Part ofa series on the |
|---|
| History ofCroatia |
 |
Contemporary Croatia |
| Timeline |
 Croatia portal |
TheCroats trace their origins to a southwards migration of some of theEarly Slavs in the 6th- and 7th-centuries CE, a tradition supported by anthropological, genetic, and ethnological studies. However, the archaeological and other historic evidence on the migration of the Slavic settlers, on the character of the native population in the present-day territory of theCroatia, and on their mutual relationships suggests diverse historical and cultural influences.
The definition of Croatianethnogenesis begins with the definition ofethnicity,[1] according to which an ethnic group is a socially defined category of people who identify with each other based on common ancestral, social, cultural or other experience, and which shows a certain durability over the long period term of time.[2] In the Croatian case, there is no doubt that in theEarly Middle Ages a certain group identified themselves by ethnonymHrvati (Croats), and was identified as such by the others.[3] It also had a political connotation, it continued to expand, and since theLate Middle Ages explicitly identified with thenation, although not in the exact meaning as of the contemporary modern nation.[3]
In the case of the present-day Croatian nation, several components or phases influenced its ethnogenesis:
The mention of theCroatian ethnonymHrvat for a specific tribe before the 9th century is not yet completely confirmed. According toConstantine VII's workDe Administrando Imperio (10th century), a group of Croats separated from theWhite Croats who lived inWhite Croatia and arrived by their own will, or were called by the Byzantine EmperorHeraclius (610–641), toDalmatia where they fought and defeated the Avars, and eventually organized their ownprincipality.[9] According to the legend preserved in the work, they were led by five brothersΚλουκας (Kloukas),Λόβελος (Lobelos),Κοσέντζης (Kosentzis),Μουχλώ (Mouchlo),Χρωβάτος (Chrobatos), and two sistersΤουγά (Touga) andΒουγά (Bouga),[9][10] and their archon at the time wasfather ofPorga, and they were baptized during the rule of Porga in the 7th century.[11] This is documented in chapter 30 and 31 of Constantine VII's work.[12]
The old historical sources do not give an exact indication of the ethnogenesis of these early Croats. Constantine VII does not identify Croats with Slavs, nor does he point to differences between them.[13]John Skylitzes in his workMadrid Skylitzesidentified Croats and Serbs asScythians.Nestor the Chronicler in hisPrimary Chronicle identified White Croats with West Slavs alongVistula river, with other Croats included in the East Slavic tribal union. TheChronicle of the Priest of Duklja identifies Croats with the Goths who remained after kingTotila occupied the province of Dalmatia.[14] Similarly,Thomas the Archdeacon in his workHistoria Salonitana mentions that seven or eight tribes of nobles, which he called "Lingones", arrived fromPoland and settled in Croatia under Totila's leadership.[14]
The Croatian ethnonymHrvat, 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.[15][16] 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.[15] 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.[17] This kind of interpretations caused a lot of damage to certain theories and actual scientific community.[17] 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.[18]
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.[19] 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.[14] Constantine the VII's work was particularly researched by the 17th century historianIvan Lučić,[14][20] who concluded that the Croats came from White Croatia on the other side of theCarpathian mountains, in "Sarmatia" ("Poland", placing them inEastern Galicia[21]), with which historians today mostly agree upon.[22][14]
