etymologica et anthropologica maiora

S o r i n P a l i g a

E t y m o l o g i c a e t

Anthropologica Maiora

Already published in the series

Sorin Paliga, Opera Omnia

I Etymological Lexicon of the Indigenous

(Thracian) Elements in Romanian

II Influen!e romane "i preromane n limbile slave de sud

III Etymologica et Anthropologica Maiora

Forthcoming

IV Lexicon Proto!Borealicum et alia lexica

etymologica minora

V Istoria vechilor slavi

A History of the Old Slavs

VI Introducere n tracologia lingvistic# An Introduction to Linguistic Thracology

Etymologica et Anthropologica Maiora

Apari!ia volumului s-a bucurat de sprijinul pre!ios al

S.C. ROSAL GRUP S.R.L. Bucure"ti

This volume has been published by generous support of

ROSAL GRUP Ltd. Bucharest

Coperta / Cover: Sorin Paliga

Ilustra!ia copertei / Cover Picture: Vidra-Zmbreasca artefact

Revizia "tiin!ific# "i tehnoredactarea apar!in autorului

Revision and page setting by author

Copyright: Funda!ia Evenimentul 2007

Funda!ia Evenimentul pentru Cultivarea P#cii "i a Spiritului Tolerant

Str. Constantin Nacu nr. 4, sector 2

Sector 2, Bucure"ti

Romnia

telefon: (4)021 / 781 2490

fax: (4)021 / 211 4779

Director General: Paul Tutungiu

Pre"edintele Funda!iei Evenimentul pentru Cultivarea P#cii

"i a Spiritului Tolerant

I.S.B.N. - 13 978-973-87920-2-9

Sorin Paliga

E t y m o l o g i c a e t

Anthropologica Maiora

Bucure"ti

2007

Contents / Cuprins

Cuvnt nainte 7

Foreword 9

I.

Thracian terms for township and fortress, and related place-names 13

The Social Structure of the South-East European Societies

in the Middle Ages. A Linguistic View 21

A Pre-Indo-European Place-Name: Dalmatia 39

Slavic *s!to - a challenging problem? 43

Types of Mazes 61

Proto-Indo-European, Pre-Indo-European, Old European:

Archaeological Evidence and Linguistic Investigation 77

Are There Urbian Elements in Slavic? 91

An Archaic Word: doin" 95

The Tablets of T#rt#ria an Enigma?

A reconsideration and further perspectives 113

Metals, Words And Gods. Early Knowledge of Metallurgical Skills in

Europe, and Reflections in Terminology 151

Two river-names revisited.

Once again on the opposition north-south in late Thracian 175

Romanian Definite Article Revisited 183

Herrscherschaft and Herrschersuffix

in Central-East European Languages 195

Ten Theses on Romanian Etymology 209

II.

Ardeal, Transilvania 235

Zeit#!i feminine ale basmelor romne"ti: znele "i snzienele.

Originea cuvintelor "i a cultului profan 243

Civiliza!ia vechilor urbieni 255

Toponimul Cluj 267

Pururi = focuri 281

Originea Albanezilor 285

Un cuvnt str#vechi ora# 291

Toponimia arhaic# a Romniei 295

Despre TABA/TEBA, DAVA/DEVA, despre alte aspecte

ale fondului pre-indo-european, ale celui indo-european,

ale celui proto-boreal, despre nostratisme

precum "i despre coeren!# n tracologia lingvistic# 299

III.

La divinit suprme des Thraco-daces 317

Devenir et aspectualisation. Encore une fois sur le verbe slave 331

Aperu de la structure tymologique du Roumain 345

Bibliographia 353

Rodic uxori suaviter,

Ror Dain Mari fili dulcissim,

Atque filiis Michaeli Uaro et Bucuro Johanni

dedicatur

Exordium dacoromanice

__________________________________________________________________

__________________________________________________________________7

Cuvnt nainte

Al treilea volum al acestei serii cuprinde majoritatea studiilor publicate n diverse

reviste de specialitate. Fiind vorba de studii scrise de!a lungul a aproximativ 25 de ani, unele revizuite !i completate, iar altele incluse n alte lucr"ri (cum ar fi volumele precedente ale acestei serii, alte cteva fiind incluse n volumul urm"tor, al patrulea), a fost necesar" o reorganizare a materialului.

Pe de o parte, am eliminat acele studii care fac deja parte din alte volume publicate precum !i pe cele care se ncadreaz" mai bine volumului urm"tor, care va cuprinde cteva dic#ionare etimologice de volum limitat, dar esen#iale, credem noi,

demersului etimologic (Lexiconul Proto!Boreal, lexiconul celor o sut" de r"d"cini slave esen#iale, un extras al cuvintelor autohtone care permit reconstruirea unei spirante velare n trac"). Dat fiind c" unele studii au ap"rut deja n Thracian and

Pre!Thracian Studies (ed. Lucretius, Bucure!ti 1999), iar ntre timp num"rul acestor studii a crescut semnificativ, am considerat necesar" reordonarea lor nu numai pe principiul cronologic. Cum frontiera dintre temele abordate (cum ar fi, de

exemplu, mo!tenirea trac" a limbii romne, rela#iile slavo!romne, influen#ele de substrat asupra limbilor slave etc.) nu este simplu de trasat, am considerat util" ordonarea pe criteriul limbii n care au fost publicate studiile care este, n bun" m"sur", !i o ordonare tematic".

Primele sunt studiile n limba englez", cele mai numeroase de altfel !i, de fapt, cu acestea am debutat n lumea !tiin#ific" n anii 80, pe cnd revistele de specialitate din Romnia au amnat sistematic publicarea acelor studii !i care, astfel, au c"p"tat gradual versiune englez" pentru a putea ap"rea. Urmarea acestui fapt este c" versiunile ap"rute n Linguistica, World Archaeology, The Journal of

Indo!European Studies !i, nu n ultimul rnd, n Slavisti!na Revija (n limba sloven", dar fiind traduceri dup" originalul n limba englez") au fost ini#ial rescrise de autor pe baza versiunii n limba romn". Nu am mai revenit asupra formei

Etymologica-anthropologica / Exordium

__________________________________________________________________

__________________________________________________________________8

ini#iale, nici nu le!am retradus n limba romn". Cum timpul trece, ni s!a p"rut mai util s" relu"m, cu noi argumente, datele mai vechi, astfel c" studiile n limba englez" nu au, n general, versiuni n limba romn", de!i unele abordeaz" teme similare.

Partea a doua include studiile n limba romn", toate publicate dup" 1990 (dintre care am eliminat studiul dedicat boieriei, acesta fiind deja inclus ca un subcapitol al volumului precedent); cum acestea se refer" preponderent la mo!tenirea arhaic" a

limbii romne !i la rela#iile romno!slave (cteva !i la cele romno!maghiare), n acest fel cititorul va avea !i o organizare tematic".

n sfr!it, ultimele studii sunt cele n limba francez", publicate n Dialogues dhistorie ancienne.

Poate ar trebui s" argumentez de ce am ales titlul Etymologica et Anthropologica Maiora. Fiecare dintre aceste studii n parte !i toate n ansamblu arat", cum avem speran#a, c" Europa a cunoscut trei mari perioade etnice: 1. $ neoliticul !i eneoliticul, cu marile lor culturi !i civiliza#ii (cca. 75003500

a. $Ch.); 2. $ invazia indo!european": conturarea limbilor !i culturilor antichit"#ii (34001200 a. Ch.); 3. dezvoltarea civiliza#iilor antichit"#ii, c"derea lor !i formarea limbilor !i culturilor Europei medievale (mileniul I a. Ch. !i primele secole ale erei cre!tine).

Autorul are speran#a c" ansamblul acestor studii formeaz" un set coerent de abord"ri preponderent lingvistice, dar !i antropologice n sens larg, privitoare la

probleme esen#iale ale cercet"rii etimologice: rolul stratului pre!indo!european n

conturarea profilului etno!cultural al Europei; problema mo!tenirii indo!europene !i

felul n care acest strat lingvistic mai nou s!a amalgamat cu cel str"vechi,

pre!indo!european; substratul limbilor slave !i problema rela#iilor slavo!romne;

elementele traco!dace ale limbii romne. Multe dintre aceste studii pot fi considerate studii de caz ce completeaz" ori argumenteaz" datele prezentate n ampla lucrare de sintez" Etymological Lexicon of the Indigenous (Thracian) Elements in Romanian.

Sorin PaligaAugust 2006

Exordium anglice

__________________________________________________________________

__________________________________________________________________

9

Foreword

The third volume in this series contains most of the studies published in various

scientific journals. As these cover over 25 years of research, some being revised and

completed and others already included in other works (as the preceding volumes of

the series, others in the forthcoming volumes), reorganising the material has been

mandatory.

