White Croatia (also Great Croatia or Chrobatia; , also ) is a historical region from which a portion of the White Croats emigrated to the area of modern-day Croatia and in which they lived between the 7th and 10th centuries.
According to recent archaeological and historiographical research, it is considered to have existed as a tribal proto-state with polis-like gords of Plisnesk, Stilsko, Revno, Halych, Terebovlia among others in Western Ukraine, which lasted until the very end of the 10th century. Some historians believe that, after the migration of the Croats in the 6th-7th century, their former homeland gradually lost its primacy, being influenced and assimilated by other Slavic peoples, such as Ukrainians (Kievan Rus'), Poles (Duchy of Poland) and Czechs (Great Moravia, Duchy of Bohemia). Others say there was never a distinct polity known as Great or White Croatia.
According to the medieval Chronicle of the Priest of Duklja, another area referred to as White Croatia was located south of Posavina along with Red Croatia in Dalmatia.
Historical sources The 10th-century treatise De Administrando Imperio ("On the management of the Empire", later DAI), written in Greek by Constantine VII Porphyrogennetos, is the only known document that suggests "White Croatia" as the place from which Croats migrated to Dalmatia, bordering the coastline of the Adriatic Sea. In Chapter 30, under the heading "The Story of the Province of Dalmatia," it says that "the Croats at that time were dwelling beyond Bagibareia, where the Belocroats are now... The rest of the Croats stayed over near Francia, and are now called the Belocroats, that is, the White Croats, and have their own archon; they are subject to Otto, the great king of Francia, which is also Saxony, and are unbaptized, and intermarry and are friendly with the Turks".
In Chapter 31, "Of the Croats and of the Country They Now Dwell in", it says that Croats in Dalmatia "are descended from the unbaptized Croats, also called the ‘white’, who live beyond Turkey and next to Francia, and they border the Slavs, the unbaptized Serbs... ancient Croatia, also called "white", is still unbaptized to this day, as are also its neighboring Serbs... constantly plundered by the Franks and Turks and Pechenegs... live far away from sea; it takes 30 days of travel from the place where they live to the sea. The sea to which they come down to after 30 days, is that which is called dark".
In Chapter 32, "Of the Serbs and of the Country They Now Dwell in," it was said about the unbaptized ("white") Serbs, that "their neighbor is Francia, as is also Megali Croatia, the unbaptized, also called 'white.
Croatia Alba, or White Croatia, is referred to in the Latin Chronicle of the Priest of Duklja, compiled no earlier than the 12th century. This work refers to White Croatia as the lower part of Dalmatia (Croatia Alba, que et inferior Dalmatia dicitur), as opposed to Red Croatia, which refers to upper Dalmatia (Croatia Rubea, que et superior Dalmatia dicitur). According to 21st-century historian A. Mayorov, the territory of this Croatia Alba was the most developed and densely populated and formed the core of the emerging Croatian state.
In the undated part of the 12th-century Primary Chronicle, which tells about the resettlement of the Slavs from the Danube, White Croats were mentioned once, together with Serbs and Chorutans (Carinthians). According to A. Majorov, this account is based on Western European medieval tradition and agrees with the Chronicle of the Priest of Duklja.
In addition there are many other sources mentioning Croats inhabiting in Central Europe and Eastern Europe among East Slavic tribes, but none call them "white".
Etymology The origin and meaning of the epithets "white" for Croats and their homeland Croatia, as well "great" (megali) for Croatia is still debatable and needs further research. Usually it is considered to be in relation to the symbolism used in ancient times. "White" is related to the use of colors among Eurasian peoples to indicate cardinal directions. White meant "Western Croats/Croatia", in comparison to the lands to the east where they had lived. The epithet "great" probably signified the "old, ancient, former" homeland for the White Croats and newly arrived Croats to the Roman province of Dalmatia. Historian A. Majorov emphasizes that the term "White Croats" and the corresponding "White Croatia" are relatively new terms that were applied historically after the Croat migrated to new territories. According to the 10th-century document De Administrando Imperio, Croats who remained living in their former lands near the borders of Francia hadonly recently been called "White Croats".
However, in DAI there is seemingly no contradiction between "white" and "great" Croatia north of the Carpathians, possibly meaning the same in the perception of the Croats. In semantical comparison, as the color "white" besides the meaning "Western" of something/someone could also mean "younger" (later also associated with "unbaptized"), the association with "great" is contradictory. The ethnonym with the epithet was also questioned lexically and grammatically by linguists like Petar Skok, Stanisław Rospond, Jerzy Nalepa and Heinrich Kunstmann, who argued that the Byzantines did not differentiate Slavic "bělъ-" (white) from "velъ-" (big, great), and because of common Greek betacism, the "Belohrobatoi" should be read as "Velohrobatoi" ("Velohrovatoi"; "Great/Old Croats"). The possible confusion could have happened if the original Slavic form "velo-" was transcribed to Greek alphabet and then erroneously translated, but although such a conclusion is not always accepted, others like Aleksandar Loma do not refute the possibility of erroneous transcription and translation.
