St. Wenceslas I or Václav ". It tells how, after the murder of Vaclav in 936, his mother Dragomira hid in Croatia [55, p. 249]. In the "Czech Chronicle" by Hagek (first half of the 16th century), a legend was published about the arrival of the mythical Slavic chieftains Chech and Lech on the territory of the Czech Republic and Poland from the Croatian lands. The same opinion was held by the Polish chroniclers Jan Dlugosz and Matej Mechovskyi [44, p. 287]. Kozma of Prague also announced the arrival of the Czechs from the land of the Croats [17, p. 251], but it is difficult to establish more precisely which Croatian land we are talking about.
Nestor's chronicle, in fact, was for a long time almost the only reliable evidence about the Eastern Croats. In addition, based on his data, many investigators generally rejected the idea of the existence of White Croatia in the Czech Republic and transferred it either to the territory of Prykarpattia or Powislenia [51, p. 172]. The Croats are mentioned four times in the Tale of Bygone Years. In the undated part, after reporting on the Moravians and Czechs, Nestor writes: "...and these Slavs are White Croats, Sorbs and Horutans..." [20, p. 2]. What Nestor calls the Dalmatian Croats as white, is explained by his complete ignorance of the geography of the European tribes contemporary to him. The half-forgotten information about the White Croats, who at that time were almost completely assimilated by the Czechs, forced him to look for a more familiar analogue for him, especially since these Croats, in relation to Russia , were also "white", i.e. Western.
The following passage lists the Eastern Slavic tribes. Croats are not clearly classified, but in the general list they come before Dulibs, Volhynians, Ulyches [20, p. 7-8]. Based on this, most researchers traditionally place Croats or only in the Carpathians [43, p. 151-152], or in the Carpathians, Prykarpattia [38, p. 35] and Zakarpattia [31, p. 162]. The third passage reports on the joint march of Slavs and Rus to Constantinople in 907, where the Croats are mentioned among the allies ("paktiots") of the Prince of Kyiv [20, p. 16].
The last mention of the Croats dates back to 993, when Volodymyr the Great "went against the Croats", apparently with the aim of joining them to Russia [20, p. 68]. The outcome of the war is unknown, the chronicler limited himself only to the fact that the prince "returned from the Croatian war." But in view of the fact that the Croats are not mentioned after that, most scientists are convinced that they were conquered and subsequently assimilated [47, p. 100].
Studying the ancient Russian sources, we should stop at the pseudo-chronicle "Vleso va kniga", which apparently belongs to the pen of the American historian Yu. Myrolyubov and dates from approximately the third quarter of the 20th century. In this document, Kiy, Shchek, and Horiv are deduced as the progenitors of the Rus, Czechs, and Croats, respectively. The author resettles the last two tribes on the slopes of the Carpathians [6, p. 174-175]. Perhaps this was influenced by information from Kozmy and Gagek about the arrival of Czechs from Croatia.
Reports of Arab geographers, based on sources of the 9th - 10th centuries, caused the most controversy. about the Croats (treatises by Ibn Ruste, Gardizi, al-Marwazi and the anonymous "Hudud al-Alem", as well as the 12th century compilation "Majmal at-tabarih"). Confusion was also introduced by numerous concepts of Russian and Soviet historians who, using the anti-Norman theory, mechanically combined the concepts of "Russians" and "Slavs", which are clearly distinguished in Arabic sources. From the very beginning, before considering the Arab documents about Greater Croatia, for a more accurate localization, it is necessary to determine the difficult question of the so-called "three centers of Rus", which has been the subject of controversy among scientists for the second century.
Treatises of different times, divided into four groups of sources: 1 - al-Marwazi, 2 – the general source of Ibn Ruste, "Hudud al-alem", 3 - the general source of al-Istarhi, Ibn Haukalya, 4 - the source of al-Masudi - reflect the development of Arab ideas about Slavs and Russians. Thus, in the first source, the Rus (ar-Rus) do not appear at all, but the Slavs (as Sakaliba) occupy a large territory that stretches far to the west. The second one already clearly distinguishes between Slavs and Rus, although it sometimes calls Rus a variety of Slavs [12, p. 107]. Obviously, this is explained by the fact that the Rus came to the Caliphate from the Slavic lands. In this source, the Slavs live among the Pechenegs, Rus and Ugras. Most likely, the creation of this source falls on the first phase of the Norman expansion in the Dnieper region (c. 8th century). The third source hardly mentions the Slavs, but provides information about the "three centers of the Rus" - Kuyaba, Slavs and Arta. And according to the fourth source, the Rus are pirates of the Black Sea.