I have therefore removed those studies already published in other volumes and

some, which are rather appropriatre for the forthcoming volume, to include limited

etymological dictionaries, but I do hope essential for a solid etymological

approach (Proto!Boreal Lexicon, the etymological lexicon of 100 Slavic roots, an

extras of indigenous elements witnessing a former velar spirant in Thracian). As

some studies were already published in Thracian and Pre!Thracian Studies

(Lucretius, Bucure!ti 1999), and the number of these studies has meanwhile

become higher, their re-organisation has become imperious, not necessarily

following the chronological order. As the fronteer between topics approached over

years is not so easy to mark (e.g. the Thracian heritage of Romanian, Slavic-

Romanian relations, substratum influences in Slavic etc.) re-organising the studies

according to the language they were written may be, at least to a certain limit, a

thematic order.

The studies in English, most numerous, were those by which we made the

scientific debut in the 1980s, specifically because the Romanian scientific journals

repeatedly rejected them. Thus they gradually got an English garment and could be

published abroad. Consequently the versions published in Linguistica, World

Archaeology, The Journal of Indo!European Studies and, last but not least, in

Slavisti!na Revija (in Slovene, but translated from the English original) were

initially re-written following the Romanian former original. Generally I did not

revert to the original, older Romanian form, nor did I re-translate them back. As

Etymologica-anthropologica / Exordium

__________________________________________________________________

__________________________________________________________________

10

time passes by, I found a lot more useful to resume older data by using new

arguments. Therefore the studies in English do not generally have a Romanian

translation, even if some may loosely approach similar topics.

The second part includes the studies in Romanian, all of them published after

1990. I removed the study dedicated to boier (a chapter in the preceding volume of

this series); as these mainly refer to the archaic heritage of Romanian and to

Romanian!Slavic relations (a few to Romanian-Hungarian relations), there is also a

thematic organisation of material.

Finally, there are also three studies in French, as published in the Dialogues

dhistorie ancienne.

It should be perhaps useful to further expand on the title: Etymologica et

Anthropologica Maiora. Every study and all together point(s) to the three major

Ethnic Periods in Europe: 1. " Neolithic and Chalcolithic, with their major

cultures and civilizations (cca. 75003500 B.C.); 2."The Indo!European invasion,

which led to the making of ancient languages and cultures (34001200 B.C.);

3. "The making of Ancient Civilizations, their fall and the making of Medieval

languages and cultures (first millennium B.C. and the Christian era).

The author hopes that these studies form a coherent set of linguistic and

anthropological approaches: the role of the Pre!Indo!European substratum in

contouring the ethno-cultural profile of Europe; the Indo!European heritage and

amalgamation of Pre!Indo!European and Indo!European stratum; the substratum in

Slavic and Romanian!Slavic relations; the Thracian heritage in Romanian. Many

studies may be labelled case!studies to complement or to backup the data in the

ample Etymological Lexicon of the Indigenous (Thracian) Elements in Romanian.

Sorin Paliga

August 2006

I

In English

Anglice

Urbs et civitas apud Thraeces

__________________________________________________________________

__________________________________________________________________

13

Thracian terms for township and fortress,

and related place-names

Piae memoriae Patris

Introduction

Though the Tracians had no written tradition, some essential terms

connected with their everyday life and especially many place-names can be

fairly well identified and interpreted on the basis of (1) the information given

by the Greek and Latin writers, and (2) the analysis of some words, arguably

of Thracian origin, preserved in the modern languages spoken in southeastern

Europe, especially in Romanian, Albanian and Bulgarian. Though the gap in

time is important, we assume that relevant terms may be identified and

analysed in such a way as to complement the archaeological data. In our

attempt we shall try (1) to determine the Thracians terms specifically express-

ing the notion township and/or fortress, (2) to connect these terms to evident-

ly (or probably) related place-names inside or outside the Thracian area, and

(3) to consider them in their historical evolution, i. e. whether the terms are

still in use either in denoting a certain place-name or used as such in the

everyday vocabulary. In every case it is useful to refer to the etymon of the

word analysed, knowing that the sense is a strong support for the social

context in which a word (term) is used.

Thracian terms for township and fortress

1. Bria. The Thracians called the polis bria (Strabo 7: 6: 1; Stephanes Byz.

446: 15). Bria also appears as second element in many place-names like:

Alai-bria, Bolba-bria, Mesem-bria, Selym-bria, etc. (De!ev 1957: 86; Russu

Etymologica-anthropologica / Anglice

__________________________________________________________________

__________________________________________________________________

14


__________________________________________________________________

__________________________________________________________________

15

1967: 96). Closely related is the place-name Brea (De!ev 1957: 85). The

word is compared to the Indo-European (hereafter IE) root *wer- to close, to

cover (Pokorny 1959: 1162; AHD 1549). In our opinion the term under

consideration is an obvious Preie. relic derived from the root *B-R-/*P-R-

identified in the Mediterranean region and whose meaning should be recon-

structed as elevation; high, zero-grade form *BR-i-a. In this respect, the

Thracian word has clear affinities with terms and place-names of this type

like Provenal and Catalan brac a moor, place-name (hereafter PN) Saint-

Martin-de-Brasque, Bresq, Briasq, Braux ( PN Plovdiv (Bulgaria). A satisfactory

etymon of the word was suggested a long time ago: IE *dh"- to set, put, development *dh"-w- (Tomaschek 1893 II: 1: 9), and has been accepted by all subsequent specialists like De!ev, Russu and Georgiev (1961: 7). The

North Thracian term dava, deva seems to be akin to PN Datos (De!ev: 120)

and Albanian dhat city and Greek #$%&' a place, centre. Beside the Bulgarian place-name Plovdiv, which reflects the ancient Pulpu-deva, this

etymological group is well preserved in some Romanian place-names, such

as Deva, an important town in Transylvania. The Thracian origin of the

place-name has been sometimes denied on the feeble ground that intervocalic

b/v should have been lost as in the Latin elements preserved in Romanian

(e.g. Lat. caballus > Rom. cal horse). But it seems clear to us that the

Thracian phoneme v (like b) had a particular pronunciation different from the

Late Latin b/v, so its preservation as such is not only plausible but even

inevitable (Kisch 19291934: 181). Three other modern Romanian towns

preserve the same element: Deda, Deta (cf. Thr. Datos) and Dej (formerly


__________________________________________________________________

__________________________________________________________________

14


__________________________________________________________________

__________________________________________________________________

15


__________________________________________________________________

__________________________________________________________________

16

*De-e(, in two syllables, confirmed by the medieval Latin spelling Dees). These place-names undoubtedly preserve the parallel Thracian forms *d"-t-, *de-e(- (attested only once in PN Datos) against the classical form dava, deva.

3. Dina, deina. This word is witnessed in a few place-names like Asbolo-

dina, Bassi-dina, Pesi-dina, etc. (De!ev 1957: 136). It may have the same

etymon as deva/dava but with a different development (of the type *dh"-n-), or it might be related to Cymric din township as De!ev unconvincingly

suggested. No related place-names have been clearly identified so far. We

suggest a possible approach to PN Dindryme (? Din-dryme) and mountain-

name (hereafter MN) Din-dyma, Din-dymon which are differently analysed

in De!ev (1957). This suggestion finds some support in Rom. PN Dinga and

PN Dinia) (< *din-g- and *din-i-a( respectively) which should probably be regarded as having a Thracian origin in the context discussed.

4. Diza, dizos, deize, witnessed in many place-names like Bur-dizos,

Diza-zelmis, Diza-pes, Diza-polis, Oru-disza, Tyro-diza, etc. (De!ev 1957:

132). If the word is related to Greek *+,-&' city-wall (Chantraine 1968: 1098) then the IE root is *dheig. ho- (Pokorny 1959: 244), as in Avestan pairi-da"za fence, garden, Armenian d"z heap, multitude. These extra-Thracian parallels are irresistible and they seem to support the attested Thracians

forms. We might equally refer to the same IE root *dh"- with a different development of the type *dh"-g. (h)-/, *dh"-g. (h)-os. As often in the field of comparative grammar no definite solution exists, but this is less important in

the context of this paper. The term diza/dizos may not be preserved in any

modern form, except perhaps Rom. PN Dezna (district Arad, W. Romania)

for which it is difficult to suggest any other origin.