In the late 19th century, the most significant impact on the future historiography hadFranjo Rački, and the intellectual and political circle aroundJosip Juraj Strossmayer.[20] Rački's view of the unified arrival of the Croats and Serbs to the "partially empty house",[23] fit the ideologicalYugoslavism andPan-Slavism.[23] The ideas by Rački were furtherly developed by historianFerdo Šišić in his seminal workHistory of the Croats in the Age of the Croat Rulers (1925).[24] The work is considered as the foundation stone for later historiography.[24] However, in thefirst andsecondYugoslavia, the Pan-Slavic (pure-Slavic) theory was particularly emphasized because of the political context and was the only officially accepted theory by the regime,[25][26][27] while other theories which attributed non-Slavic origin and components were ignored and not accepted,[26][27] and even their supporters, because of also political reasons, were persecuted (Milan Šufflay,Kerubin Šegvić,Ivo Pilar).[28][27] 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.[29] There were Yugoslavian scholars like Ferdo Šišić andNada Klaić who allowed limited non-Slavic origin of certain elements in Croatian ethnogenesis, but they were usually connected with thePannonian Avars andBulgars.[26][30] The main difficulty of the Pan-Slavic theory was the Croatian ethnonym which could not be derived from the Slavic language.[14]
The Slavic theory about the 7th century migration from Zakarpattia or Lesser Poland remains the mainstream historiographical and archaeological theory.[31][32] According to extensivefolklore and other studies byRadoslav 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.[33] With this conclusion also agreed other scholars likeIvo Goldstein,[34][35] andJohn Van Antwerp Fine Jr.[36]
Autochthonous-Slavic theory dates back to theCroatian Renaissance, when was supported byVinko Pribojević andJuraj Šižgorić.[14] There's no doubt thatCroatian language belongs to the Slavic languages, but they considered that Slavs were autochthonous inIllyricum and their ancestors were old Illyrians.[14] It developed among the Dalmatian humanists,[19] and was also considered by early modern writers, likeMatija Petar Katančić,Mavro Orbini andPavao Ritter Vitezović.[19] This cultural andromanticist idea was especially promoted by the nationalIllyrian Movement and their leaderLjudevit Gaj in the 19th century.[19]
According to theautochthonous model, the Slavs homeland was in the area of former Yugoslavia, and they spread northwards and westwards rather than the other way round,[37] which is "completely untenable".[38] A revision of the theory, developed by Ivan Mužić in 1989,[33] argues that Slavic migration from the north did happen, but the actual number of Slavic settlers was small and that the autochthonous ethnic substratum was prevalent in the formation of the Croats, but that contradicts and does not answer the presence of predominant Slavic language,[37][19] The social and linguistical situation that made the pre-Slavic population is hard to reconstruct, especially if one accepts the theory that the autochthonous population was dominant at the time of the arrival of the Slavs yet accepted the language and culture of Slavic newcomers who were in the minority.[39] The assumptions that the Illyrians were an ethnolinguistic homogeneous entity were rejected in the 20th century, and according to the scholars who support theDanube basin hypothesis of theSlavic homeland, it is considered that some proto-Slavic tribes existed even before the Slavic migration in the Southeastern Europe.[40] However, this theory has been scientifically discredited and rejected,[33] having anAnti-Slavic sentiment.[41]
The "constructionist" late-migration theory was initially argued by Lujo Margetić in 1977.[42] 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.[43] Although Margetić later rejected own theory,[44] it was accepted byNada Klaić, arguing that the Croats participated in theFrank-Avar war under Frankish leadership and arrived in the early 9th century fromCarantania to Dalmatia which was already populated by other Slavs.[45] Later, the theory influenced the ideological exhibition "Hrvati i Karolinzi" (2000)[45][46] 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 andNeven Budak, each with different and mostly "culture-historical" approaches.[46][47][48][49][43] 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,[50] and A. Milošević argued that theViking-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).[51][52][53] 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[54]).[55][51][56] 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.[46]
