THE SOCIAL STRUCTURE OF THE SOUTH-EAST EUROPEAN SOCIETES IN THE MIDDLE AGES - A LINGUISTIC VIEW

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 exlusively Romanian. In fact, they reflect roughly speaking the ancient extension of the Thracian speakers, i.e. the present-day territories of Romania, Bulgaria, Soviet Moldavia and parts of Southand South-West ·ukraine, Slovakia, Hungary and Yugoslavia.


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 exlusively Romanian.In fact, they reflect -roughly speakingthe ancient extension of the Thracian speakers, i.e. the present-day territories of Romania, Bulgaria, Soviet Moldavia and parts of South-and South-West •ukraine, Slovakia, Hungary and Yugoslavia.
Speaking of the certain amount of Thracian words transmitted till modem times 'via Romanian' 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 South-East 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 substratum influence quite homogeneous in its phonetic changes and, generally, in its linguistic phenomena.
spoken in South-East Europe?How shall we explain the large diffusion of soine of these terms?Before giving a coherent answer it is imperious to reconsider these very forms.
(c) Slavic or Hungarian origin (Coteanu et al. 1975: 72).Such an undecided opinion was surely support~d 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.transmittedinto Europe by the Turks (Miklosich 1884, 1: 11;1886: 7;Matzenauer 1870: 103).It can be easily argued that such a hypothesis 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.ban is 'a governor at the frontier of Hungary' (Benko et al. 1967); this detail is interesting but ignored, perhaps unvoluntarily.
(b) Berneker assumes that Slavic ban is of Mongolian origin, the original form being bojan, hence ban (Berneker 1908(Berneker -1913: 42;: 42;Bezlaj 1976 ff.: 10). 1 But the phonetic changes are not explained and they are not at all easy to be accepted as such.
• (c) It is sometimes hypothesized that Slavic ban is of Persian origin, transmitted to Europe by the Avars (Onions 1969: 72).The 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) responsible for the spread ofthe 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 2 'money, coin'.1.2.Ban 'money, coin' (in Romanian, as vi vid form; also Polish and Bulgarian dialectally, o bsolete).
(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 ali specifically Slavic, on the contrary.The distribution 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 lsee first meaning discussed above/ just as the ltalians call the coin of duke ducato and the English call the coin of the Sovereign sovereign" (Hasdeu 1887(Hasdeu -1898(Hasdeu : 2448).This explanation bas been accepted by many other linguists (Tiktin 1903(Tiktin -1916: 151;: 151;Saineanu 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 (Tamas 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 beand are -under the Romanian influence).
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 reconstr'ucted form *bann-is completely unfounded nor is it supported by the testimonies in the Greek and Latin writers (cf.Dečev 1957).
(d) Finally, some scholars simply consider that the word is obscure (Cioranescu 1960 ff.: 65;Coteanu et al. 1975: 72).In the given circumstances 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 wholesorne way.Before referring to other forms, we hypothesize that the word really is of Thracian origin-'-as Pu §cariu brilliantly observed -from a reconstructed form *ban-assumed akin to Persian ban 'master', also 'house' (Horn 1893: 40), andpan (p/b as an old Indo-European alternation, already analyzed by Benveniste 1962: 168 in the case of the root *peH3 > *po-'to drink').The Indo-European root of these forms is quite clear: on the one hand *pa-'to protect, to feed', on the other hand *poi-'to protect the cattle, to graze'.These two roots are separately analyzed by Pokorny (1959: 782, 839), also separately but noting 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: palJaiJ 'a kind of coin' (Mayrhofer 1953, II: 196), palJ 'to honour, buy, negotiate', paria 'to play for winning; coin; house' (Monier 1976: 580).
Are these similarities simple hazard?They might be, though it is difficult to think so.In this perspective, it would be perhaps useful to revert to Hasdeu 's opinion that 'the ban is the coin ussued 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 as result of simple hazard but the preservation of very old parallel of sense 'overlord, master' -'coin' (a third one 'house' is also witnessed by Old Indian and Persian).It is not the purpose of this paper to consider the beginnings of trade and coinage, but to draw attention on some interesting aspects.
Summarizing the data available so far, it can be surmised that the Thracians has a form *ban 'master, overlord' and, very probably, a parallel form *biin 'money, coin'.Further facts should substantiate this hypothesis.
