The Croatian ethnonym
Hrvat, as well of those five brothers and sisters and the early ruler Porga, are often not considered to be of Slavic origin, yet again, are quite original to be a pure fabrication of Constantine VII. As such, the origin of the early Croats before and at the time of arrival to the present day Croatia, as well as their ethnonym, were an eternal topic of historiography, linguistics and archaeology. However, the theories were often elaborated in non-scientific terms, supported by specific ideological intentions, and often by political and cultural intentions of the time. This kind of interpretations caused a lot of damage to certain theories and actual scientific community. It should be taken into serious consideration whether the origin of the early Croatian tribes can be regarded also as the origin of Croatian nation, and can only be asserted that the Croats as are known today as a nation became only when Croatian tribes arrived and assimilated other populations in the territory of present-day Croatia.
Slavic theory marked in red, all known ethnonyms of Croats are within this area. Presumable migration routes of Croats are indicated by arrows, per V.V. Sedov (1979). from
White Croatia. The Slavic theory, in extreme form also known as Pan-Slavic theory, about the idea that the Slavs came to Illyricum from Poland is dating at least since the 12th century. With the development of Croatian historiography since the 17th century was elaborated in realistic terms, and considered Croats as one of the Slavic groups which settled in their modern-day homeland during the migration period. Constantine the VII's work was particularly researched by the 17th century historian
Ivan Lučić, who concluded that the Croats came from White Croatia on the other side of the
Carpathian mountains, in "
Sarmatia" ("Poland", placing them in
Eastern Galicia), with which historians today mostly agree upon. In the late 19th century, the most significant impact on the future historiography had
Franjo Rački, and the intellectual and political circle around
Josip Juraj Strossmayer. Rački's view of the unified arrival of the Croats and Serbs to the "partially empty house", fit the ideological
Yugoslavism and
Pan-Slavism. The ideas by Rački were furtherly developed by historian
Ferdo Šišić in his seminal work
History of the Croats in the Age of the Croat Rulers (1925). The work is considered as the foundation stone for later historiography. However, in the
first and
second Yugoslavia, the Pan-Slavic (pure-Slavic) theory was particularly emphasized because of the political context and was the only officially accepted theory by the regime, while other theories which attributed non-Slavic origin and components were ignored and not accepted, and even their supporters, because of also political reasons, were persecuted (
Milan Šufflay,
Kerubin Šegvić,
Ivo Pilar). The official theory also ignored some historical sources, like the account of Constantine VII, and considered that the Croats and Serbs were the same Slavic people who arrived in one and the same migration, and unwilling to consider foreign elements in those separate societies. There were Yugoslavian scholars like Ferdo Šišić and
Nada Klaić who allowed limited non-Slavic origin of certain elements in Croatian ethnogenesis, but they were usually connected with the
Pannonian Avars and
Bulgars. The main difficulty of the Pan-Slavic theory was the Croatian ethnonym which could not be derived from the Slavic language. The Slavic theory about the 7th century migration from Zakarpattia or Lesser Poland remains the mainstream historiographical and archaeological theory. According to extensive
folklore and other studies by
Radoslav Katičić the Slavdom of the Croats is unquestionable, as well survival of some autochthonous elements, while the Iranian origin of their ethnonym is the least unlikely. With this conclusion also agreed other scholars like
Ivo Goldstein, and
John Van Antwerp Fine Jr. Autochthonous-Slavic theory Autochthonous-Slavic theory dates back to the
Croatian Renaissance, when was supported by
Vinko Pribojević and
Juraj Šižgorić. There's no doubt that
Croatian language belongs to the Slavic languages, but they considered that Slavs were autochthonous in
Illyricum and their ancestors were old Illyrians. It developed among the Dalmatian humanists, and was also considered by early modern writers, like
Matija Petar Katančić,
Mavro Orbini and
Pavao Ritter Vitezović. This cultural and
romanticist idea was especially promoted by the national
Illyrian Movement and their leader
Ljudevit Gaj in the 19th century. According to the
autochthonous model, the Slavs homeland was in the area of former Yugoslavia, and they spread northwards and westwards rather than the other way round, which is "completely untenable". A revision of the theory, developed by Ivan Mužić in 1989, The theory tried to give a combined answer to the late appearance of the Croatian ethnonym in the historical sources (certainly only since mid-9th century), and lack of archaeological findings dating to the 7th and 8th century which would attest a mass migration of early Slavs. Although Margetić later rejected own theory, it was accepted by
Nada Klaić, arguing that the Croats participated in the
Frank-Avar war under Frankish leadership and arrived in the early 9th century from
Carantania to Dalmatia which was already populated by other Slavs. and formation of a new theory about the late 8th and early 9th century migration of Croats as Slavic vassals of Franks during the Frank-Avar war advanced by exhibition's core crew and related scholars, including, Mladen Ančić, Ante Milošević, Miljenko Jurković, Nikola Jakšić, Vladimir Sokol and
Neven Budak, each with different and mostly "
culture-historical" approaches. For example, M. Ančić saw a connection in ethnonyms and toponyms between Polabia and Western Balkans as well appearance of Carolingian military equipment in the 9th century, and A. Milošević argued that the
Viking-Carolingian swords of K-type of Nordic (Viking) originating to the second half of the 8th century emerged in the Eastern Adriatic hinterland with the southward migration of the Croats (under Carolingian supervision). Similar to autochthonous theory, it advances the idea that the Slavs and Croats came as a minority among more numerous autochthonous population without much discontinuity (aside Sokol who was open to a mass migration of Croats). By 2018, the core paradigm of the 2000 exhibition managed to reshape the post-Yugoslavian scholarly perception about the Byzantine and Carolingian influence in the Western Balkans (giving more prominence to the latter), but failed to have national and international success among scholars who did not participate in the exhibition on the discussion about the origin and migration of the Croats.