The theory already since 1970s is criticized and rejected by mainstream scholarship because is misinterpreting written sources and archaeological data which shows the 7th century Slavic-Croatian migration and settlement,[57][47][56][58] and there was not any discontinuity in transition between the 8th and 9th century.[59]Walter Pohl also noted that "has no basis in the written sources and, also, the case of an 'empty land' in the Western Balkans at the end of the eighth century seems unlikely".[60] There is no presumed "absence of any finds whatsoever between the middle of the 7th and the end of the 8th centuries" as the "recent datings of the finds and cemeteries of the so-called horizon with pagan burial characteristics (as well as cremation burials), whether through typological analyses, or 14C dates, definitely refute this viewpoint".[45] Similarity of Slavic ethnonyms and toponyms is not a convincing argument and they would be expected.[58][61][43] There was not any detectable new foreign group in the 9th century neither such a group and Croats, as well their migration, are mentioned in detailed Frankish historical sources.[58][62] Viking-Carolingian swords and other military equipment do not indicate arrival of a new ethnic group (neither was found on the territory ofObotrites in Vojvodina;[51] many such swords and equipment were found outside Carolingian domain, like in Denmark who were enemies of the Franks).[58][43] How much is problematic to identify swords with an ethnic group and individual was showcased by DNA analysis of a late 8th-early 9th century skeleton with a sword in Vaćani nearSkradin which confirmed it descended fromCyprus (whereas without such an analysis according to the theory would have been considered as an ethnic Croat).[43] Also, Milošević's consideration about Scandinavian origin of the K-type swords is controversial because is contrasting mainstream opinion considering them as characteristically of Frankish workshops.[63] The Carolingian military equipment rather influenced the consolidation of the Croatian ethnic identity and elite in theDuchy of Croatia as well their relations with the Carolingian Empire.[45][64]
Most recently the late 1990s "post-structuralist" theory of Slavic elite cultural model was created byFlorin Curta, and later supported by Danijel Dzino and Francesco Borri. Itrevisionistically 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 Romansocietal 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.[65][66][67] Curta's theorization can be "hardly accepted".[68]
The Gothic theory, which dates back to the late 12th and 13th century work byPriest of Duklja andThomas the Archdeacon,[30][69] without excluding that some Gothic segments could survive the collapse ofGothic Kingdom and were included in Croatian ethnogenesis, is based on almost none concrete evidence to identify Croats with theGoths, motivated by Anti-Slavic sentiment.[70][30][69] In 1102, Croatian Kingdom entered apersonal union withKingdom of Hungary. It is considered that this identification of Croats with Goths could be based on a local CroatianTrpimirović dynastic myth from the 11th century, paralleling HungarianÁrpád dynasty's myth of originating from the Hunnic leaderAttila.[30][71]
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.[72][73] Also, in the Thomas the Archdeacon's work the starting emphasis is on the decadence of people fromSalona, and as such scholars consider the emergence of newcomers Goths/Croats was actually seen as a kind of God's scourge for sinful Romans.[74][73]
Scholars likeLudwig 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.[26][75] The idea was argued with the Gothic suffixmære (mer, famous) found among the names of Croatian dukes on stone and written inscriptions, as well Slavic suffixslav (famous), and thatmer eventually was changed withmir (peace) because the Slavs twisted the interpretation of the names according their language.[76] The ethnonymHrvat was derived from the Germanic-GothicHrôthgutans, thehrōþ (victory, glory) andgutans (common historical name for theGoths).[77] During World War II, the Gothic theory was the only supported theory by the regime ofIndependent State of Croatia (NDH).[26][69]
The Iranian, also known as Iranian-Caucasian theory, dates to the 1797 and the doctoral dissertation byJosip Mikoczy-Blumenthal who, as the dissertation mysteriously disappeared in 1918 and was preserved only a short review, considered that Croats originated fromSarmatians who were descending fromMedes in North-Western Iran.[78] In 1853 were discovered the twoTanais Tablets.[79] They are written in Greek, and were founded in the Greek colony ofTanais in the late 2nd and early 3rd century AD, at the time when the colony was surrounded by Sarmatians.[80][81] On the larger inscription is writtenthe father of the devotional assembly Horouathon andthe son of Horoathu, while on the smaller inscriptionHoroathos, the son of Sandarz, the archons of the Tanaisians,[79] which resembles the usual variation of Croatian ethnonymHrvat -Horvat.[79] Some scholars use these tablets only to explain the etymology, and not necessarily the ethnogenesis.[82][72]