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 /čoban/; common sense: 'shepherd\ but also 'wooden pot, recipient' (Transylvania); Hung. csobdny 'wooden pot', also csobdn(y) 'shepherd'; Old Czech čbdn, mod džbdn 'wooden pot'.As we know, these reciprocally significant forms ha ve 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, čoban '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 to pic 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 čbdn > Hung.csobdny (Benko et al. 1967: 545), with the observation that "probably there is no connection between csobdn 'shepherd' and csobdn(y) 'pot"' (id.), yet without any futher attempt in explaining this strange similitude, be it a result of hazard or not.
On the other hand, the situation of the Slavic terms is equally obscure to the Slavists.The situation could be summarized thus: (a) For Miklosich there should be a similitude of some terms like the already quoted Romanian and Hungarian forms, plus Rom.zbanca 'a recipient', Lithuanian izbonas, zbonas, uzbonas.This similitude is striking, yet zbancd may be considered a deformation of the Czech and Slovak džbdn (how?), the situation -as a whole -remaining as confuse as before (Miklosich 1886: 37).
(d) V. Machek reconstructs an Old Slavonic form *č6van'l> /?!! and even a common Slavic č6ban"b /??!!/, approaching the forms to Greek 'l~Clvoi; (Machek 1971: 138).Though the Czech scholar makes a bold attempt in explaining these facts and suggests a radical solution (the common Slavic origin) ms hypothesis is feeble and completely unfounded, including the approach to džber 'a recipient', Rom.ciubar /čubar/, German Zuber, which are considered 'pra-evropsky' (pre-Indo-European?).2 The facts could be therefore summarized thus: (I) In Hungarian both csobdn 'pot' and csobdn(y) 'shepherd' are borrowings; 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.
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.Furthermore, it is observable that the Slavic forms represent an assimolation (autochthonization) of a foreign word heard *čoban or *čuban (cuban 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) pacurar -Lat.pecurarius, from pecus; (2) pastor -Lat.pastor, akin to pasco, pascere; (3) oier, derived from oaie, pl.oi -Lat.ovis; (4) mocan -unknown origin, very probably old arhaic autochthonous term; (5) baci -unexplained (further discussions in the sense of a pre-lndo-European relic in Byzantion, ms); (6) cioban -considered, in general, asa Turkish influence (Cihac 1870-1879, II,: 565; Tiktin 1903-1916: 354, 'balkanisches Wort';Lobel l894: 32;Saineanu 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; Cioranescu 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 Romanians.lf so, aserious question arises: why should have the Romanians borrowed a Turkish word for denoting an activity in which they were perfect specialists ali over the Balkans (the word Vlach 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 passed ignored by ali 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, important as well, how should we explain the sense 'pot, recipient'?Among ali these hypotheses -unacceptable as we can see -one remarkable exception: B. P. Hasdeu, who firstly assumed a pre-Roman, Thracian origin of the word akin to Avestanjšu-biin 'herdsman' (Hasdeu 1973, II: 95-141; 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 1887(Hasdeu -1898(Hasdeu : 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' iš 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 theoretkally solved, the real difficulty consisting in finding the primitive connection between the two spheres of meaning, whkh is: -'shepherd' understood 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 Balkank 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, bat: .Lat.cassis (*kadh-tis), OHG huot, etc.

Cymrk cwd
It is clear now that Rom.cioban /čoban/ together with its Persian correspondent forms čuban, čoban, šupan, whkh are for long known as the origin of the Turkish word roban • 'shepherd' must be explained as a compound with the first part IE *(s)keu-'to cover, to protect' and the second part biin analyzed above, with the expected treatment of IE group *keu-toč in Persian and Thracian; from the latter language the word spread thrdughout the Balkans where it surely is much older than its Turkish equivalent of Persian origin3 • The Turkish origin of the Balkank term 'čoban' should be considered obviously impossible.The confusion was produced by the similar forms existing from Persia to South-East Europe.But this cannot confuse us and lead to an erroneous analysis 4 • Itshould be equally reminded that Turkish roban is a bookish word (Red-house 129, 258, 262) another detail proving that the Balkanic words cannot bederived from Turkish but, quite precisely, from Thracian, like allthe other forms considered in this paper.This will be clearer if referring to other examples.
(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 to pic.
The hypothesis is obviously impossible, but is interesting by showing that some linguists somewhat felt the necessity for another explanation. 5  In our opinion, Rom.giupfn and Slavic župan should anyway be discussed closely connected with cioban, čoban, as long as the two groups show a similar composition: čo-, ču-as compared to gu-(The Romanian phonetism is surely the oldest) or žu-in the Slavic area also later in Romanian, in the latter case the phonetic evolution being explainable either asa normal change from g /spelled gi/ to ž /spelled ji (following the same phonetic rules like the Latin elements, e.g.Lat.jocus > *gocu > joc, cf.It. giuoco) or a Slavic influence supported (and supporting) the normal interna!evolution.This is a secondary aspect, a definite answer being possible after a general consideration of the forms.