Post-structuralist elite-cultural model theory Most recently the late 1990s "post-structuralist" theory of Slavic elite cultural model was created by
Florin Curta, and later supported by Danijel Dzino and Francesco Borri. It
revisionistically deconstructs the early Slavs, argues spreading of Slavs as a cultural model invented by the Byzantines without much migration, disregarding and reinterpreting much of historical sources (considering them as "propaganda"), and focuses on construction of identities and narratives. It sees the early Slavs and Croats with their identity as an elite whose name would be imposed by the Byzantines to the heterogenous population living on Roman lands after Roman
societal collapse because of which was managed to be imposed Slavic/Croatian identity, language and customs on native population which ceased to be Roman, and emergence of new Slavic states like Croatia. Alike previous two theories, it also advances the idea that the Slavs came as a minority among more numerous autochthonous population. Curta's theorization can be "hardly accepted".
Gothic theory The Gothic theory, which dates back to the late 12th and 13th century work by
Priest of Duklja and
Thomas the Archdeacon, without excluding that some Gothic segments could survive the collapse of
Gothic Kingdom and were included in Croatian ethnogenesis, is based on almost none concrete evidence to identify Croats with the
Goths, motivated by Anti-Slavic sentiment. In 1102, Croatian Kingdom entered a
personal union with
Kingdom of Hungary. It is considered that this identification of Croats with Goths could be based on a local Croatian
Trpimirović dynastic myth from the 11th century, paralleling Hungarian
Árpád dynasty's myth of originating from the Hunnic leader
Attila. Some scholars like Nada Klaić considered that Thomas the Archdeacon despised Slavs/Croats and that wanted to depreciate them as barbarians with Goths identification, however, until the time of Renaissance the Goths were seen as noble barbarians compared to Huns, Avars, Vandals, Langobards, Magyars and Slavs, and as such he would not identify them with the Goths. Also, in the Thomas the Archdeacon's work the starting emphasis is on the decadence of people from
Salona, and as such scholars consider the emergence of newcomers Goths/Croats was actually seen as a kind of God's scourge for sinful Romans. Scholars like
Ludwig Gumplowicz and Kerubin Šegvić literally read the medieval works and considered Croats as Goths who were eventually Slavicized, and that the ruling caste was formed from the foreign warrior element. The idea was argued with the Gothic suffix
mære (
mer, famous) found among the names of Croatian dukes on stone and written inscriptions, as well Slavic suffix
slav (famous), and that
mer eventually was changed with
mir (peace) because the Slavs twisted the interpretation of the names according their language. The ethnonym
Hrvat was derived from the Germanic-Gothic
Hrôthgutans, the
hrōþ (victory, glory) and
gutans (common historical name for the
Goths). During World War II, the Gothic theory was the only supported theory by the regime of
Independent State of Croatia (NDH).
