As promised, after the appearance of Crusaders, in Slavic or Balkan languages, or Russian authors Missionaries and Eurasian Nomads in the 13th ­ who confine themselves to bibliography in their 14th Centuries: A Century of Interaction, Hautala own mother tongue,” Hautala’s linguistic capabili­ did indeed publish an anthology of annotated ties enabled him to become conversant with the Russian translations of the Latin texts.10 In his in­ entire field of Mongol studies (14), for which all troduction, Spinei observes that “unlike West­Eu­ specialists in the Mongols, and indeed all me­ ropean authors who often ignore works published dievalists, should be grateful. 10 Ot “Davida, tsaria Indii” do “nenavistnogo plebsa satany”: ­ Charles J. Halperin antologiia rannikh latinskikh svedenii o tataro­mongolakh (Kazan’: Mardzhani institut AN RT, 2018). ——— István Zimonyi. Medieval Nomads in Eastern Part I, “Volga Bulgars,” the subject of Zimonyi’s Europe: Collected Studies. Ed. Victor Spinei. English­language monograph,1 contains eight arti­ Bucureşti: Editoru Academiei Romăne, Brăila: cles. In “The First Mongol Raids against the Volga­ Editura Istros a Muzueului Brăilei, 2014. 298 Bulgars” (15­23), Zimonyi confirms the report of pp. Abbreviations. ibn­Athir that the Mongols, after defeating the his anthology by the distinguished Hungarian Kipchaks and the Rus’ in 1223, were themselves de­ Tscholar of the University of Szeged István Zi­ feated by the Volga Bolgars, whose triumph lasted monyi contains twenty­eight articles, twenty­seven only until 1236, when the Mongols crushed Volga of them previously published between 1985 and Bolgar resistance. 2013. Seventeen are in English, six in Russian, four In “Volga Bulgars between Wind and Water (1220­ in German, and one in French, demonstrating his 1236)” (25­33), Zimonyi explores the pre­conquest adherence to his own maxim that without transla­ period of Bulgar­Mongol relations further. The tion from Hungarian, research by Hungarian Bulgars defeated the Mongols not only in 1223 but scholars “will not become part of the international also in 1229 and 1232. However, during this period literature” (230). The five thematic sections of the the Vladimir­Suzdalian Rus’ princes annexed anthology reflect Zimonyi’s evolving research in­ Mordvin territory that was part of the Bulgar terests, as outlined in the introduction by András realm. Zimonyi argues that the Bulgars considered Róna­Tas, “István Zimonyi—A Concise Portrayal” the Mongols a greater threat than the Rus’ and (11­12). Although the “Parts” are numbered, the ar­ therefore did not respond to the Rus’ territorial ad­ ticles are not. The book concludes with a list of vance. Given Bulgar connections to Central Asia, “Abbreviations” (397). A full­page color photo­ their knowledge of the Mongols would indeed have graph of Zimonyi graces the volume (5). given them a better appreciation of the Mongol These are not facsimiles but reproductions. Nei­ danger than the Rus’ had; after 1223 the Rus’ ther the author nor the editor, the Romanian spe­ thought that the Mongols had gone away for good. cialist on steppe­sedentary relations Victor Spinei, Unbeknownst to me, “between the wind and the has attempted to standardize the apparatus, so in water” is a nautical expression for “at a vulnerable some articles book and article titles in Hungarian point” or “in the crossfire.” This article is enhanced are translated, in others they are not. Different by maps showing Eastern European trade and spellings of the same Inner Asian or Oriental campaign routes and a “Chronology” which serves names, such as Bulgar and Bulghar, remain unra­ as an appendix. tionalized, but specialists will not be confused, and In “Volga Bulghars and Islam” (35­40), Zimonyi the lack of an index, a standard omission in an an­ writes that “The adoption of a world religion is al­ thology, will not affect the utility of the volume. ways a political decision” (25). Here he analyzes Aside from the instances mentioned below, the 1 István Zimonyi, The Origins of the Volga Bulghars (Szeged: number of typographical and format errors in the University of Szeged Press, 1990). English­ and French­language articles is puny. Copyright © 2019 Charles J. Halperin The Silk Road 17 (2019): 108–114 108 Copyright © 2019 The Silk Road House the internal and external factors that led the Bul­ lower Volga. gars to choose Islam. Their connections to Central “Zarubezhnaia istoriografiia” (65­77) (of the his­ Asia and desire to distinguish themselves from the tory of the Volga Bulgars) appeared in Istoriia tatar Khazars, whose official religion was Judaism, fig­ s dreveneishkikh vremen, v. II (Kazan’, 2006), ured prominently in their choice. which is now also available in English. It is a mas­ “The Towns of the Volga Bulgars in the Sources terful survey which includes scholarship in Polish, (10­13th Century)” (41­47) discusses Latin, Muslim, Turkish, and Bulgarian, in addition