So, al-Balkhi (920) writes: "Rus consist of three tribes - one of them is closer to Bulgar, and its king lives in a city called Kuyaba. The second tribe, which lives further than the first, is called Slaviya. Another tribe is called Artania, and its king lives in Arti. Black sables and tin are exported from Arta" [7, p. 276-277]. Al-Istarhi adds that "very valuable blades and swords are taken out of Arta" [7, p. 193]. Al-Idrisi (XII century) writes that the ruler of Artania "is in Artania, a beautiful city built on a mountain" [23, p. 104].
Only in relation to Kuyaba - Kyiv, researchers' opinions are the same. But the problem of the localization of Slava and Arta caused violent disputes. Some historians believed that Arta is the land of Mordva-Erzya and suggested looking for it in Arzamas [41, p. 165]. D. Shcheglov, O. Shakhmatov, and O. Mongait suggested reading this name as "Arsania" and equated it with Ryazan [52, p. 35-36; 23, p. 104]. L. Niederle suggested reading "Antania", i.e. the land of the Ants [23, p. 104]. Most researchers agreed that Slavia is the land of the Ilmen Slavs, and Slavs is Novgorod. The book of al Idrisi played a role in this, who, borrowing this information from Ibn Haukal, mistakenly placed Arta between Slav and Kuyaba, that is, Slav was on the extreme northern periphery of Russia [5, p. 215], as well as "Hudud al-alem", in which the river Rus, on which the named cities are located, is identified with the Volga [11, p. 75].
Unfortunately, according to the author, most researchers mistakenly locate "Rus centers" in the place of little-known and insignificant points that did not play a role in the 9th-10th centuries, nor a significant role in international trade nor in the formation of Russia. At the same time, the real centers lying along the "Rus River", that is, artificially united by a single waterway "from the Varangians to the Greeks" Volkhov - Dnieper, are ignored. In geographical relation to the Caliphate, they are in the following sequence: Kuyaba (Kyiv), Slav (Surness-Smolensk) and Arta (Novgorod). Regarding the last city, it should be noted that it is a corruption of "Garda", i.e. Holmgard [10, p. 18], therefore, Artania is an analogue of Gardariki, the land of Novo Rhoda. After all, it was Novgorod that was famous for its trade in furs, tin (lead) and Rhine swords.
In parallel with the information about the country of the Rus in the works of Sir. - the end of the 10th century Ibn Ruste, Gardizi, al-Marwazi, "Hudud al-alem" and the compilation "Majmal at-tabarih" (1126) mention the country of the Slavs, which was located to the west of the land of the Rus. Actually, a clear demarcation into two different ethnic groups - Slavs and Rus (and unlike the Slavs who had one capital, the Rus have as many as three) makes it possible to state the following: the Rus of Arabic sources of the 10th century. - this is the Varangian elite that conquered Novgorod under Rurik and Kyiv under Askold (Haskuld). It is not for nothing that Nestor wrote about the Varangian tribe, which called itself Rus [20, p. 12]. Al-Masudi clarifies the social difference between Rus and Slavs: "Rus and Slavs are the prince's army and his slaves" [16, p. 67].
The Slavs mentioned in the treatises have two cities - Jarvat and Vantit. At the same time, everyone claims that Jarvat was the center of the state. Ibn Ruste in the book "al-Alak an-nafisa" clarifies the location of the country of the Slavs: "between the countries of the Slavs and the Pechenegs, there was a distance of ten days" [26, p. 387]. "Hudud al-alem" indicates that "to the east of it are internal Bulgars and Rus" [26, p. 389]. It is also noted: "this path (between Pechenegs and Slavs) passes through rivers and forests" [26, p. 390]. We see , that in both cases the distance is calculated from the Pechenegs (10 days). In another place, it is also determined from the immediate neighbors of the Slavs - the Ugrians (2 days). In the 9th century, the Pechenegs had not yet come to Prikarpattia, but occupied the interfluve of the Volga and the Don, and the Hungarians came to Posyan only at the end of the century. Therefore, the information should be dated to the 10th century. Apparently, the same sources were used by the medieval geographer Mahmud of Kashgar. On his map, the Rus are marked to the west of the Caspian, and the Slavs live even further west , to the north of the Slavs - the Varangians [23, p. 106].