5. Leba: 01234560,' 758 9:3%;< (Hesychius). De!ev (1957), following Tomaschek (1893), considers that leba is a misspelling for deva. However,

we will assume here that the form given in Hesychius is correct. This fact is

proved by the existence of clearly related Thracian place-names like MN

Abro-lebas, PN Libon, Libum in Bythinia, and PN Libyssa, Libissa on the

river Libyssos (De!ev 1957: 3 and 275). The leba/liba forms have clear

affinities with similar Preie. place-names derived from a root *L-P-/*L-B-


__________________________________________________________________

__________________________________________________________________

15


__________________________________________________________________

__________________________________________________________________

16


__________________________________________________________________

__________________________________________________________________

17

stone, mountain, from which come PN Lebena in Crete (Faure 1977: 141),

PN Libana located in the mountainous region of Castilia (Ptolemy 2: 6: 57),

PN Labro > Livorno, and Lat. lapis stone (analysis in G. Alessio, Studi

Etruschi 9/1935: 133 ff). The primitive meaning of the root leba was there-

fore stone, hence stone-wall, fortress. It is possible that the Thracians used

leba to denote the stone-walls of their townships and fortress (cf. the so-

called murus dacicus the Dacian wall).

6. Ora, oros, oron. This term is attested in several place-names: Al-oros,

Az-oros, El-oros, Gaz-oros, Thest-oros, Milk-oros, Tarp-oron, Clev-ora,

Cap-ora (De!ev 1957: 535). Other related forms are known from the Thra-

cians area: MN Orb-elos, PN Org-ame, Ur-briana. All these examples are

undoubtedly Preie., belonging to the root reconstructed *OR-/*UR- very big,

huge, high, well represented in the ancient place-names, such as Urgo/Orgo,

an island between Corsica and Etruria (Pliny 3:81), PN Orgon, Provence

(Rostaing 1950: 70); Basque uri city, township; PN Uri, in Switzerland; Hatti

ure huge, big; Greek =:>< etc. (Mu"u 1981: 199 ff). Of course, Lat. urbs should be also discussed in this context, as it has long been observed. We

assume here that the similarity of Basque uri, Latin urbs and Thracian oros,

ora cannot be mere chance. As Prof. Mu"u has observed, the meaning of this

root is big, huge, high, hence mountain, hill or/and township (on elevated

location).

The Thracian ora, oros, oron forms discussed here are preserved in some

Romanian terms and place-names. The most important of all is surely ora) (dialectically also ura)) the usual word for the meaning city, township, obviously akin to uria) (dialectically also oria) with the same o/u alternation) huge, very big. Some place-names are clearly related: Oradea, Or)ova (Or)-ova, probably with a suffix of Slavic origin in Romanian), MN Urlea, in the Transylvanian Alps, etc. The origin of these Romanian forms cannot by

any means be attributed to a late Hungarian influence, a theory much sup-

ported by Hungarian scholars (cf. Kiss 1980: 453) simply because Rom.

ora)/ura) township and uria)/oria) huge, giant have clear affinities with the Thracian and extra-Thracian examples already shown. We must not forget

that many words of Thracian origin, place-names included, in the modern


__________________________________________________________________

__________________________________________________________________

16


__________________________________________________________________

__________________________________________________________________

17


__________________________________________________________________

__________________________________________________________________

18

languages spoken in the Balkans, are still frequently explained by the Slavic

or Hungarian influence, though in these languages the terms are still more

obscure. The absence of or-/ur- forms in Albanian (often referred to in the

case of some Thracian elements preserved in Romanian) is not of course an

argument against their Thracian origin in Romanian.1

7. Para also bara. This term is very well attested in place-names in the

Thracian region south from the Danube: Bessa-para, Gelu-para, Drusi-para,

etc. (De!ev 1957: 3567) and Zuro-bara, Tamon-bari (De!ev 1957: 42). This

Thracian term has clear affinities with other para-/bara- forms of certain

Preie. origin (root *PaR-/*BaR- (*P-R-/*B-R-)): Catalan barri city, district;

Provenal rampart; PN Barras and PN Barga in Tuscany (Rostaing 1950:

88); PN Parium in Mysia; PN Parma in Gallia; and Greek PN Parnassos, PN

Paros, etc. (Trombetti 1925: 44; Faure 1977: 141). All these forms represent

the full a-grade of the root as compared to the zero-grade in bria analysed

above.

No modern form with the specific meaning township has been preserved,

but the root may be easily identified in several place-names in Romania:

B!r!gn, Brg?u (< *BaR-g-), and MN Par@ng in the Transylvanian Alps (primitive from *PaR-ang- or *PaR-ag- then nasalised to * PaR-a-n-g-)

Discussion

The examples analysed, despite the corrupted spellings of the Thracian

words in the Greek or Latin writers, complement the archaeological data very

well. It is obvious that the Thracians had a rich terminology for township

and/or fortress. Of course the terms under consideration reflect regional

(local, dialectal) differences: dava/deva was common among the North

Thracians (Dacians or Getae) while para/bara, bria and diza were more

1 The existence or non-existence of the root *OR-/ *UR- in Albanian remains to be

demonstrated. One example: Alb. yll star must derive from preie. *OR- or *OL-,

*UL-. The form ora), and its tortuous etymological history, will be discussed in another paper, below.


__________________________________________________________________

__________________________________________________________________

17


__________________________________________________________________

__________________________________________________________________

18


__________________________________________________________________

__________________________________________________________________

19

common among the South Thracians. Yet this is not an argument for the

existence of a Dacian bloc versus a Thracian bloc as sometimes suggested

(Georgiev 1961: 54; Duridanov 1976: 39 ff). This opposes not only known

historical information but also surviving linguistic evidence. For example,

Rom. PN Deva reflects Thr. deva which is equally preserved in Bulg. PN

Plovdiv < Pulpu-deva. It is better to assert dialectal differences and not a

clear-cut ethnic divide. A good proof to this is represented by the situation of

Thr. forms ora, oros, oron, poorly attested in the Latin and Greek writers (at

least compared to the richly witnessed dava- and para- forms) but reflected

in Romanian by ora)/ura) as the usual word for denoting the township in general. It is clear that an identical word or one closely similar was used in

the everyday life of the Thracians (or, at least, of the North Thracians): it was

the popular word versus the official one (dava or para), which is now

preserved only in a few place-names. Three groups of Thracians terms have a

clear IE origin: dava/deva/dova, dina/dena and diza, dizos (though the

ultimate etymon may seem uncertain), whilst four groups seem to have a

Preie. origin: bria, bara/para, leba and ora/oros/oron. This should not be

surprising and can be more easily understood in the light of archaeological

research. We consider here that the Neolithic (Preie.) townships reflect a

particular aspect of Old Europe (Gimbutas 1973: 23, 89). The Indo-Euro-

peanisation of Europe did not mean total destruction of the previous cultural

achievement but consisted in an amalgamation (hybridization) of racial and

cultural phenomena (Gimbutas 1974: 302). Linguistically, the process may

(and must) be regarded in a similar way: the Indo-Europeans imposed an

idiom, which itself then adopted certain elements from the autochtonous

languages spoken previously. These non-IE (Preie.) elements are numerous

in Greek, Latin and, arguably, Thracian though in the last case the analysis is

more difficult because of the lack of a written tradition. But difficulty is not

synonymous with impossibility, as we have tried to prove in the paper.

The persistence of some Thracian elements (of origin both IE and Preie.)

in Romania, Bulgaria and other south-east European areas and languages

should therefore be considered in this development context (just like the

Celtic words and place-names in English and in Britain respectively). Refer-


__________________________________________________________________

__________________________________________________________________

18


__________________________________________________________________

__________________________________________________________________

19


__________________________________________________________________

__________________________________________________________________

20

ring only to the examples analysed, the preservation of some Preie.

place!names and terms expressing the notion township in Thracian and, via

Thracian, in Romanian or Bulgarian can be better understood in the light of

historical and archaeological data. Thus, in the Thracian area locations which

can be described as township or fortress were already present in the Neolithic

(Cri"an 1986: 145; Childe 1946: 98 ff; Opperman 1984: 11 ff). In this

respect, the Thracian territory has parallels in the Celtic area (Cri"an 1986:

150). Thus and we want to stress this detail the Daco-Thracian davae did not

borrow the Greek pattern but conserved a very old type (Cri"an 1986: 168).

In other words, the Thracians were highly conservative in their idea of

urbanism; their language reflects this reality in terms (words, place-names)

the origin of which can be traced back to the idioms spoken in the Neolithic

(Preie.) times. Surprisingly or not, the facts are quite obvious and must be

considered as such. One more detail: as has been well observed, the Thracian

davae or parae were at the same time oppida and urbes (Braga 1980: 9) and

have parallels in the Celtic area (cf. Caesar, De Bello Gallico). Militarily,

these locations were fortresses while economically they were towns or

markets.

The survival of several important Thracian terms connected with the

notion township, as well as of some major place-names, is interesting.

Bulgaria was initially a Romanized region, then Slavonized; Romania is

represented by the Romanized Daco-Thracian territory and population. The

latter is undoubtedly the most conservative both culturally and linguistical-

ly, the Thracians elements of the vocabulary being quite important (cf.