Iranian theory B containing the word Χοροάθος (Horoáthos). The Iranian, also known as Iranian-Caucasian theory, dates to the 1797 and the doctoral dissertation by
Josip Mikoczy-Blumenthal who, as the dissertation mysteriously disappeared in 1918 and was preserved only a short review, considered that Croats originated from
Sarmatians who were descending from
Medes in North-Western Iran. In 1853 were discovered the two
Tanais Tablets. They are written in Greek, and were founded in the Greek colony of
Tanais in the late 2nd and early 3rd century AD, at the time when the colony was surrounded by Sarmatians. On the larger inscription is written
the father of the devotional assembly Horouathon and
the son of Horoathu, while on the smaller inscription
Horoathos, the son of Sandarz, the archons of the Tanaisians, Branimir Gušić, and archaeologists
Zdenko Vinski and Ksenija Vinski-Gasparini. However, the cultural and artistic indicators of Iranian origin, including indications in the religious sphere, is somehow difficult to determine. It is mostly
Sassanian (224-651 AD) influences that were felt in the steppe regions. The first scholar who connected the tablets' names with Croatian ethnonym was A. L. Pogodin in 1902. First who considered such a thesis and Iranian origin was
Konstantin Josef Jireček in 1911. Ten years later, Al. I. Sobolevski gave the first systematic theory about the Iranian origin which until today did not change in basic lines. In the same year, independently
Fran Ramovš, with reference to the Iranian interpretation of the name Horoathos by
Max Vasmer, concluded that the early Croats were one of the Sarmatian tribes which during the great migration advanced along the outer edge of Carpathians (
Galicia) to the Vistula and
Elbe rivers. The almost final, and more in detail picture was given by Slovenian academic Ljudmil Hauptmann in 1935. Bury considered that the White Croats'
Chrobatos and
Bulgars'
Kubrat were the same person from the Bulgars ethnic group, as well derived the Croatian title
Ban from the personal name of Avar khagan
Bayan I and Kubrat's son
Batbayan. Similarly
Henry Hoyle Howorth asserted that the White Croats were a Bulgar warrior caste to whom was given land in the Western Balkans due to expulsion of the
Pannonian Avars following the revolt of Kubrat against the
Avar Khaganate. The anti-
primordialist theory was later developed by Otto Kronsteiner in 1978. He tried to prove that early Croats were an upper caste of
Avar origin, which blended with Slavic nobility during the 7th and 8th centuries and abandoned their Avar language. As arguments for his thesis he considered the
Tatar-
Bashkir derivation of Croatian ethnonym; that Croats and Avars are almost always mentioned together; distribution of Avarian type of settlements where the Croatian ethnonym was as toponym,
pagus Crouuati in
Carinthia and
Kraubath in
Styria; this settlements had Avarian names with suffix
*-iki (
-itji); the commander of those settlements was Avarian
Ban which name is located in the center of those settlements,
Faning/Baniče <
Baniki in Carinthia, and
Fahnsdorf < Bansdorf in Styria; the Avarian officers titles, besides Mong.-Turk.
Khagan, the Kosezes/Kasazes,
Ban and
Župan. Previously, by some Yugoslavian historians the toponym
Obrov(ac) was also considered of Avar origin, and according to Kronsteiner's claims, which many Nada Klaić accepted, Klaić moved the ancient homeland of White Croats to
Carantania. However, according to
Peter Štih and modern scholars, Kronsteiner arguments were plain assumptions which historians can not objectively accept as evidence. Actually, the etymology derivation is one of many, and is not generally accepted; the Croats are mentioned along the Avars only in the Constantine VII's work, but always as enemies of the Avars, who destroyed and expelled their authority from Dalmatia; those settlements had widespread Slavic suffix
ići, the settlements do not have the semicircular Avar type arrangement, and the ''Ban's
settlements could not be his seat as are very small and are not found on any important crossroad or geographical location; the titles origin and derivation are unsolved, and they are not found among Avars and Avar language; toponyms with root Obrov'' derive from South Slavic verb "obrovati" (to dig a
trench) and are mostly of later date (from the 14th century). The theory was further developed by
Walter Pohl. He noted the difference between infantry-agricultural (Slavic) and cavalry-nomadic (Avar) tradition, but did not negate that sometimes the situation was exactly the opposite, and often sources did not differentiate Slavs and Avars. He initially shared the Bury's opinion on the Kubrat's and Chrobatos' name and legends, and the mention of two sisters interpreted as additional elements which joined the alliance "by the maternal line", and noted that the symbolism of the number seven is often encountered in the
steppe peoples. Pohl noted that the Kronsteiner's merit was that, instead of the previously usual "ethnic" ethnogenesis, he proposed a "social" one. As such, Croatian name would not be an ethnonym, but a social designation for a group of elite warriors of diverse origin which ruled over the conquered Slavic population on the Avar Khaganate's boundary, the designation eventually becoming an ethnonym imposed to the Slavic groups. The assertion about the boundary is only partly true because although the Croats were mentioned on the line of Khaganate they were mostly outside and not inside the boundaries. He did not support Kronstenier's derivation, nor consider the etymology important as it is impossible to establish the ethnic origin of "original Croats",
i.e. the social categories which carried the title of "Hrvat". Margetić, rejecting his late-migration theory, instead argued that the Croats were one of Bulgarian tribes and leading social class which were named in honor of
Kubrat's victory over Avars. Denis Alimov additionally argued that the Croats "lived originally in the territory of the Carpathian Basin, being closely connected with the Avars, but then had to leave it, taking cover from the Avars behind mountain ranges [Dalmatian, Alpine, Silesian and Carpathian]", possibly due to conflict with the Avars as Kubrat's supporters in 630s. In the upcoming historical events and interactions in the region of Dalmatia finished the formation of the Croatian ethnic identity and ethno-political group of people, initially held and promoted by a heterogenous political and military elite of the same name. Historians and archaeologists until now concluded that Avars never lived in
Dalmatia proper (including
Lika) yet somewhere in Pannonia. There is no Avar burial neither an early Avar archaeological finding in the territory of early medieval principality of Croatia and the whole Eastern Adriatic coast and hinterland (until now were found only late Avar or post-Avar findings from late 8th-early 9th century, while older then that only in
Vinkovci and further to the east in Slavonia). It also considered the Turkic origin of Bosnian polity, which is viewed as an attempt of popularisation of links between
Bosnian Muslims with
Turkey. ==Anthropological and genetic studies==