The Iranian theory entered the historical science from three, initially independent ways, from historical-philological, art history, and religion history, in the first half of the 20th century.[83] The last two were supported by art historian scholars (Luka Jelić,Josef Strzygowski,Ugo Monneret de Villard),[84] and religion historian scholars (Johann Peisker, Milan Šufflay, Ivo Pilar).[85] The Slavic-Iranian cultural interrelation was pointed out by modern ethnologists, like Marijana Gušić who in the ritualLjelje noticed the influence fromPontic-Caucasian-Iranian sphere,[86][87] Branimir Gušić,[87] and archaeologistsZdenko Vinski and Ksenija Vinski-Gasparini.[88] However, the cultural and artistic indicators of Iranian origin, including indications in the religious sphere, is somehow difficult to determine.[81] It is mostlySassanian (224-651 AD) influences that were felt in the steppe regions.[81]
The first scholar who connected the tablets' names with Croatian ethnonym was A. L. Pogodin in 1902.[89][81] First who considered such a thesis and Iranian origin wasKonstantin Josef Jireček in 1911.[83] Ten years later, Al. I. Sobolevski gave the first systematic theory about the Iranian origin which until today did not change in basic lines.[83] In the same year, independentlyFran Ramovš, with reference to the Iranian interpretation of the name Horoathos byMax 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 andElbe rivers.[83] The almost final, and more in detail picture was given by Slovenian academic Ljudmil Hauptmann in 1935.[83][34] He considered that Iranian Croats, after the Huns invasion around 370 when the Huns crossed theVolga river and attacked the IranianAlans at theDon river, abandoned their initial Sarmatian lands and arrived among the Slavs at the waste lands north of Carpathians, where they gradually Slavicized.[90] There they belonged to theAntes tribal polity until the Antes were attacked by the Avars in 560, and the polity was finally destroyed 602 by the same Avars.[90] The thesis was subsequently supported byFrancis Dvornik,George Vernadsky,Roman Jakobson,Tadeusz Sulimirski, andOleg Trubachyov.[91]Omeljan Pritsak considered early Croats a clan of Alan-Iranian origin which during the "Avarian pax" had frontiersman-merchant social role,[92] while R. Katičić considered that there's not enough evidence that the non-Slavic Croats ruled as an elite class over Slavs who were under the rule of Avars.[33][93]
The personal names on the Tanais Tablets are considered as a prototype of a certain ethnonym of a Sarmatian tribe those persons did descend from,[80][94] and as well today is generally accepted that the Croatian name is of Iranian origin and that can be traced to the Tanais Tablets.[94][95] However, the etymology itself is not enough strong evidence.[80] The theory is further explained with the Avar's destruction of Antes tribal polity in 602, and that the early Croats migration and subsequent war with Avars in Dalmatia (during the reign of Heraclius 610-641) can be seen as a continuation of the war between Antes and Avars.[89] That the early Croats marked thecardinal directions with colors, hence White Croats and White Croatia (Western) andRed Croatia (Southern),[89] but the cardinal color designation, in general, indicates remnants of the widespread steppe peoples tradition.[96] The heterogeneous composition of the Croatian legend in which are unusually mentioned two women leadersTouga andBouga, which indicates to what the actual archaeological findings confirmed - the existence of "warrior women" known asAmazons among the Sarmatians and Scythians.[89] As such, Trubachyov tried to explain the original proto-type of the ethnonym from adjectives*xar-va(n)t (feminine, rich in women), which derives from the etymology of Sarmatians, theIndo-Aryan*sar-ma(n)t (feminine), in bothIndo-Iran adjective suffix-ma(n)t/wa(n)t, and Indo-Aryan and Indo-Iranian word*sar- (woman), which in Iranian gives*har.[94]