The Slavs differed from the Rus not only politically, but also ethnically. "Hudud al-alem" indicates that some residents of the border town of Vantit with Rus, in the country of the Slavs, were similar to the Rus. Evidence that Jarvat was located in the Carpathians is also the news "Hudud al-alem" about rivers: "The second river Duna, flowing from a mountain located on the border between the Pechenegs, Magyars and Rus. ... Then it reaches the region (city) Khordab, which belongs to the Slavs and is used for their fields and meadows" [39, p. 211]. According to "Hudud al-alem", four rivers flow to the south of Eastern Europe. These are Atil, Dun, Duna and Duna's friend. Therefore, they can be identified with the Volga, Don, Danapro and Danastra. Therefore, the "Second Duna" really flows from the border Carpathians and flows through the Croatian region (Khordab). The location of the country of the Croats in the Carpathians is also confirmed by the chapter on watersheds: "they (the mountains) also have a northern direction, passing through (the lands of) the Slavs, reaching the city of the Slavs, which is called Hordab, after which they reach the edge of the land of the word yan also ends there" [39, p. 261]. These are the Carpathians, which go to the northwest, and in the region of Upper Transnistria they turn to the west, to the "land of the Slavs". Ibn Ruste and others, complementing each other, characterize this land as a large state united around the city of Jarwat (in another spelling - Khordab or Hadrat). Almost all researchers are sure that this word is read as Horvath and means the Croatian center in the Carpathians [26, p. 389].
Fig. 1. White and Eastern Croatia on J. Lelevel's map
If Jarvat does not have a clear connection to the neighboring tribes (it is only indicated that it is in the center of the land of the Slavs), then regarding Vantit it is said that it is the first city in the east (the land of the Slavs), on the border with Rus [26, p. 388]. As for the latter, the Rus here do not mean the Varangian people, but the specific country - Rus. At that time (beginning of the 10th century), it included, in addition to the northern tribes, confederations of Polyans, Drevlians, Severians, Radimichians, and possibly Luchanians. It is unlikely that the Tiberians, whom Oleg was unable to subjugate in 885, and the Dulibs, who were called allies in 907, were included.
Who did Vantit belong to? The theory that this is the Arabized word "vyatich" was put forward by F. Vestberg, later it was supported by V. Minorskii and T. Levitskyi [26, p. 394]. True. D. Khvolson identified it with Krakow, and O. Harkavi, J. Marquart and O. Novoseltsev - with Kyiv [26, p. 394]. Y. Pelenskyi, based on Ne Stor's report about "Vyatichiv from Lyakh" [20, p. 7-8], placed this people in Posyanna, where he discovered many toponyms with the root "vyat-". He calls Biech (Vyatch) on the Ropa River, near the Wisloka stream, the center of the Yatichi [33, p. 15-16]. Chronicler of the XVI century. Matvii Stryikovskyi writes: "(Volodymyr) conquered the lands of Bulgaria, Croatia, Semigrad, Vyatnitsa, Yatvyazka, Dulibska ... in one campaign" [21, p. 136]. It is really surprising why Volodymyr conquered the same Vyatichi twice in 982. In addition, Volodymyr's actions in 981 - 985, with minor exceptions, were exclusively against Western nations [20, p. 49-51]. Pelenskyi considered the Vyatichi a constituent part of the Croatian Union [33, p. 20].
Fig. 2. Croats in M. Pavlishchev's atlas.
Another Arab geographer al-Masudi (1st half of the 10th century) places the Croats in Central Europe between the Moravians and the Vistula [35, p. 129]. Traditionally, this ethnonym is considered Western, but the fact that they are located this way, and not between the Czechs (Dulebs) and Moravians, suggests that we are talking about Eastern Croats [16, p. 70, 72-74]. One more section of al-Masudi's treatise "Temples of the Slavs" can be attributed to the reports corresponding to the territory of Carpathian region. Despite the fact that the chapter is saturated with astrological allegories, certain information can be extracted from it. Among the three most revered temples among the Slavs is one built on Black Mountain, surrounded by waters of various colors and tastes. In the temple - a large idol of Saturn (sky god).