Dispute
In 21st-century scholarship, historians do not agree on the location or even the existence of Great Croatia and White Croatia. Scholars do believe that the Croats gradually moved from the East to the West and South. According to Majorov, in the 10th century, the ethnic Croats are believed to have been surviving in remnant communities, scattered in the East in Ukraine, Poland and Slovakia, with others in the West in Bohemia. Given the tradition of using colours for cardinal directions, Leontii Voitovych argued that the Great Croatia referred to in the 6-7th century no longer existed in the 10th century. The term White Croatia was used to refer to the Western part of its territory. Some scholars such as F. Rački, M. Kos, L. Niederle and Nada Klaić believed in its existence, others such as V. Jagić, J. B. Bury, K. Jireček and A. Brückner have rejected the existence of an independent polity, while F. Westberg, J. Markwart, L. Hauptmann, H. Łowmiański believed in its existence in the sense Constantine VII was referring to the Duchy of Bohemia which in the 10th century controlled Southern Poland and Western Ukraine. Similarly, Valentin Sedov noted that there is no archaeological material to prove its existence. However, recent archaeological research of 7-10th century sites in Western Ukraine suggests otherwise, that Great Croatia most probably was a polycentric proto-state.
Interpretations have differed over what geographic area the term Bagibaria refers to. Some scholars have related it to Babia Góra near the river Vistula and Kraków in Lesser Poland, but it is commonly considered to be a reference to Bavaria. Tibor Živković notes that this term comes from the Latin name of Bavaria (Bagoaria and Baioaria) and, therefore, the source of this information for the De Administrando Imperio could be of West European/Western Roman origin (possibly by Anastasius Bibliothecarius from Rome). According to Živković it is evident that the observer of the information beyond Bavaria was not based in Constantinople because it would imply lands northwest of Bavaria and not northeast where Croats lived, showing that the source of information was in Rome. To the similar conclusion previously came Łowmiański, saying that to the Western viewpoint beyond Bavaria (to the East) is contrasted beyond Turkey (north of Hungary) from the Byzantine viewpoint.
Another dispute regards the "sea to which they come down to after 30 days, is that which is called dark". Some scholars believe this is a reference to the Baltic Sea, while others claim it is the Black Sea. From Lesser Poland, it was claimed that it would have been possible to reach the Baltic in fifteen days, and that the Black Sea would have been about 30 days of travel from Prykarpattia (the river San, Upper Dniester and city of Przemyśl). However, if one takes Kraków as the starting point, and a day's walk in antiquity as between 26-40 kilometers, within 30 days would be easier to arrive to Gdańsk on the Baltic Sea than Odesa on the Black Sea. This evidence, along with the more natural route to the Baltic Sea, no mention of northern neighbours of the Croats, and possible lack of access to the Black Sea because of the presence of Pechenegs, has led some to argue that the Baltic Sea is more likely. Additionally, at the time the De Administrando Imperio was written, the Byzantines did not refer to the Black Sea as "Black" or "Dark", but by a word meaning "Hospitable" (Εὔξεινος, a euphemism for "Inhospitable"). They also used a different term for the word "sea": "Πόντος" (Póntos), not "θάλασσα" (Thálassa). However, the name "dark" could indicate usage of a source other than Byzantine, and does not necessarily mean it is not a reference to the Black Sea. Some scholars consider it more likely a reference to the Black Sea for a few other reasons: the De Administrando Imperio makes no reference to the Baltic Sea; the chapter as a whole has information usually found in 10th century Arabian sources like of Al-Masudi; the Black Sea was of more interest to the Eastern merchants and Byzantine Empire; and its Persian name "Dark Sea" (axšaēna-) was already well known. Some Arabian-Persian sources also describe a large Slavic state with a city called Khordab ten days from the Pechenegs, having a river and bounded by mountains - if one takes the river to be the Dniester and the mountains to be the Carpathians, this would place the Croats and their homeland in Prykarpattia.
The De Administrando Imperio has other contradictory information. It describes the Croats as living near the Franks in the West and bordered by the Hungarians on the south, while also claiming the Croats were subject to repeated raids by the Pecheneg, who are said to live north of the Hungarians. These chapters are known to have been based on several archival sources. The 19th century scholars, and later Łowmiański, Sedov, and Majorov, among others, concluded that the De Administrando Imperio mistakenly referred to 7th-century location and migration of the Croats based on partial information of their location in the 9-10th century, and that the account was compiled from different sources. Francis Dvornik (1956) thought that in the mid-6th century White Croatia included territory between Dniester and Lusatian Neisse rivers, but other scholars conclude that the Croats in the 7th century did not yet live near the territory of Bohemia; and Łowmiański thought the location of Bohemia and existence of the Croats was disputable even in the 10th century. Živković emphasized that White Croatia in the 7th century could not border Francia because "the Frankish borders had been far more towards the west." Frankish sources also do not mention anything about the Croats, implying they must have lived much further to the East. Łowmiański criticized some historians for primarily relying on and using a source from the South - the De Administrando Imperio - instead of many other sources from the North, which are more reliable for determining the location of the Croats and Croatia. Those northern sources mention Croats and Croatia at the Carpathian Mountains and never around the river Elbe.