to the usual and Rus’ sources. The towns of the Bulgar Empire suspects. He includes studies of archaeology and arose from commerce and Islamization, but did linguistics. Zimonyi details all complete or partial not reach their height until the fourteenth century publications and translations of all relevant under Mongol rule. The sources do not permit sources in all languages. Not only did the Volga conclusive identification of the Bulgar capital Bulgars not patronize their own written histories; cities; the correlation of urban names in different in fact, no written sources from Volga Bulgars sur­ sources and languages also vive from the tenth to the cannot be definitively estab­ twelfth centuries.2 lished. Zimonyi points out that “Zapadnoevropeiskie pis’men­ the Volga Bolgars developed nye istochniki o Bulgarakh” no written or oral historical (79­82) covers some of the ma­ tradition, so Volga Bulgar his­ terial in the previous article on tory must be written from for­ Latin sources but also dis­ eign written sources. cusses Constantine Porphyro­ “Volzhskaia Bolgariia i volzh­ genitus in Greek. skii put’” (49­55) analyzes the Part II, “Early Hungarians,” western Eurasian river system, contains ten articles, the most the names given the Volga of any “Part,” over a third of River and its other rivers in the articles in the anthology various, especially Turkic, lan­ and over 40% of the pages of guages, and information on the anthology (83­248, 166 of Volga Bulgar commercial ties 397 pages). to Central Asia conveyed in legends associated with the “Préhistoire hongroise: méth­ Volga River. odes de recherche et vue d’ensemble” (85­98), trans­ “Znachenie volzhskogo puti v lated from Hungarian by istorii volzhskikh bolgar” (57­ Chantal Philippe, elaborates 63) continues the study of the Zimonyi’s methodological connection between the Volga premises. He emphasizes the Bulgars and the Volga River. Zimonyi labels the limitations of historical linguistics, physical an­ name of the “Danube Bulgars” a misnomer be­ thropology, and ethnography in examining the cause the Danube Bulgars arrived in the Balkans pre­history of the Magyars. The linguistic and ar­ not from Volga Bulgaria but from north of the chaeological evidence does not correlate. In pass­ Black Sea. The Volga Bulgars were tied to the Volga ing he alludes to the major focus of several of his River not just by name; the entire history of the source studies, the inextant “Geography” of Dja­ Volga Bulgars depended upon Volga trade. The key turning point in that trade was the shift in trade 2 Zimonyi notes that a University of Szeged dissertation on routes by the Saminids of Khorezm from the lower eighth­ to tenth­century Eastern European trade by Szabolcs Volga through Khazar territory to overland from Polgár (Medieval Nomads in Eastern Europe provides only the Russian transliteration of the author’s name, S. Polgar) Central Asia to the Middle Volga River and the will soon be published in Hungarian. I wish to thank Profes­ Volga Bulgars. After the influence of the Khazars sor Zimonyi for kindly providing me with the author’s name declined, Volga Bulgars established a colony on the in Hungarian. 109 jhani (Ǧayhānī, Gayhani), a tenth­century posedly shows that ca. 500 BCE the Hungarians Samanid wazier, which can be reconstructed from lived between the Ob’ and Middle Volga Region, later Arabic and Persian sources, Ibn Rusta, but the “Hungarians” did not become a people Gardizi, Marvai, and al­Bakri, which he terms the until over a thousand years later when the stability “Ǧayhānī tradition.”3 Zimonyi observes that the of Khazar Pax and the pressure of the Pechenegs Hungarians could not have asserted their inde­ forced the formation of a Hungarian people and pendence from the Khazars at the time of their in­ compelled their migration to the Carpathian basin. vasion of Pannonia because they had not yet Linguistic groups, no more than archaeological elevated their rulers to the status of khaqan, the cultures, should not be confused with ethnic imperial title of the Khazar monarch. groups; the peoples who spoke a Hungarian lan­ “The Concept of Nomadic Polity in the Hungarian guage were not the Hungarian “people.” Neither Chapter of Constantine Porphyrogenitus’ De Ad­ the Yugra region in Rus’ sources nor the Volga­Ob’ ministrando imperio” (99­108) compares Porphy­ estuary were the Urheimat of the Hungarians. The rongeitus’s terminology to that in the Orkhon only link between the Bulgars and the Hungarians inscriptions from the Second Türk Empire. With is that both lived near the Khazars. the assistance of S. Szadeczky­Kardos of the Uni­ “A New Muslim Source on the Hungarians in the versity of Szeged, he pays due attention to the ap­ Second Half of the 10th Century” (165­73) returns pearance of the Slavic loan word zakon (law) in the to Gayhani, as preserved in a Muslim source from Greek text, meaning Turkic törü, “way of life.” The tenth­century Spain.