Russu 1981), although they have not been analysed in full. It is equally

interesting to note that the Thracian (pre-Roman) place-names of Romania

are mainly preserved in Transylvania and the neighbouring regions, the

mountainous zones. The Romanian name for Transylvania, Ardeal, is one

of the clearest Preie. relics: root *AR- high, elevated; far away and *DaL-,

*DeL- hill, forest, mountain (Paliga 1986). Again, place-names are of great

importance in the reconstruction of vanished civilisations and it is almost

inevitable that the identifiable Preie. elements come down from the Ne-

olithic times: the dawn of the European civilization.


__________________________________________________________________

__________________________________________________________________

19


__________________________________________________________________

__________________________________________________________________

20

Conclusions

Thracian terms denoting township are fairly well attested in Latin and

Greek writers, and reflect both IE and Preie. elements. The existence of these

terms reflecting this double origin should be considered in the light of the Old

European (Preie.) Civilisation and the subsequent Indo-Europeanisation

which caused an amalgamation of populations, rather than a total destruction

of previous achievements. The terms analysed in this article are a real support

for the idea that the languages spoken in antiquity reflected an IE structure

but preserved a certain number of terms of Preie. origin; these terms can

easily be identified and analysed in several cultural or ethnic areas. Important

place-names closely connected to an initial meaning township can be identi-

fied and analysed over a large area reflecting both the IE and Preie. heritage.

The Thracian territory roughly corresponding to that of present-day Romania

and Bulgaria despite the lack of a written tradition, witnesses such forms,

some of them preserved into the modern period. Such terms have been

adopted to successive historic and social realities, and some have proved to

be resistant to linguistic erosion and are still in use. The case of Romanian

ora)/ura) city, township is typical: its origin should be traced back to a Pre-Thracian (Preie.) idiom spoken in the Neolithic. As Latin urbs has not been

preserved in any Romance language, it is interesting to observe that the

Romanian term, together with Basque uri (of identical meaning) are the only

pre-Indo-European words with this connotation still in use.

(World Archaeology 1987, Vol. 19, No. 1, pp. 2329)

De structura societatis Europ vulturn

__________________________________________________________________

__________________________________________________________________

21

The Social Structure of the South-East European Societies

in the Middle Ages. A Linguistic View

Introduction

The purpose of this paper is to review several terms spread over a quite

large area in south-east Europe. The starting point of our investigation is

the Romanian language understood as inheriting an important Thracian

vocabulary, specifically referring to the social and political structure of the

Early Middle Ages. The terms discussed are not exclusively Romanian. In

fact, they reflect roughly speaking the ancient extension of the Thracians

speakers, i.e. the present-day territories of Romania, Moldova, Bulgaria,

and parts of south and southwest Ukraine, Slovakia, Hungary and former

Yugoslavia1.

Speaking of the Thracian words transmitted till modern times via Roma-

nian we must of course understand via late-Latin/Proto-Romanian in still

confuse times when linguistic and cultural changes diffused without

control. It was an age of fundamental changes but not without solid links

with the previous cultural achievements. It is by no means our intention to

over-estimate the importance of the Late-Latin/Proto-Romanian elements

in southeast Europe, more or less affected by the Thracian substratum, but

to point out that the only plausible manner of explaining these forms is to

assume even if only as a hypothesis of first-stage investigation a substra-

tum influence quite homogeneous in its phonetic changes and, generally, in

its linguistic phenomena.

1 The Thracian tribes inhabited a large part of contemporary Serbia.


__________________________________________________________________

__________________________________________________________________

22


__________________________________________________________________

__________________________________________________________________

23

We shall therefore focus on the following forms in Romanian together

with their parallels in other neighbouring idioms: (1) ban overlord, master

and ban money, coin; (2) cioban recipient, pot and cioban shepherd;

(3) giupn (pronounced !upn), later jupn master (cf. ban); (4) st"pn

master. At a first sight, all these forms witness a common component: -

ban, -pan > -pn, with the probable meaning master, leader. Does this

reflect a real old heritage or are we victims of an illusion? Or, otherwise

put, do all these forms reflect a common origin, from one language spoken

in south-east Europe? How shall we explain the large diffusion of some of

these terms?

Before giving a coherent answer it is imperious to reconsider these very

forms.

(1) Ban overlord, master and money, coin.

The word was generally analysed separately for these two meanings, as

follows:

1.1 The sense overlord, master has been interpreted as:

(a) Slavic heritage, now accepted by several scholars (Cihac 18701879,

II: 8; Macrea 1958: 66; Rosetti 1978: 297, 431). This hypothesis was

supported by the fact that similar forms are witnessed in Serbo-Croatian,

Bulgarian and Hungarian (ban, bn)

(b) A version of the previous hypothesis is that in Romanian the word

should be explained as a Hungarian influence (Tiktin 19031916: 152; DA

I: 471; Iorga 1905, I: 135; !"ineanu 1929: 52; Cior"nescu 1960 ff.: 64,

with hesitations; Tams 1967: 90; Mih"il" 1974: 74).

(c) Slavic or Hungarian origin (Coteanu et al. 1975: 72). Such an unde-

cided opinion was surely supported by the fact that in both Slavic and

Hungarian the word is not satisfactorily explained. A very brief review of

the etymological analysis from this non-Romanian perspective is useful:

(a) For Miklosich the word is of Persian origin; from Persia it was

supposedly transmitted into Europe by the Turks (Miklosich 1884, I: 11;


__________________________________________________________________

__________________________________________________________________

22


__________________________________________________________________

__________________________________________________________________

23


__________________________________________________________________

__________________________________________________________________

24

1886: 7; Matzenauer 1870: 103). It can be easily argued that such a hypoth-

esis is feeble, as long as Turkish ban is a rare word. Besides, the Turkish

influence was quite late and could not impose a term of social structure. On

the other hand, Hung. bn is a governor at the frontier of Hungary (Benk#

et al. 1967); this detail is interesting but ignored, perhaps unvoluntarily.

(b) Berneker assumes that Slavic ban is of Mongolian origin, the origi-

nal form being bojan, hence ban (Berneker 19081913: 42; Bezlaj 1976

ff.: 10). But the phonetic changes are not explained and they are not at all

easily to be accepted as such 2 .

(c) It is sometimes hypothesized that Slavic ban is of Persian origin,

transmitted to Europe by the Avars (Onions 1969: 72). This reference to

Persian ban cannot be avoided but how to explain the route of the word to

Europe? Are the Avars (or, according to another version, the Turks) respon-

sible for the spread of the word in South-East Europe?

We basically doubt such a hypothesis. But before giving an answer to

this question it is useful to review some opinions regarding the homophone

ban money, coin.

1.2 Ban money, coin (preserved as a vivid form only in Romanian; also

Polish and Bulgarian dialectally, obsolete).

(a) Isolatedly, some linguists speak of a Slavic element (Cihac 1870

1879, II: 8). It is, of course, a difficult point, as long as the meaning

money, coin is not at all specifically Slavic, on the contrary. The distribu-

tion of this meaning clearly proves that a discussion regarding the ultimate

origin of this semantic field cannot start from Polish or Bulgarian.

(b) One of the most interesting explanations of this word was given a

century ago: Ban is the coin of the Ban [see first meaning discussed

2 It should be remembered that bojan was other times assumed as being the origin

of boier, a specific term to denote a rich man in the Middle Ages. See the chapter

Este boieria o institu#ie mprumutat"? (Is boyardom a borrowed institution?) in the preceding volume.


__________________________________________________________________

__________________________________________________________________

23


__________________________________________________________________

__________________________________________________________________

24


__________________________________________________________________

__________________________________________________________________

25

above] just as the Italians call the coin of a duke ducato and the English

call the coin of a Sovereign sovereign (Hasdeu 18871888: 2448). This

explanation has been accepted by many other linguists (Tiktin 19031916:

151; !"ineanu 1929: 52; Macrea 1985: 66). A version of this hypothesis is

that the Romanian word is equally of Hungarian origin, an opinion much

advocated by Hungarian linguists (Tams 1967: 91; accepted, without

arguments, in Rosetti 1986: 384). The word under consideration cannot by

any means be of Hungarian origin for the simple reason that this meaning

is absent in Hungarian (dialectal Transylvanian forms are not relevant

because they may be and are under the Romanian influence).

(c) A particularly interesting and very original explanation, almost

forgotten, is exposed by Sextil Pu$cariu (DA I: 472; Pu$cariu 1923) who

considers that Rom. ban money, coin should be explained together with

Aromanian (Macedo-Romanian) verb a b"n to live (cf. Papahagi 1974:

191) as a heritage from a pre-Roman (i.e. Thracian) form *bann- life

cattle money, following the same change of meaning like Latin pecus

herd pecunia money.