At the same time, numerous attributes of this planet are mixed into the story - Ants, Blacks, Rooks. O. Kovalevskyi and B. Tomenchuk consider it possible to identify this temple with unknown sanctuary on black mountain in the Carpathians [15 p. 84]. This can be confirmed by the report of the ambassadors of Ivan the Terrible who stayed in the Carpathians: There is a well there, and the water in it is sweet, like pear kvass diluted with honey... And the water in it is white and flows around the wells and settles like jelly." Al-Bakuwi also writes about this: "In one of the mountains there is a spring called honey spring. Its water is mixed like honey with water." In addition, Bakuvi tells about the Shushyt (Sushich) fortress, near which there is a salt-making center [1, p. 104]. All this makes it possible to link this information to Eastern Prykarpattia. The original testimony about the Croats is contained in the forgery of Danylo Halytskyi's deed to the Karaites in 1245. In it, he is called the king of Croatia [34, p. 172, note 78].
Only in the new era did historians begin to analyse sources about Croatia. V. Tatichev and Karamzin place Croats in the Carpathians, White Croats - in the Danube [44, p. 199; 13, p. 115]. J. Dobrovskyi believed that Great Croatia was located from Moravia to Powislenia [42, p. 19]. P. Shafarik settled them from the outskirts of the Tatras to the Vistula-Dniester area, where, in his opinion, Sorbs lived [51, p. 170]. J. Lelevel (fig. 1) and M. Pavlishchev (fig. 2) found a place for Croats in their atlases.
M. Barsov confirmed Shafarik's opinion about the Croats between Vislok, Tisza and Middle Dniester, finding corresponding toponyms here [4, p. 95]. They were also placed there by M. Kryzhanovskyi [19, p. 342]. N. Klaich understands the state of Samo under White Croatia, F. Westberg places it in the Czech Republic [9, p. 212]. V. Klyuchevskii considered the Croats, followed by the Sorbs and Horutans, to be Eastern Slavs and localized them in Galicia and on the Upper Vistula [14, p. 111-112]. In the same place, J. Marquardt places the Croats [9, p. 212]. M. Hrushevskyi was critical of the possibility of the existence of Croats in the Hala region, considering Nestor's message to be a later interpolation of the eponymous legend [9, pp. 210-211].
T. Legotskyi, based on Porphyrogenetus and the Gesta Gungarorum, believed that Transcarpathia was inhabited by White Croats, whose centers were Uzhhorod and Borzhava, which were dependent on the First Bulgarian State [31, p. 13]. V. Pachovsky pointed out that at the beginning 20th century in Transcarpathia, the inhabitants of entire villages were called Croats. He called the legendary Prince Laborets the ruler of the White Croats [32, p. 126].
The most famous researcher of the Croatian question at the beginning of 20th century was L. Niederle. He believed that there were four groups of Croats - southern, Czech, Galician and Polish, which A. Belovskyi and S. Smolka localized in the basin of the upper Odra, came from the Carpathians and Powislenia, where already at the beginning of the 6th century founded a powerful state, the capital of which was Krakow [25, p. 77].
H. Lovmiansky believes that not only Prykarpattia and Zakarpattia, but also the whole of Lesser Poland belonged to the Croatian Union, which he includes among the Slavs. He calls the right bank of the Dniester the homeland of the Croats. It includes the lands of Rotten Lypa and Rata, Przemyśl and Sandomierz as part of the Union. He placed White Croats in the Sudetenland [54, p. 68, 69, 117]. The same opinion is held by H. Vernadskyi [53, p. 209]. G. Lyabuda attributed all Porphyrogenet's reports to the Czech Croats, absolutely denying the Carpathian Croats [53, p. 208].
Regarding the decipherment of the name "Croat", referring the reader to the literature [55, p. 248-249], let's try to translate it from the Iranian "khvar-v'ant", that is, people of the sun. This is evidenced by the spread of toponyms for Khore (Horosno, Korosno, Krosno) in Prykarpattia, which indicates Hors as a tribal god (Fig. 3) [29, p. 125-126].
Archaeological research of the Croatian territory began in ser. 20th century and at first they did not set as their goal the localization of the eastern Croatian lands. J. Pasteur I - large centers (Stilsko, Przemysl, Plisnensk, Solonsko, Uzhhorod, Halych, Rohatyn, Terebovlia, Revno); 2 - small cities, fortresses, sanctuaries; 3 - "snake ramparts" - border fortifications; 4 - close ethnic border of Croatia. The range of distribution of toponyms "Khore" is shaded.
Fig. 3. Approximate territory of Eastern Croatia.
