Re: [tied] The "lost" Slavic homeland

--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, george knysh <gknysh@...> wrote:

>
> --- alex <alxmoeller@...> wrote:
> > george knysh wrote:
> >
> > > The huge expansion of
> > > Slavdom which began in the later 5th c. was due
> > > neither to Goths nor to Huns. We talk about
> > migration,
> > > but perhaps the just mentioned "expansion" is a
> > better
> > > word, since Slavs continued to hold the areas
> > whence
> > > they "expanded".
> >
> > (Alex)Beside the Romania and Albania.
>
> GK: I don't understand this comment Alex. Are you
> saying that Romania and Albania were part of the Slav
> homeland? If not, what do you mean?*****

***NS-From the context I suspect that it may be a case of
misinterpreting "whence" to mean "to which" rather than "from which",
but I guess Alex may clarify this.

> > > Perhaps a similar scenario would work
> > > for the Romanians, viz., expansion rather than
> > > "migration" (except for those actually involved in
> > the
> > > move). BTW Mommsen has been quite superseded by a
> > host
> > > of 20th c. investigators.
> >
> > (Alex) it wont work because of the slavs. We expect
> in
> > North of Danube as the
> > first valahian states have been created, the Slavic
> > element. And not in
> > the upper clas as knez and prister but in the lower
> > class of simply
> > peasants, being numerous enough for playing the same
> > role as the
> > valahians played in south of Danuber, in both
> > countries Serbia and
> > Bulgaria. Such mentions are not to find.
>
> ******GK: I think you have misunderstood me here. I am
> not looking for your kind of analogies. And BTW I
> wouldn't overwork the "lower class Romanian" idea.
> Every social structure no matter how humble (in other
> peoples' eyes) has its rulers and ruled, its
> "aristocracy" if you will. I would simply not accept
> the notion that the Vlachs did not have something of
> this kind. But back to the main point. What I wished
> to suggest to you is that just as the Slavic
> "expansion" did not necessarily imply abandonment of
> areas earlier occupied, but the acquisition of new
> areas for an excess population, so might one examine
> the possibility that a similar situation existed for
> the Romanians. "Expansion" north of the Danube might
> not necessarily mean abandonment of areas earlier
> occupied. This could be checked out.*****

***NS- For awhile it might not even mean permanent change of
residence by individuals but only temporary.

If the Romanian speakers were shepherds, as I've been led to believe
many were, they may have had a regular routine of herding their
flocks north during the summer and back south during the winter.
Based on experiences observed in other pastoral peoples such seasonal
moves may have been both quite extensive and quite regular. As the
shepherds became familiar with their northern haunts, and if
circumstances were right, some may have even been able to gather
enough fodder and secure shelter, and decide to save themselves a
trip one year, and stay through the winter. At first it may not have
been a permanent move; perhaps an individual group only intended to
do it for a year or two, and hope to move back home with extra-
fattened herds at the end. But by the time they left others may have
been ready to take their place. Thus, it could lead to more or less
permanent settlements, even though the individual residents at any
one time were short-termers. People in the settlements south of the
Danube would be familiar with the northern settlements, probably know
some friends or kin who were staying at one. Gradually, over several
generations, more and more settlers became more rooted to the
northern settlements, and fewer returned south.

I don't know how close to reality this hypothesis really was, but I
believe it very plausible, and it clearly demonstrates that a simple
"stay" or "migrate" scenario is not the only option to consider.

Ned