According to this theory, there is no connection between the meanings

overlord, master and money, the similitude being therefore a result of

hazard, in change the antiquity of the word becomes considerable, assumed

of Thracian origin. It is what the author believes, but from completely other

reasons and with other arguments (see below). It should be now observed that

the Thracian reconstructed form *bann- is completely unfounded nor is it

supported by the testimonies in the Greek and Latin writers (cf. De%ev 1957).

(d) Finally, some scholars simply consider that the word is obscure

(Cioranescu 1960 ff.: 65; Coteanu et al. 1975: 72). In the given circum-

stances this undoubtedly is a correct position.

1.3. It is our hypothesis that we can explain fairly well both the meaning

overlord, master and money, coin in a wholesome way. Before referring


__________________________________________________________________

__________________________________________________________________

24


__________________________________________________________________

__________________________________________________________________

25


__________________________________________________________________

__________________________________________________________________

26

to other forms, we hypothesize that the word really is of Thracian origin, as

Pu$cariu brilliantly observed, from a reconstructed form *b$n- assumed

akin to Persian b$n master, also house (Horn 1893: 40) and p$n (p/b as

an old Indo-European alternation, already analyzed by Benveniste 1962:

168 in the case of the root *pH3 > *p%- to drink). The Indo-European

root of these forms is quite clear: on the one hand *p$- to protect, to feed,

on the other hand *p%i- to protect the cattle, to graze. These two roots are

separtely analyzed by Pokorny (1959: 782, 839), also separately but

nothing their probable initial kinship in Morris et al. 1979: 1532, 1535.

Secondly, the meaning coin, money of ban seems to have cognate

parallels in Old Indian: pa&a' a kind of coin (Mayrofer 1953, II: 196),

pa& to honor, buy, negotiate, pa&a to play for winning; coin;

house (Monier 1976: 580).

Are these similarities simple hazard? They might be, though it is diffi-

cult to think so. In this perspective, it would be perhaps useful to revert to

Hasdeu's opinion that the ban is the coin used under the authority of a

Ban, observing that the parallel lord, master coin seems to be much

older than Hasdeu thought, perhaps preserving a sense developed in the

satem area. We suggest therefore to consider the double meaning of ban

not a result of simple hazard but the preservation of very old parallel of

sense overlord, master coin3. It is not the purpose of this paper to

consider the beginnings of trade and coinage, but to draw attention on

some interesting aspects.

Summing up, it can be surmised that Thracian had a form *b$n master,

overlord and, very probably, a parallel form *b$n money, coin. Further

facts should substantiate this hypothesis.

3 A third meaning, house, is also witnessed by Old Indian and Persian.


__________________________________________________________________

__________________________________________________________________

25


__________________________________________________________________

__________________________________________________________________

26


__________________________________________________________________

__________________________________________________________________

27

(2) Cioban [!oban] recipient, pot and shepherd. (Meaning shep-

herd spread over a large area in southeast Europe).

As in the case discussed above, where the parallel master, lord coin

occured, in this case another parallel awaits a proper consideration. The

forms to start with are:

Rom. cioban [(oban]; common sense shepherd, but also wooden pot,

recipient (Transylvania);

Hung. csobny wooden pot, also csobn(y) shepherd;

Old Czech (bn, mod d)bn wooden pot.

As we know, these reciprocally significant forms have never been

considered together as an etymologically compact group, probably because

they require complex investigations and, perhaps much more important, to

abandon the deeply rooted preconceived idea that cioban, (oban shepherd

is a Turkish influence. The facts are, in our opinion, simple enough and do

not require special devices of investigation. Anyway, a brief review of the

topic is necessary.

In what concerns the Romanian forms, it was generally assumed that

cioban pot is a Hungarian influence (DA II: 435), the Hungarian word

being, in its turn, borrowed from Slovak with the specific phenomenon of

svarabhakti: Slovak bn > Hung. csobny (Benk# et al. 1967: 545), with

the observation that probably there is no connection between csobn

shepherd and csobn(y) pot (id.), yet without any further attempt in

explaining this strange similitude 4.

On the other hand, the situation of the Slavic terms is equally obscure to

the Slavists. The situation could be summarized thus:

4 It is again a case when obviously uncomfortable details are ignored ad usum

Delphini.


__________________________________________________________________

__________________________________________________________________

26


__________________________________________________________________

__________________________________________________________________

27


__________________________________________________________________

__________________________________________________________________

28

(a) For Miklosich there should be a similitude of some terms like the

already quoted Romanian and Hungarian forms, plus Rom. zbanc" a

recipient, Lithuanian izbonas, zbonas, uzbonas. This similitude is striking,

yet zbanc" may be considered a deformation of the Czech and Slovak

d)bn [how?], the situation as a whole remaining as confuse as before

(Miklosich 1886: 37).

(b) For Berneker, the Slavic word is dunkel(obscure) (Berneker

19081913: 165).

(c) Referring to the Baltic forms, a Polish or White-Russian origin is

suggested (Pol. dzban, zban, WRuss. )ban), which is very probable but is

no solution to the problem as a whole (Fraenkel 19551965 : 188).

(d) V. Machek reconstructs an Old Slavonic form *(*van+ [?!] and even

a common Slavic *(*ban+ [?!] approaching the forms to Greek ,-./01 5

(Machek 1971: 138). Though the Czech scholar makes a bold attempt in

explaining these facts and suggests a radical solution (the common Slavic

origin) his hypothesis is feeble and completely unfounded, including the

approach to d)ber a recipient, Rom. ciub"r [(b2r], German Zuber,

which are considered pra-evropsk (pre-Indo-European? 6).

The facts could be therefore summarized thus:

(I) In Hungarian both csobn pot and csobn(y) shepherd are borrow-

ings; the topic cannot be therefore solved starting from this point.

(II) The bizar parallel pot, recipient shepherd is preserved only in

Romanian and Hungarian, but as long as the latter cannot be the lending

idiom, it is feasible that some brighter perspectives may arise referring to

the Romanian forms.

5 ,-./01 pot, recipient and ,-341 orifice are derived from 56-7 to spread out,

to flow (cf. Chantraine 19681980: 316 and Frisk 1960).

6 Indeed the term pra-evropsk8 used by Machek is often confuse as he is not definite whether it refers to Proto-Indo-European (PIE) or Pre-Indo-European,

which is essential for an accurate linguistic analysis.


__________________________________________________________________

__________________________________________________________________

27


__________________________________________________________________

__________________________________________________________________

28


__________________________________________________________________

__________________________________________________________________

29

These preliminary conclusions are, in our opinion, obvious and generally

not contradicting the suggestions presented by some prominent scholars. It

should be also observed that a sense of borrowing of the type Slovak >

Hungarian > Romanian is hardly conceivable. Futhermore, it is observable

that the Slavic forms represent an assimilation (autochthonization) of a

foreign word heard *(oban or *(uban ((uban in Macedo-Rom., cf. Flora

1985: 89).

These observations will be reconsidered after reviewing the situation of

the homophone cioban shepherd in Romanian. First of all it is to observe

that many other synonyms are used, e.g.:

(1) p"curar < Lat. pecurarius, from pecus;

(2) p"stor < Lat. pastor, akin to pasco, pascere;

(3) oier, derived from oaie, pl. oi < Lat. ovis;

(4) mocan, unknown origin, very probably old archaic indigenous

(Thracian) term;

(5) baci unexplained;

(6) cioban considered, in general, as a Turkish influence (Cihac 1870

1879, II: 565; Tiktin 19031916: 354, balkanisches Wort; Lbel 1894:

32; !"ineanu 1900, II: 128; 1929: 130; Pu$cariu et al. 1916 ff., II: 435,

with the precious observation that the word occurs rarely in Macedo-

Romanian; Pu$cariu 1976: 313, 347; Macrea et al. 1958: 145; Cior"nescu

1960 ff.: 185; Coteanu et al. 1975: 151).

This rich synonymy in Romanian, unique perhaps in Europe, is not a

simple hazard but reflects the importance of this activity among the Roma-

nians. If so, a serious question arises: why should have the Romanians

borrowed a Turkish word for denoting an activity in which they were

perfect specialists all over the Balkans (the word Vlach Romanian is often

synonymous with shepherd) and for which their own language offered

and offers many other equivalents? Did the Romanians like the Turkish

word so much that they simply wanted un de plus? It seems that this aspect


__________________________________________________________________

__________________________________________________________________

28


__________________________________________________________________

__________________________________________________________________

29


__________________________________________________________________

__________________________________________________________________

30

passed ignored by all those who studied this topic, though it appears to us

of the highest importance. But not only the synonymic aspect has been

ignored, but also the historical facts: could the late Ottoman influence

impose such a word which belongs to the basic vocabulary? And, impor-

tant as well, how should we explain the sense pot, recipient?