Named only two Croatian points - the settlement in N. Strutyn and the cemetery in Zniatsevo. M. Smishko identifies the ancestors of the Croats with the Dacian people of the Carps, and they, in turn, with the culture of the Carpathian mounds [43, p. 149]. This opinion is supported by the majority of scientists [31, p. 162]. Recently, the formation of local features of the tribes of Prague culture has been studied [3, p. 78, 2, p. 6]. The monographs of B. Tymoschuk [46] and S. Penyak [31] are devoted to the study of the Croatian monuments of Bukovina and Transcarpathia. The work of the Upper Dniester expedition posed the problem of researching Croatian monuments in Upper Transnistria. As a result, a special conference dedicated to the evolution of Carpathian settlements was held.
Recently, many articles have been written about the material, cultural, political and spiritual history of Eastern Croatia [45; 49; 27]. The most thorough investigation is B. Tymoshchuk's article "Eastern Croats" [47]. It not only solves the problems of the characteristic features of the material culture of Eastern Croats, but also outlines the area of their settlement on the basis of this [47, p. 215-217].
But despite everything, archeology is still unable to resolve the issue of localization of purely Eastern Croatian material culture. After all, the local features of this culture, identified by Tymoshchuk, cannot be considered indisputable. Rhombic polishing of ceramics [47, p. 215] is explained by the contact influence of the Balkan-Danube culture. The stone crepitus in the rampart is also not a Croatian feature - the discovery of similar crepitus in the Listvinsky settlement, in the Rivne region, proves the general nature of such a fortification system.
Therefore, despite all attempts to finally decide what Eastern Croatia was like, where its borders were and what its structure was, the question remains open.
Literature:
1. Abd ar-Rashid al-Bakuvy. Abbreviation of the book about the monuments and miracles of the mighty king. - M„ 1971.
2. Baran V. Sklavina - ancestors of the Ukrainian people // Galicia-Volyn state:
background, history, culture, traditions. Abstracts of reports and messages. - Lviv, 1993.
3. Baran V.D., Kozak D.N., Terpylovskyi R.V. The origin of the Slavs. - K., 1991.
4. Barsov N. Geographical dictionary of the Russian land of the IX-XIV centuries. - Vilna, 1865.
5. Beilis V.M. Al Idrisy (XShv.) about the eastern Black Sea region and the south-eastern region the outskirts of Russian lands and ancient states on the territory of the USSR. - M., 1984.
6. Vles - Russian knowledge. (Songs of the Gamayun bird. Vles book). - M., 1992.
7. Harkavy A.Ya. Tales of Muslim writers about Slavs and Russians. - St. Petersburg, 1870.
8. Gening V.F. The problem of the origin of Hungarians and SA. - 1977. - I.
9. Hrushevskyi M. History of Ukraine - Russia. - K., - 1991.
10. Ancient Russian cities in ancient Scandinavian literature. - M., - 1987.
11. Zakhoder B.N. The Caspian Arch is based on Eastern Europe. - M., 1967.
12. Ibn Khordadbeh. Book of ways and countries. - Baku, 1986.
13. Karamzyn N.V. History of the state of Russia.-St. Petersburg, 1852. - T. I.
14. Klyuchevsky V.O. Course of Russian History and Writings. - M., 1956. - T.E
15. Kovalevsky A.P. Al-Masudy about Slavic pagan temples//Questions of history and sources of Slavic-German relations. - M., 1973.
16. Kovalevsky A.P. Slavs and their neighbors in the first half of the 10th century. according to the data of al Masuda//Questions of history and source knowledge of Slavic-German relations. - M„ 1973.
17. Kozma of Prague. Czech chronicle. - M., 1962.
18. Konstantin Bagryanorodny. On the management of empires. - M., 1985.
19. Kryzhanovsky N. Forgotten Russia // Collected essays. - 1890. -T. 2.
20. Russian Chronicle. - K., 1989.
21. Matvii Stryikovskyi. Chronicle of Polish, Lithuanian, Zhmud and All Russia //Dzvin. - 1990. - No. 2.
22. Matuzova V.I. English medieval sources of the 9th-19th centuries. - M., 1979.
23. Mongait A.L. To the question of the three centers of Ancient Rus // KSIIMK. - 1947. - XVI.
24. Naumov E.P. Formation of the ethnic composition of the ancient Serbian nation // The development of ethnic self-awareness of the Slavic peoples in the early era Middle Ages - M., -1982.