Another interpretation was given by the scholar Jevgenij Paščenko; he considered that the Croats were a heterogeneous group of people belonging to theChernyakhov culture, a poly-ethnic cultural mélange of mostly Slavs and Sarmatians, but also Goths,Getae andDacians.[97] There was happening an interrelation between Slavic and Iranian language and culture, seen for example in the toponymy.[97] As such, under the ethnonymHrvati should not be necessary seen a specific or even homogeneous tribe, yet archaic religion and mythology of a heterogeneous group of people of Iranian origin or influence who worshiped thesolar deityHors, from which possibly originates the Croatian ethnonym.[98]
Another known more radical thesis, Iranian-Persian, of the Iranian theory was byStjepan Krizin Sakač, who although gave insights on some issues, tried to follow the Croatian ethnonym as far the regionArachosia (Harahvaiti,Harauvatiš) and its people (Harahuvatiya) of theAchaemenid Empire (550–330 BC).[99][89][100] However, although the suggestive similarity, it is etymologically incorrect.[101] There were many supporters of the thesis and further tried to develop it, but the actual arguments are considered far-fetched, unscientific, and also with Anti-Slavic sentiment.[33][89][85][102][103]
Avar, also known as Bulgar-Turkic theory, dates to the late 19th and early 20th century whenJohn Bagnell Bury andHenri Grégoire noted the similarity between Croatian legend of five brothers (and two sisters) withBulgar legend ofKubrat's five sons.[14][104] This is further substantiated by the fact that this story is very similar to other adaptations ofHerodotus (IV 33.3) "the Croatian migration did not take place, but ... Constantine Porphyrogenitus created it relying on the literary models traditionally applied to described theLandnahme of Scythian Barbarians."[105] Bury considered that the White Croats'Chrobatos andBulgars'Kubrat were the same person from the Bulgars ethnic group, as well derived the Croatian titleBan from the personal name of Avar khaganBayan I and Kubrat's sonBatbayan.[14] SimilarlyHenry 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 thePannonian Avars following the revolt of Kubrat against theAvar Khaganate.[106]
The anti-primordialist theory was later developed by Otto Kronsteiner in 1978.[26][107] He tried to prove that early Croats were an upper caste ofAvar origin, which blended with Slavic nobility during the 7th and 8th centuries and abandoned their Avar language.[108][109] As arguments for his thesis he considered theTatar-Bashkir derivation of Croatian ethnonym;[108] that Croats and Avars are almost always mentioned together;[108] distribution of Avarian type of settlements where the Croatian ethnonym was as toponym,pagus Crouuati inCarinthia andKraubath inStyria;[108] this settlements had Avarian names with suffix*-iki (-itji);[108] the commander of those settlements was AvarianBan which name is located in the center of those settlements,Faning/Baniče <Baniki in Carinthia, andFahnsdorf < Bansdorf in Styria;[108] the Avarian officers titles, besides Mong.-Turk.Khagan, the Kosezes/Kasazes,Ban andŽupan.[108] Previously, by some Yugoslavian historians the toponymObrov(ac) was also considered of Avar origin,[110] and according to Kronsteiner's claims, which many Nada Klaić accepted, Klaić moved the ancient homeland of White Croats toCarantania.[108]
However, according toPeter Štih and modern scholars,[111] Kronsteiner arguments were plain assumptions which historians can not objectively accept as evidence.[112] Actually, the etymology derivation is one of many, and is not generally accepted;[94][95] 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;[113] those settlements had widespread Slavic suffixići, the settlements do not have the semicircular Avar type arrangement, and theBan's settlements could not be his seat as are very small and are not found on any important crossroad or geographical location;[114] the titles origin and derivation are unsolved, and they are not found among Avars and Avar language;[114][115] toponyms with rootObrov derive from South Slavic verb "obrovati" (to dig atrench) and are mostly of later date (from the 14th century).[110]