Among all these hypothesis, unacceptable as we can see, one remarkable

exception: B. P. Hasdeu, who firsty assumed a pre-Roman, Thracian origin

of the word akin to Avestan f9u-b$n herdsman (Hasdeu 1973, II: 95141;

the study had been initially published in 1874). He later abandoned this

brilliant hypothesis replacing it by an opinion suggesting a rather Tartar

origin (Hasdeu 18871898: 2298). It is no better solution, but it reflects his

preocupation of finding a plausible explanation, realizing that the Turkish

(Ottoman) influence is impossible.

The facts can be therefore summarized as follows:

(a) Rom. cioban shepherd is surely non-Turkish;

(b) Rom. cioban should be explained in its double meaning: pot,

recipient and shepherd.

If this is correctly understood, the problem is theoretically solved, the

real difficulty consisting in finding the primitive connection between the

two spheres of meaning, which is:

shepherd undestood as PROTECTOR of livestock;

recipient understood as PROTECTOR of liquids,

both derived from a primitive root meaning to cover, to protect, hence

to graze, to contain. Given the correspondences already observed

between the balkanic terms and Persian, it is understandable that we must

look for a primitive root in the Indo-European heritage, where two roots

could be considered:

(a) IE *kadh- to cover, to protect, preserved in forms like

(1) helmet, hat: Lat. cassis (*kadh-tis), OHG huot, etc.


__________________________________________________________________

__________________________________________________________________

29


__________________________________________________________________

__________________________________________________________________

30


__________________________________________________________________

__________________________________________________________________

31

(2) care, defence: OHD huota Germ. Hut, f.

(3) to graze, shepherd: MHG heten, OHG huotan, huoten Germ.

Hter shepherd, behten to graze.

(Forms in Pokorny 1959: 516; Morris et al. 1979: 1520).

(b) IE *(s)keu- to cover, in forms like

(1) roof, protection, cover: OInd. ku-k:la a pod, p$;su-k:la priest

garment, Arm. c< iw roof, shelter;

(2) room, house: Arm. xuc< room, Oir. c:l shelter;

(3) genitals: Latvian kja, Gr. =>?301 female genitalia, Cymric cwd

Hodensack;

(4) pot, recipient: OInd. k@a, ku@apa-, ku@ay-;

(Pokorny 1959: 951; Morris et al. 1979: 1540).

It is clear now that Rom. cioban [oban] together with its Persian corre-

spondent forms (oban, (uban, (upan, which are for long known as the

origin of the turkish word (oban shepherd must be explained as a com-

pound with the first part IE *(s)keu- to cover, to protect and the second

part b$n analyzed above, with the expected treatment of IE group *keu- to

( in Persian and Thracian; from the latter language the word spread

throughout the Balkans where is surely is much older than its Turkish

equivalent of Persian origin.

The Balkanic term (oban cannot be of Turkish origin. The confusion was

produced by the similar forms existing from Persia to southeast Europe. But

this cannot confuse us and lead to an erroneous analysis. It should be equally

reminded that Turkish oban is a bookish word (Redhouse 129, 258, 262)

another detail proving that the Balkanic words cannot be derived from

Turkish but, quite precisely, from Thracian, like all the other forms consid-

ered in this paper. This will be clearer if referring to other examples.


__________________________________________________________________

__________________________________________________________________

30


__________________________________________________________________

__________________________________________________________________

31


__________________________________________________________________

__________________________________________________________________

32

(3) Cioban, !oban shepherd and giupn, "upan, jupn, #upan

master, lord.

The following solutions were offered in explaining the origin of the

word:

(a) In Romanian it is assumed that the term is of Slavic origin (Cihac

18701879, II: 161; Tiktin 19031916: 880; Dragomir 1921: 147, 165;

!"ineanu 1929: 351; Rosetti 1978: 318, 344), though is sometimes pointed

out that the oldest Romanian form witnesses the phonetic structure with !:

giupn [!upn], which is a difficult detail, showing that this form is older

than that with !/j, in Romanian. It was suggested that this detail would

witness an immediate borrowing from the Slavs (Skok 1936: 34;

Popovi& 1960: 609; Mih"il" 1971: 360). But the hypothesis of an immedi-

ate borrowing does not clarify the problem in its complexity.

(b) For other linguists the origin of the word is unknown (Giuglea 1922:

361; Pu$cariu 1976: 256; Cioranescu 1960 ff.: 458; Coteanu et al. 1975:

482). This undoubtedly is a correct interpretation of the available data but

still does not solve the topic.

(c) Even a Latin origin was once suggested, namely a Late Latin form

*giupanus < Gr. gypA + -*-$nus (Giuglea 1923: 604; reconsidered in

Diculescu 1927).

In our opinion, Rom. giupn and Slavic upan should anyway be dis-

cussed closely connected with cioban, (oban, as long as the two groups

show a similar composition: (o-, (u- as compared to (u- (the Romanian

phonetism is surely the oldest) or )u- in the Slavic area also later in Roma-

nian, in the latter case the phonetic evolution being explainable either as a

normal change from ! [spelled gi] to ) [spelled j] (following the same

phonetic rules like the Latin elements, e.g. Lat. jocus > *!ocu > joc, cf. It.

giuoco) or a Slavic influence supported (and supporting) the normal

internal evolution. This is a secondary aspect, a definite answer being

possible after a general consideration of the forms.


__________________________________________________________________

__________________________________________________________________

31


__________________________________________________________________

__________________________________________________________________

32


__________________________________________________________________

__________________________________________________________________

33

The context in which these words are discussed leads to the reconstruc-

tion of a Thracian prototype *!upn-, possibly also *!up2n-, if we accept

the idea that Thracian had a neutral phoneme /2/. As compared with the

previously discussed form *(oban- (in Thracian) developed later into

modern forms like Rom. cioban, Alb. oban, Hung. csobn(y), etc. It is

quite clear that both forms support one another and should be anyway

analyzed together. If our hypothesis is accepted, we face a quite interesting

detail of Thracian (probably, more exactly, Late Thracian) phonetic alter-

nance: *(o-b$n, *(u-b$n- as compared to *!u-p$n-, *!u-p2n-, i.e. (/! and

b$n-/p$n-, p2n-. The author has no miraculous solution in explaining this

particular phenomenon but facts are quite clear (see infra).

(4) St$pn a master, Slavic *stopan% id.

After the previous discussion, it has become hopefully clear that this

word should be discussed in this context. But not always happened so:

(a) It is generally assumed that the word is of Slavic origin in Romanian

(Cihac 18701879, II: 351; Tiktin 19031916: 1483; !"ineanu 1920: 613;

Rosetti 1978: 320; 1986: 287). Indeed similar parallels are present among

Slavic speakers but is the word Slavic?

(b) A Latin origin was also suggested, from *stipanus < stips a small

coin + -$nus (Giuglea 1923, reconsidered by Pu$cariu 1976: 283). It is

also the solution advocated for the previous case giupn (supra).

(c) Latin origin as well but from hospitanus (Bari 1919: 9394).

(d) Unknown origin (Coteanu et al. 1975: 189).

(e) Thracian origin from a prototype akin to German Stab, Sanskrit

sthapyami (Philippide 19231928, II: 14; Prvulescu 1974: 28; Iv"nescu

1980: 254).


__________________________________________________________________

__________________________________________________________________

32


__________________________________________________________________

__________________________________________________________________

33


__________________________________________________________________

__________________________________________________________________

34

It is interesting enough to observe that only this word was tentatively

explained as a Thracian heritage though obviously enough the other forms

are also eloquent in this respect. This solution firstly suggested by Philip-

pide is indoubtedly the only feasible. It is now reconsidered in the light of

the data presented here. The closest parallels are in Sanskrit: staphti,

sth$pana to stay, to maintain, sth$pin image-maker, etc. (cf. Monier

1976: 1262). It is clear therefore that the first of the compound reflects IE

*st$- to be, to stay (Pokorny 1959: 1004; Morris et al. 1979: 1542). The

second part -pn (in Romanian), -pan (among the Slavic speakers) clearly

reflects the already analyzed form -ban, -pan master, lord, leader.

