Mrkalj
Buduća legenda
- Poruka
- 37.250
7.6.4 Lexical innovations due to the Neolithic revolution
The presence of the Slavs in their historical area already in Neolithic – and consequently also in the earlier periods –, can be argued in the light of several semantic developments. We return first to one we sketched in an earlier section.
The lexical family of Proto-Slavic *lędo ‘fallow land’, Hung. lengyel ‘Polish’, Germ. land, Swed. linda
The Hungarian ethnonym Lengyel ‘Polish’ (name of the homonym Neolithic culture) is a loanword from the Slavic name of ‘Poland’ and of ‘Polish’ *lędeninŭ ‘Neulandbewohner’, later abbreviated to (Ru.) Ljach (Vasmer s.v., EWU s.v. lengyel). Hungarian specialists consider it one of the ancient loanwords preceding the Honfoglalás ‘occupation of homeland’, and as such belonging to the prehistory. How can this opinion be reconciled with the thesis of the arrival of the Slavs in historical times? On the other hand, the Slavic term is also attested in Serb. and Cr. (antiquated) Leđanin ‘Polish’ and (< Hung.) Lenđel ‘idem’, in Byz. Gr. Lenzanenoi (pl.), in Crim. Tat. läh ‘Polish’ (Vasmer s.v. ljach, cp. EWU), as well as in Arab laudzaaneh ‘Polish’. All these lexemes come from the Proto-Slavic name of ‘fallow land’ *lędo ‘Rodung, Neuland’ (Russ. ljadá ‘mit jungem Holz bewachsenes Feld, Neubruch, Rodeland’, Ukr. ljado, BRuss. lado ‘Neuland’, ORuss. ljadina etc., Bulg. léda, lediná ‘Aue, Bergwiese’, Serb. and Cr. lèdina, ledìna ‘Neuland’, Slovn. ledìna, Czech lada, lado ‘Brache’, Slovk. lado, Pol. ląd ‘Land’, USorb. lado ‘Brache’, LSorb. ledo); to the Swedish name for the same notion (linda ‘fallow land’) and to the Germanic name for ‘land’, ‘country’ (Goth. Germ. Engl., Du., Icel., Fer., Norw., Swed. etc. land (Vasmer s.v., cp. Stang 1971, 33, ANEW s.v. land). Baltic, represented in the same family by OPRuss. lindan (acc. s.) ‘valley’, does not partecipate to this semantic isogloss.
As I have already noted aove, etymologists have recognized that the specialized meaning of ‘fallow land’ in Slavic languages must have preceded the more general meaning of ‘land’ of Germanic ones. In the traditional scenario it is simply impossible to explain this chronological sequence – which implies a Slavic priority over Germanic. In Refrew’s, it is impossible to explain how from a typically early Neolithic notion of ‘fallow land’ – which following his premises shoud be PIE, and not Slavic! – such a constellation of different meanings, including ‘Polish’ and ‘land’, might have developeded, and in such different languages as Hungarian and Slavic. In the scenario of the PCT, on the contrary, the nature of this lexical family becomes illuminating, and for these reasons:
(1) it shows the diffusion of the rotation of fallowed fields, a fundamental technique for the origins and the development of farming, in two different ethno-linguistic areas, that of the Slavs (the first European people, with the Greeks and the other Balkans people, who adopted farming) and that of the Germans (already differentiated from Germanic), who learned it from their Eastern neighbors;
(2) it proves, then, the Slavic presence in the area already in Early Neolithic;
(3) in particular, it proves the coexistence of Western Slavs (Poles, Czechs and Slovakians) and Germans in the crucial Carpathian area, where Western ad Eastern Europe meet, in the period of the development of Lengyel, LBK and TRB (the last one responsible of the introduction of farming in Scandinavia), which the PCT attributes, respectively, to Western Slavs and to Germans;
(4) the passage from ‘fallow land’ and ‘newly broken up field’ to ‘land’ and ‘country’, with the further development of ‘inhabitant of a newly tilled land’ and of ‘Polish’, reflect quite closely the history of Neolithic developments, from East to West, and, at the same time, the chronological gap between the Balkanic complex and the LBK;
(5) the technique of fallowing is attested precisely in the LBK culture of Germany and in the Lengyel culture of Central-Eastern Europe, that is precisely in the area that stretches from Germany to Hungary, through former Czechoslovakia and southern Poland;
(6) the fact that the typical Neolithic notion of ‘fallow land’ concentrates in the Slavic area, and appears only marginally in the Germanic one, confirms the Slavic priority in Neolithic development;
(7) the absence of these meanings in Baltic confirms that Baltic was already separated from Slavic in Neolithic; (8) the passage from ‘breaker of new fields’ to ‘Polish’ (appearing, besides in Slavic, also in Hungarian (Lengyel), confirms the presence of Poles in the area already in Neolithic.
(2) it proves, then, the Slavic presence in the area already in Early Neolithic;
(3) in particular, it proves the coexistence of Western Slavs (Poles, Czechs and Slovakians) and Germans in the crucial Carpathian area, where Western ad Eastern Europe meet, in the period of the development of Lengyel, LBK and TRB (the last one responsible of the introduction of farming in Scandinavia), which the PCT attributes, respectively, to Western Slavs and to Germans;
(4) the passage from ‘fallow land’ and ‘newly broken up field’ to ‘land’ and ‘country’, with the further development of ‘inhabitant of a newly tilled land’ and of ‘Polish’, reflect quite closely the history of Neolithic developments, from East to West, and, at the same time, the chronological gap between the Balkanic complex and the LBK;
(5) the technique of fallowing is attested precisely in the LBK culture of Germany and in the Lengyel culture of Central-Eastern Europe, that is precisely in the area that stretches from Germany to Hungary, through former Czechoslovakia and southern Poland;
(6) the fact that the typical Neolithic notion of ‘fallow land’ concentrates in the Slavic area, and appears only marginally in the Germanic one, confirms the Slavic priority in Neolithic development;
(7) the absence of these meanings in Baltic confirms that Baltic was already separated from Slavic in Neolithic; (8) the passage from ‘breaker of new fields’ to ‘Polish’ (appearing, besides in Slavic, also in Hungarian (Lengyel), confirms the presence of Poles in the area already in Neolithic.
To fully appreciate the value of this analsis, however, it is necessary to recall the extraordinary and well-known stability of the LBK culture (the first Neolithic culture of Germany) and the importance of the role of fallowing in the earliest Neolithic cultures. Tringham, for example, has remarked that if the LBK had not used the rotating fallow technique for its new settlements, these would certainly have determined the formation of tells, exactly like in the Balkans. The emblematic example is the site of Bylany in Bohemia, one of the most important Neolithic stations of Europa, with its 21 phases of habitation (Tringham 1971, 115).
- - - - - - - - - -
Alinei je genije (ne manje od toga) odan naučnoj istini, što se u društveno-humanističkim naukama pokazalo kao retkost.Greške su moguće, tvrdnje nikad nisu 100-tno sigurne, ali to upućenima ne treba ni reći, dok neki entuzijasti odbijaju i kad im se kaže po peti put, jer njihova su bukvalistička "naučna" putešestvija ustvari, ego tripovi.
Poslednja izmena:
U ovom slučaju naklapate i zaklapate ti i Mallory, a ja i Alinei govorimo istinu.