The theory was further developed byWalter Pohl.[116][117][118] 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.[119][120] 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 thesteppe peoples.[121] Pohl noted that the Kronsteiner's merit was that, instead of the previously usual "ethnic" ethnogenesis, he proposed a "social" one.[121] 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,[121][116][109] the designation eventually becoming an ethnonym[121] imposed to the Slavic groups.[122] 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.[118] 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".[121]
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 ofKubrat's victory over Avars.[123][104] 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.[124][125][126]
Historians and archaeologists until now concluded that Avars never lived inDalmatia proper (includingLika) yet somewhere in Pannonia.[127][128] There is none 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 three late Avar findings from late 8th-early 9th century, and older then that only inVinkovci and further to the east in Slavonia),[129] which doesn't support thesis about any substantial presence of Avars or elite warriors in early medieval Croatia, the Croatian ethnonym is recorded on the territory of Avar Khaganate several centuries after its end,[59] and that Turkic ethnic component in Croatian ethnogenesis was negligible.[130] The Avar origin of titles Ban and Župan by now is strongly contested and is not probable due to scarcity of Avar remains in the territory ofDuchy of Croatia.[131]
Lately, a more pro-Turkic (as WhiteOghurs) thesis was given by Osman Karatay.[132] This theory is not taken into consideration by scientists because of lack of scientific approach and frequent disregard of existing historiographical scholarship.[133][134] It also considered the Turkic origin of Bosnian polity, which is viewed as an attempt of popularisation of links betweenBosnian Muslims withTurkey.[134]
Anthropologically, thecraniometrical measurements made on the contemporary Croatian population of the city of Zagreb showed it predominantly has "dolichocephalic head type and the mesoprosopic face type", more specificallymesocephalia and leptoprosopia prevail in South Dalmatia, andbrachycephaly and euryprosopy in Central Croatia.[135] According to the 1998-2004 craniometric studies done by Mario Šlaus of medieval Central European archaeological sites, four Dalmatian and two Bosnian sites clustered withPolish sites, two Continental Croatia (Avaro-Slav) sites were classified into the cluster of Hungarian sites west of the Danube, while the two sites from theBijelo Brdo culture were into the cluster of Slav sites fromAustria, theCzech Republic, andSlovenia. Comparison to the Scythian-Sarmatian sites did not reveal significant similarity in cranial morphology, nor was supported the idea of the Avar frontiersmen. The results indicate that the nucleus of the early Croat state in Dalmatia was of Slavic ancestry, which arrived from the area somewhere inLesser Poland probably along the direct routeNitra (Slovakia)-Zalaszabar (Hungary)-Nin, Croatia, and gradually expanded into the continental hinterland of Bosnia and Herzegovina by the 10th century, however, by the end of the 11th century did not in continental Northern and Eastern Croatia where were distinguished from Bijelo Brdo cultural cluster.[136][137][138][139] The 2015 study of medieval skeletal remains inŠopot (14th-15th century) andOstrovica (9th century) found out they cluster with other Dalmatian sites as well Polish sites, concluding that "PCA showed that all Eastern Adriatic coast sites were closely related in cranial morphology, and thus, most likely had similar biological makeup".[140] According to the 2015NASU study, medieval burial grounds in Zelenche ofTernopil Oblast and inHalych region inWestern Ukraine have "anthropological peculiarities" because of which are different from the near sites of Early Slavic tribes ofVolhynians,Tivertsi andDrevlians, and closest "to several distant [medieval] populations of the part of the Western and Southern Slavs (Czechs, Lusatian Slavs, Moravians, and the Croatians). This fact can testify for their common origin".[141]
The anthropological and craniometric data is in correlation with the historical sources, including an account fromDAI that a part of the Dalmatian Croats split off and took rule ofPannonia andIllyricum, as well other archaeological findings which imply that early Croats did not initially settle inLower Pannonia and that the splitting off was related to the political rule rather than ethnic origin.[142] Others argue that the "Bijelo Brdo and Vukovar cemeteries can hardly be regarded evidence of a pre-Croatian Slavic population in northern Croatia" and they rather "represent a population fleeing the Magyars" during the 10th century".[139]