(5) Early attestations of the Thracians forms

A decisive proof of our hypothesis would be the ancient witnesses, the

written testimonies. As long as the Thracian did not write (at least according

to present-day knowledge) the situation seems desperate. Yet, there are

precious Thracian words mainly place-names and personal names preserved

in the Greek and Latin writers. Are these useful to our purpose? Surely yes,

but before analyzing such Thracians forms in Greek or Latin spelling an

important observation: Greek, like Latin, had no special graphic sign for a

series of phonemes like (, !, ), 9 and others, specific even inevitable in a

satem language like Thracian. If a Thracian word had such a specific

phoneme, it is clear that the Greeks could not spell it correctly, deforming it

more or less. Of course, the Greek (or Latin writers) cannot be blamed for

this, as their purpose was not to offer a scientific notation of the words heard

(such a notation would have been impossible anyway), neither could they

foresee the extraordinary importance of their clumsy notations. They simply

aimed at informing their co-nationals about an ethnic or geographic reality. If

these preliminary observations are correctly understood, some Thracian

forms in Greek or Latin spelling are of paramount importance to us.


__________________________________________________________________

__________________________________________________________________

33


__________________________________________________________________

__________________________________________________________________

34


__________________________________________________________________

__________________________________________________________________

35

Thus, the reconstructed Thracian word *ban- and *pan-, possibly also

*p2n- is attested in some personal names ending in -paneus, -

B./.1, !B./.61, -panes (De%ev 1957: 42, with reference to the IE root

*p$- to graze, see supra). These forms should be discussed together with

Illyrian Panes (Russu 1969: 231).

It is interesting to observe that some b- forms (witnessing that the

postulated b/p was real in Thracian) appear with the meaning fortress (cf.

the sense house v. master in Persian), e.g. place-name C./D1, in Dacia

Mediterranea, also personal name Bantion (De%ev, 1957). The same

meaning appears with p- spelling in Panion, a city in Propontis, with the

corresponding ethnikon E./FG41, if these forms are really Thracian,

possibly also Scythian or Scythoid (Zgusta 1964: 355).

Giupn, for wich we expect a Thracian prototype *!up$n-, also *!up2n-,

is abundantly attested in somewhat unexpected spellings like Diuppaneus,

Diopanes, HIJB./.61, H0JB./.61, H0JB./.1, Dorpaneus, Diurpaneus

(De%ev 1957: 1941, 150; Russu 1967: 104). The name is mainly known as

that of a Dacian king Duras-Diurpaneus (in our hypothesis, a real pronun-

ciation *Duras- !upan-/!up2n, see infra), mentioned to have reigned

between the death of Burebista and the advent of Decebalus, i.e. first

century A.D. It is for us obvious that the oscillations in spelling diu-, dio-,

dyr-, dor-, etc. are but desperate attempts in noting a phoneme inexistent in

Greek: !. In this view, r in some of these spellings does not reflect any

actual sound /r/ but a pseudo-spelling. The word should have been pro-

nounced *!up$n, *!up2n-, as the parallels clearly show.

Cioban, (oban, with a reconstructed Thracian prototype *(oban-,

*(uban- is identifiable in the form KI-.F/7/ / KI-DF/7/ LMJ01 / =NO4

(De%ev 1957: 269), with the spelling ky- instead of (u-, (o-, for wich Greek

had no graphic equivalent.

St"pn, Sl. stopan+ seemingly has no witness in the Greek and Latin

writers; yet the co-radical place-name PGQ/D1 is attested in the Thracian


__________________________________________________________________

__________________________________________________________________

34


__________________________________________________________________

__________________________________________________________________

35


__________________________________________________________________

__________________________________________________________________

36

territory (Procopius, De aedificiis 4, 4), for which cf. Rom. stn"

sheepfold with Balkanic parallels. The absence of this form in the Greek

or Latin writers dealing with Thracian realities should not impede the

correct understanding of the word as Thracian. It is interesting though that

despite this detail, this was the only word out of all analyzed in this paper

for which the Thracian origin has lately become accepted by several

scholars. It should be anyway viewed in the light of the other parallels with

the similar meaning master, leader.

A similar situation connected to the approximative spelling of the

Thracian words is found in the Mediaeval attestation of giupn/!upan/

)upan. In this respect a particular consideration should be given to an

interesting testimony in an Avar text found in Snnicolau-Mare (Romanian

Banat, West Romania). This testimony is sometimes considered as the

earliest witness in the Middle Ages of a term connected to the social and

political structure of South-East Europe. It is true that the term was in-

tepreted as an Avar influence, but this was in accordance with the largely

spread conceptions concerning the Balkanic civilisation (Machek 1971).

Here is the text:

'()*+ ,(+-+. /012 3)40/(542

'()/+()* ,6+-+. /+47(42 2/,542 /+512

Buila zoapan tsi dgtugi

Butaul zoapan taMruMi i(igi tsi

Buila-8upan made the cup, (this) cup

which Butaul-8upan ordered to be adapted for being hung.


__________________________________________________________________

__________________________________________________________________

35


__________________________________________________________________

__________________________________________________________________

36


__________________________________________________________________

__________________________________________________________________

37

This text was analyzed by J. Nmeth (1932) who assumed that the forms

RSTETU and RVTETU should be read *(aban, so Buta-ul (aban

would mean son of Bota [from the breed of] aban, Bujla-aban would

mean Buila [from the breed of] %aban. Nmeth is inclined to find a

support of his hypothesis in Constantin Porphirogenetos (De adm. imp.

37); in this view, the forms have nothing to do with Slavic )upan.

Following our hypothesis, it is most probable that the forms RSTETU,

RVTETU are nothing else than !upan/)upan as terms referring to the

social and political structure of the newcomers. This changes fundamental-

ly classical conceptions which view early south-east European civilisation

as a result of important Oriental (Avar or Turkic in general) influences. In

our view, the newcomers borrowed civilisational terms from the au-

tochthonous inhabitants who anyway had more complex social organisa-

tion. Indeed no Oriental influence can be postulated in either case of those

analysed in this paper.

Discussion

The words analyzed in this paper represent an old Indo-European

heritage transmitted until modern times via Thracian to the whole south-

east area. We started our investigation from Romanian, considered here as

reflecting conservative aspects of the Thracian substratum influence. The

terms considered as Thracian fill an important gap in our knowledge

regarding the social and political structure of the Thracian society, a

structure preserved later in the Middle Ages throughout the Balkans. The

significant spread of the terms in modern times roughly corresponds to the

territory inhabited by thracians. Linguistically, the situation can be summa-

rized thus:


__________________________________________________________________

__________________________________________________________________

36


__________________________________________________________________

__________________________________________________________________

37


__________________________________________________________________

__________________________________________________________________

38

(a) IE *p$-, also *p%i- to protect; to graze

Thracian *b$n- overlord, master, also *-p$n (seemingly only in

compounds).

Rom. ban, Hung. bn (undoubtedly a Romanian influence, not vice-

versa), Serbo-Croatian bn overlord (a specific term of the political

structure). The meaning coin is seemingly derived from that of master,

overlord, possibly at a very early time (late Proto-Indo-European preced-

ing the expansion) as shown by the Old Indian forms (supra).

(b) IE *(s)keu- to cover, to protect

(1) Thracian *(u-b$n-, *(o-b$n- shepherd; (u- forms seem the oldest

reflecting the treatment IE *eu > Thr. :.

Rom. cioban shepherd also recipient, a parallel witnessing an early

development of the meaning to cover (1) to graze sheep, shepherd and

(2) cover, recipient. Meaning recipient is preserved only in Hungarian

and Czech/Slovak as an obvious Romanian influence. Meaning shepherd

is preserved all over the Balkans:: Bulg. (oban, (obanin, S.-Cr. (ban,

(obanin, Alb. oban, Mod. Gr. G?0-W/61; Turkish oban should be regard-

ed as a Persian influence. The Turkish word made the analysis difficult as

many linguists were inclined to consider the south-east European words of

Turkish origin. It is obvious that the Turks could not influence these

languages as long as pastoralism was very developed in this area and could

not be influenced in a way or another by the Turks or the Turkish language

respectively.

(2) Thracian *!u-p$n-, !u-p2n- a lord, master, reflected in Rom. giupn

[!upn], later jupn, also among Slavic speakers in the form )upan.

(c) IE *st$- to stay, to be

Thracian *sta-p$n-, probably also *st2-p2n- master, with second element

like in *ban, *(oban-, *!upan- and their modern preserved equivalents.


__________________________________________________________________

__________________________________________________________________

37


__________________________________________________________________

__________________________________________________________________

38

Rom. st"pn master and Slavic reconstructed form *stopan+ (with the

observation that the form is by no means proto-Slavic). Compound built up

as giupn, jupn, !upan.

In the light of the facts presented in this paper, we assume that both

phonetic changes from Proto-Indo-European via Thracian till modern times

and the semantic field do not allow to replace affinities by borrowings

from, e.g. from Turkish or another oriental language. Obviously enough,

the words considered are not Oriental or Slavic (in the sense of Proto-

Slavic). The presence or these forms on a large area in South-East Europe

is normal, reflecting a common cultural pattern (Thracian) and cultural

diffusion.