25. Niederle A. Slavic antiquities. - M., - 1956.
26. Novoseltsev A.P. Eastern sources about Eastern Slavs and Rus VI-IX centuries. // The ancient Russian state and its historical significance. - M., - 1965.
27. Ovchinnikov O. The early medieval state in the Carpathians // Halytsia – Volhynia 11—7034 162 state: prerequisites for its emergence, history, culture, traditions. Abstracts of reports and messages - Lviv. 1993.
28. Ovchinnikov O. Sacred and chthonic deities of the Eastern Croatian region // History of religions in Ukraine: Thes. story IV of the Round Table. - K., - Lviv, 1994.
29. Ovchinnikov O.G. From the polis to the burg: a model of the development of cities in the Carpathian region // Evolution of the development of the Slavic cities of the VIII-XIV centuries. in the foothills of the Carpathians and Tatras. - Lviv, 1994. 30. Pavlishchev N.I. Historical atlas of Russia. - St. Petersburg, - 1873.
31. Penyak S.I. Early Slavic and Old Russian population of Transcarpathia VI-XPI century. - K., 1980.
32. Pachovskyi V. Silver land // Call. - 1991. - No. 7.
33. Pelensky I.G. Chervenska land (the manuscript is kept in the archive of the Institute of Ukrainian Studies of the National Academy of Sciences).
34. Petrushevich A. About Galician bishops from the time of establishment of the Galician diocese to end of the XIII century //Galician historical collection. - Lviv, 1856. - Vol. 11.
35. Pitsyshin M., Ovchinnikov O. The Myth of the Dulib Union // Scientific Notes Lviv Historical Museum. - Lviv, 1997. - VI. - 1.
36. Pitsyshyn M., Ovchinnikov O. Sudova Vyshnya-I and the process of feudalization of Prykarpattia // Scientific notes of the Lviv Historical Museum. - Lviv, 1996. - V. - 1.
37. Rasovsky D.A. Pechenegs, Turks and Berendeys in Russia and Hungary // Institut Kondakov. Prague, 1933.
38. Rusanova I.P., Tymoshchuk B.A. Dravnerusskoe Transnistria. - Uzhhorod, 1981.
39. Rybakov B.A. Princely Rus and Russian principalities. - M., 1982.
40. Rybakov B.A. Streets and KSIIMK. - 1950. - XXXV.
41. Saveliev P.S. Muhammadan numismatics. - St. Petersburg, 1846.
42. Smishko M.Yu Ethnicity of the tribes of the culture of the Carpathian kurgans and the problem of Croats. - Lviv, 1960 (the manuscript is kept in the archive of the Institute of Ukrainian Studies of the National Academy of Sciences).
43. Smishko M.Yu. Carpathian barrows of the first half of the 1st millennium AD. - K., 1960.
44. Tatishchev V.N. Russian history. - M.-L., 1963.-T. 1.
45. Tymoshchuk B. Ilivske Gorodishche - Sanctuary // Galicia-Volyn State:
background, history, culture, traditions. Abstracts of reports and reports.
- Lviv, 1993.
46. Tymoshchuk B.O. Ancient Russian Bukovyna. - K., 1982.
47. Tymoshchuk B.O. Eastern Croats P. Materials and research on the archeology of the Carpathian region
and Volyn. - Lviv, 1995. - Vol. 6.
48. Tomenchuk B. Three periods of the development of Halych//Evolution of the development of Slavic towns
VIII-XIV centuries. in the foothills of the Carpathians and Tatras. - Lviv, 1994.
49. Filipchuk M. The Slavic period in the history of Plisneska // Galicia-Volhynia state: prerequisites for its emergence, history, culture, traditions. Abstracts of reports and messages.-Lviv, 1993.
50. Filipchuk M.A. East Slavic housing X - beginning XI century in Ukrainian Prykarpattia // Materials and research on the archeology of Prykarpattia and Volyn. - Lviv, 1995. - Issue 6.
51. Shafarik P.I. Slavic antiquities. - M., 1837. -T. 1.
52. Shakhmatov A.A. Ancient destinies of the Russian tribe. - Pg., 1919.
53. Labuda G. Zrodla, sagi i legendy do najdawniejsych dziejów Polski. - Warsaw, 1960.
54. Lowmianski H. Początki Polski. - Warsaw, 1960.
55. Słownik starozuytnosci słowianskich. - Wroclaw-Warszawa-Krakó w. — 1962. -1.