Genetically, on theY chromosome line, a majority (65%) of male Croats from Croatia belong to haplogroupsI2 (39%-40%) andR1a (22%-24%), while a minority (35%) belongs to haplogroupsE (10%),R1b (6%-7%),J (6%-7%),I1 (5-8%),G (2%), and others in <2% traces.[143][144] The distribution, variance and frequency of the I2 and R1a subclades (>65%) among Croats are related to the medieval Slavic expansion, probably from the territory of present dayUkraine and SoutheasternPoland.[145][146][147][148][149][150] Genetically, on the maternalmitochondrial DNA line, a majority (>65%) of Croats from Croatia (mainland and coast) belong to three of the eleven major European mtDNA haplogroups -H (45%),U (17.8-20.8%),J (3-11%), while a large minority (>35%) belong to many other smaller haplogroups.[151] Based onautosomalIBD survey the speakers of Serbo-Croatian language share a very high number of common ancestors dated to themigration period approximately 1,500 years ago with Poland and Romania-Bulgaria clusters among others in Eastern Europe. It was caused by the Slavic expansion, a small population which expanded into regions of "low population density beginning in the sixth century" and that it is "highly coincident with the modern distribution of Slavic languages".[152] Other IBD andadmixture studies also found even patterns of admixture events among South, East and West Slavs at the time and area of Slavic expansion, and that the shared ancestral Balto-Slavic component among South Slavs is between 55-70%.[153][154]
The 2022 and 2023archaeogenetic study published inScience andCell confirmed that the early medieval spread of Slavic language and identity was because of large movements of people of both males and females from Eastern Europe since the late 6th and early 7th century, which "profoundly affected the region", that the Croats have more than 65% of Central-Eastern European early medieval Slavic ancestry, and Y-DNA haplogroups I2a-L621 and R1a-Z282 arrived to the Southeastern Europe with Slavic peoples as well.[155][156][150] The 2025 study proved migration or settlement of the Croats in the 7th century, the qpAdm modelling revealed that 82±1% of the local pre-Slavic gene pool in medieval Croatia was replaced by the Slavic ancestry, and modern Croats can be modelled as 69% Slavic and 31% of pre-Slavic local ancestry.[157]
...The interpretation of Carolingian finds from Croatia and adjacent areas seems more probable in such a context. This does not negate early medieval migrations, which surely have occurred, but not as a single closed event in a fixed moment of time and, apparently, not at the turn of the 8th and 9th centuries. Neither the material, nor the written sources support that. The Carolingian influence on early medieval Croatia was quite considerable and quite important, as was shown by the exhibition "Croats and Carolingians" in 2000/2001. For the formation of early medieval Croat identity and their ethnogenesis it was possibly the key element. However, it had hardly anything to do with the presumed migration of the Croats.
Nalaze grobne keramike s područja Hrvatske u više je navrata razmatrao J. Belošević, te došao do zaključka da se otkriveno posuđe s obzirom na oblik može podijeliti na ono tipično slavenskih oblika (jajoliki i kružno-jajoliki lonci poput primjerka s Bukorovića podvornice) i ono koje odražava kasnoantičke tradicije (lonci s ručkama i vrčevi s izljevom).119 U tehnološkom smislu, kao i zbog načina ukrašavanja, može se zaključiti da sve to posuđe nastaje pod utjecajem kasnoantičke keramičke produkcije. Ono, međutim, ne predstavlja dokaz o znatnijem sudjelovanju starosjedilačkoga stanovništva u oblikovanju nove etničke slike u Dalmaciji, kako je to, na osnovi pojedinih keramičkih nalaza, pokušao protumačiti A. Milošević.120 Upravo obrnuto, pojava posuđa u grobovima prvi je materijalni dokaz kojim je obilježena prisutnost novog naroda na ovim prostorima, a nikad i nigdje nije zabilježena na grobljima 6. i ranog 7. stoljeća, koja se sa sigurnošću mogu pripisati starijem stanovništvu (npr. Knin-Greblje, Korita-Duvno).121 Osim toga, prilaganje posuđa povezano je s poganskim pogrebnim običajima kakvi su, bez obzira na određeni stupanj barbarizacije, nespojivi s kršćanskom pripadnošću spomenutog stanovništva...