An interesting question arises: if Romanian may be assumed as preserv-

ing a substratum influence how should be regard the forms in the Slavic

languages? Are they Proto-Romanian or late Thracian terms? An answer to

this question implies an answer to another important question: until when

was Thracian spoken? Did the first Slavs still hear Thracian spoken? These

are complex aspects which require complex investigations. These questions

will not be answered here. We expect further discussions to our paper and

further consideration of the beginnings of early southeast European civili-

sations.

Linguistica (Ljubljana) 27: 111126.

Dalmatia

__________________________________________________________________

__________________________________________________________________

39

A Pre-Indo-European Place-Name: Dalmatia

Two years ago I ventured to suggest another etymon of the place name

(hereafter PN) Ardeal, the Romanian form for Transylvania and, connected

to this, I also explained the PN Dalmatia (Paliga 1986)1. I shall not rediscuss

the whole topic, yet it is useful to briefly point the essentials of my hypothe-

sis for a larger discussion. I started from the observation that the largely

accepted hypothesis which sees Rom. PN Ardeal as a reflection of Hung.

Erdly is not at all feasible, mainly from reasons of phonetic evolution, as

long as the expected form should have been *Erdei or *Ardei.

We can better understand the situation of this PN if placing it in a reason-

able linguistic-comparative context. As a matter of fact the situation is

simple enough: Ardeal is a compound of the type Ar-deal, ar- (a particle lost

in vocabulary, probably akin to a arunca, a aruca to cast away, throw)

with the reconstructable meaning over, far away, and deal hill, also

forest, very frequent in Romanian place-names. The fact that Ar!deal is a

compound is also supported by obviously similar forms like Subdeal (also

spelled Sub Deal) at the foothill, Pe deal on the hill, La deal uphill. All

these forms are frequent in the so-called minor toponimy as well as in

vocabulary. Reverting to Ar-deal, it should be also observed that the Me-

dieval Latin form Trans-silvania and German berwald (now replaced by

Siebenbrgen) are loan-translations (calques) after Ar-deal. Hung. Erdly is

also a calque but following the rules of derivation in Hungarian: noun +

particle, i. e. Erd!- forest and -elu/-elv > -ely (cf. el!re straightforward,

eltt in front of), as shown and accepted by all Hungarian linguists (cf. Kiss

1980 with further references). What is particularly interesting in this case is

that the calque was doubled by a fortuitous similarity between Ar-deal and

Erdly, which created a confusion of etymological analysis.

1 See the study in the next, 4th volume, of this series.


__________________________________________________________________

__________________________________________________________________

40

Another important point I tried to solve was to observe that what the

linguistic investigation had to clarify was the situation of Rom. deal hill,

also forest as compared to the rare Slavic form d"l# hill. My hypothe-

sis, proved by other parallels (see Table 1 below), is that this Slavic form

has nothing to do with other two homophone roots: d"l-a to make, create

(d"lo work, artifact, etc.) and d"l-b to divide, to part (d"liti, etc). Thus

d"l-c hil' is, unlike the other two roots, non-Slavic, probably borrowed

from the Balcanic substratum. In this case, we must identify, obviously

enough, a Preie. root *D-L/ *T-L (*DaL-, *DeL-, *TaL-, *TeL-, etc.) well

analyzed by various linguists (e.g. Trombetti 1925, Rostaing 1950, Faure

1977). PN Dalmatia is also analyzable from this perspective, being a

compund of the type *DaL-MaT-ia. The second part of the PN is also of

Preie. origin, namely the root *MaT(T)- confused, labyrinthine, from

which several meanings are derived, in this case the most probable being

bush, tree. The general meaning of the compound Dal-mat-ia is there-

fore forested highland. The spread of the Preie. root *DaL- / *DeL- is

briefly sketched in Table 1. The Preie. origin of the PN Dalmatia is in full

agreement with archaeological finds, a very early Neolithic civilization

being well documented along the Adriatic. The PN should be considered

pre-Illyrian.

Linguistica (Ljubljana) 28 (1988):105108

Table 1

Survey of the forms derived from the Preie. root *D-L-, *D-L- prominence, hill, mountain

1 No connection with Gr. !"#$%, !&'#$% obvious, evident, which reflects IE *dei-, *deiw- to shine.

2 By hazard similar to !'#()% uterus, matrix.

3 Lat. terra is derived from the parallel Preie. root *T-R-, *D-R- not analysed here.

Illyrian

NPp Dalmatae,

Delmatae,

Delmateis

NR Dalmatia

NL Dalmatas

Thracian

NL Daltarba

NSt Delkos

Romanian

(via Thracian)

deal hill;

forest

NR Ar-deal

over the hill/

forest

NL Subdeal,

Sub-deal, La

Deal, Peste

deal etc.

NL Delea

NL Talma

Greek

NI Delos (The

Cyclades)

NM Delos (1)

(Boeotia)

NL Delphoi (2)

NL Tylissos

(Crete)

NM Talarus

NL Lepa-talea

(Caria)

Etrusco-Latin

Etr. tel hill

?tular

boundary

Lat. tellus (3)

earth

Provence

NL Tallard (<

*Tal-arn-u-)

NL Toulon

Georgian

talaki fertile

soil

Centum in lingua Sclavenorum

__________________________________________________________________

__________________________________________________________________

43

Slavic *s!to - a challenging problem?

In memoriam Francisci Miklosich

Introduction

The numeral 10, given its importance in the archaic barter-based

societies, often puts interesting problems not only of strict linguistic analy-

sis but of extra-linguistic realities as well. Slavic *s!to is a good example which will be reconsidered below. Out of all the Slavic numerals it undoubt-

edly is the most interesting for the linguistic investigation thus compensat-

ing the somewhat obscure points connected with the prehistory of the Slavs

and the assumably rich inter-ethnic contacts.

The existence of similar forms in all the Slavic idioms converging to the

reconstruction of a unique form *s!to does not raise essential problems. Things turn unexpectedly complicated when we try to refer to the Proto-

Indo-European (hereafter PIE) form: *k"#t-m, *k"#t-$, as a variant of *dk"#t-m, *dk"#t-$, obviously related to *dek"# 10. Therefore 10 was viewed by the PIE speakers as ten times ten or amplified ten whereas

1000 was later interpreted as an amplified hundred or big hundred as

revealed by comparative analysis.

In what concerns the Slavic languages the basic problem is that the

reconstructable common form *s!to is not the expected one, i. e. *s%t&, eventually *s%to; furthermore, not only the phoneme % replaced by ! is discouraging, but the ending as well. By comparing 10 with 100 and

1000 (details below) then the general reconstructable form should be

*s%t&. To my knowledge this detail, not at all unimportant, has not been properly considered. If we are to assume that exceptions from the current

phonetic changes occured (e.g. by frequent use of this numeral, cf. Ma!czak

1971) we must equally refer to the obviously related form for 10 and


__________________________________________________________________

__________________________________________________________________

44

Centum in lingua Sclavenorum

__________________________________________________________________

__________________________________________________________________

45

1000 respectively which witness normal phonetic changes. If so, is the

situation of Slavic *s!to really challenging?

10, 100, 1000

Linguistic reconstruction allows to assume a basic PIE form *d(e)k"# 10 as well as a derivative *(d)k"#-t-om > Lat. centum ten times ten (Perotti 1985: 606). It is therefore conceivable that the basic numeral of the PIE

society meant all [ten] fingers of the [two] hands. But as such a small or

low quantity as expressed by this numeral cannot cover important barter

transactions like 100 sheep, 100 cows, 100 pots, etc., which occur very

often,10 became the most important numeral in such instances. This

explains why Finno-Ugric languages witness a borrowing from an Iranic

idiom: Finnish sata, Hungarian szz (Benk" et. al. 19671976, 3, s.v. szz).

The extralinguistic reality was therefore that Iranian tribes, neighbouring the

Finno-Ugric homeland in prehistory, influenced trade life and terminology

as well.

Yet this is not at all an isolated case. Armenian preserves only tasn 10

as an IE heritage. The numeral 100 is unexplained (probably indigenous)

while the form for 1000 is borrowed (Table 1). Albanian witnesses mixed

indigenous and Latin forms, though in some instances it is very difficult to

decide in favour of one of the two possible origins as long as early texts are

not available and contamination had its role. Anyway, Alb. dhjet 10 seems

indigenous, cind 100 reflects Latin centum and mij reflects Lat. mille,

milia (cf. Rom. mie).

The numeral 1000 also poses interesting problems. Though it is not

directly illuminating our topic it is useful for a general background. First of

all it should be noted that PIE probably had no specific form for 1000, the

various IE idioms developing specific forms at later period

etymologica et anthropologica maiora

Documents