{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: editors list (link)Ukratko, car je rekao ili da se dio Hrvata odselio iz Dalmacije i, naselivši se u Panoniji i Iliriku, zavladao ondje ili da su Hrvati / član hrvatske elite preuzeli vlast u tim područjima, a da doseobe nije bilo. Odgovor nude arheološko-antropološka istraživanja. Kraniometrijske analize provedene na kosturnim ostacima iz grobišta od jadranskog priobalja do duboko u unutrašnjost upućuju na zaključak da su se populacije koje se smatraju starohrvatskima postupno širile u zaleđe sve do južne Panonije tek u vrijeme od 10. do 13. stoljeća.26 Dalmatinskohrvatske populacije jasno se razlikuju od kasnijih kontinentalnih populacija iz Vukovara i Bijelog Brda, dok populacije s lokaliteta Gomjenica kod Prijedora, koji je na temelju arheološke građe svrstan u bjelobrdski kulturni kompleks, ulaze već u skupinu dalmatinsko-hrvatskih populacija.27 Polagan prodor hrvatskog utjecaja prema sjeveru dodatno potkrepljuju i nalazi nakita iz tog vremena,28 koji svjedoče o neposrednijim vezama između dalmatinsko-hrvatskog i južnopanonsko-slavenskog kulturnog kruga. Izneseni nalazi navode na zaključak da se Hrvati nisu uopće naselili u južnoj Panoniji tijekom izvorne seobe sa sjevera na jug, iako je moguće da su pojedine manje skupine zaostale na tom području utopivši se naposljetku u premoćnoj množini ostalih doseljenih slavenskih populacija. Širenje starohrvatskih populacija s juga na sjever pripada vremenu od 10. stoljeća nadalje i povezano je s izmijenjenim političkim prilikama, jačanjem i širenjem rane hrvatske države. Na temelju svega ovoga mnogo je vjerojatnije da etnonim "Hrvati" i doseoba skrivaju činjenicu o prijenosu političke vlasti, što znači da je car političko vrhovništvo poistovjetio s etničkom nazočnošću. Točno takav pristup je primijenio pretvarajući Zahumljane, Travunjane i Neretljane u Srbe (DAI, c. 33, 8-9, 34, 4-7, 36, 5-7).
Az I2-CTS10228 (köznevén "dinári-kárpáti") alcsoport legkorábbi közös őse 2200 évvel ezelőttre tehető, így esetében nem arról van szó, hogy a mezolit népesség Kelet-Európában ilyen mértékben fennmaradt volna, hanem arról, hogy egy, a mezolit csoportoktól származó szűk család az európai vaskorban sikeresen integrálódott egy olyan társadalomba, amely hamarosan erőteljes demográfiai expanzióba kezdett. Ez is mutatja, hogy nem feltétlenül népek, mintsem családok sikerével, nemzetségek elterjedésével is számolnunk kell, és ezt a jelenlegi etnikai identitással összefüggésbe hozni lehetetlen. A csoport elterjedése alapján valószínűsíthető, hogy a szláv népek migrációjában vett részt, így válva az R1a-t követően a második legdominánsabb csoporttá a mai Kelet-Európában. Nyugat-Európából viszont teljes mértékben hiányzik, kivéve a kora középkorban szláv nyelvet beszélő keletnémet területeket.
{{cite book}}:ISBN / Date incompatibility (help)| Sub-topics | |
|---|---|
| Genetic history by region | |
| Population genetics by group |
|