The context in which these words are discussed leads to the reconstruction of a Thracian prototype *gup<in-, possibly also *gup a n-, if we accept the idea that Thracian had a neutral phoneme / a /.As compared with the previously discussed form 5 It is not useless to note -no matter the ultimate etymon may be -that the Czech-Polish form pdn, pan 'master, gentleman' is also derived from župan.The phonetic changes took place in the Chech-Slovak area and can be reconstructed like župan > *špdn > pdn by compensatory lengthening of the vowel for the loss of u (Briickner 1970: 393).Machek's explanation Czech pdn from župy pdn > župan is totally unconvincing, just like the alternative župa + -ano > *župan (Machek 1971: 731 ).
*čoban-(in Thracian) -developed later into modem forms like Rom. cioban, Alb.roban, Hung.csobdn(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 alternance: *čo-ban, *ču-biin-as compared to *gu-pan-, *gu-pa n-, i.e. č Ig and ban-! piin-, pa n-.The author has no miraculous solution in explaining this particular phenomenon but facts are quite clear (see infra).
After the previous discussions, 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 1870-1879, II: 351;Tiktin 1903Tiktin -1916Tiktin : 1483;;Saineanu 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' + -anus (Giuglea 1923, reconsidered by Pu~cariu 1976: 283).It is also the solution advocated for the previous case giupfn (supra).
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 Philippide -is undoubtedly the only feasible.It is now reconsidered in the light of the data presented here.The closest parallels are in Sanskrit: staphdti, sthapana 'to stay, to maintain', sthiipin 'image-maker', etc. (cf.Monier 1976: 1262).It is clear therefore that the first of the compound reflects IE *sta-'to be, to stay' (Pokorny 1959(Pokorny : 1004;;Morris et al. 1979Morris et al. : 1542)).The second part -pfn (in Romanian), -pan (among the Slavic speakers) clearly reflects the already analyzed form -ban, -pan 'master, lord, leader'.
(5) Early attestations oj the Thracian f orms 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 desparate.Yet, there are precious Thracian wordsmainly place-names and personal names -preserved in the Greek and Latin writers.Are these useful to our purpose?Surely yes, but before analyzing such Thracian forms in Greek or Latin spelling an important observation: Greek, like Latin, had no special graphic sign for a series of phonemes like č, g, Ž, š 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.Thus, the reconstructed Thracian word *banand *pan-, possibly also *p nis attested in some personal names ending in -paneus, -1tcxvcxc;, -1tcxvcxtc;" -panes (Devčev i957: 42, with reference to the IE root *pii-'to graze', see supra).These forms should be discussed together with Illyrian Panes (Russu 1969: 231).
It is an 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 Bci:vi;c;, in Dacia mediterranea, also personal name BiXY'tto\I (Dečev, 1957).The same meaning appears with p-spelling in Iliivwv , a city in Propontis, with the corresponding ethnikon 1tcxvCn1c;, if these forms are really Thracian, possibly also Scythian or 'Scythoid' (Zgusta 1964: 355).
Giupfn, for which we expect a Thracian prototype *gupiin-, also *gup a n-, is abundantly attested in somewhat unexprected spellings like Diuppaneus, Diopanes, Aup1tcxvcxtc;, Aop1tcxvcxtc;, Aop1tcxvcxc;, Dorpaneus, Diurpaneus (Dečev 1957:  141, 150; Russu 1967: 104 7 ).The name is mainly known as that of a Dacian king Duras-Diurpaneus (in our hypothesis, a real pronunciation *Duras-Gupan-, see infra), mentioned to have reigned between the death of Burebista and the advent of Decebalus, i.e. first century A. D. It is fcir us obvious that the oscillations in spelling diu-, dio-; dyr-, dor-, etc. are but desperate attempts in notinga phoneme inexistent in Greek: g. 8 In this view, r in some these spellings does not reflect any actual sound lrl buta pseudo-spelling.The word should have been pronounced *gupiin, *gupa n-, as the parallels clearly show.
Stapfn, Sl. stopam, seemingly has no witness in the Greek and Latin writers; yet the co-radical place-name I:'t&ve.~ is attested in the Thracian territory (Procopius, De aedificiis 4,4), for which cf. Rom.stfnli '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 giupfnl gupanl župan.In this respect a particular consideration should be given to an interesting testimony in an Avar text found in Sinnicolau-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 interpreted as an A var influence, but this was in accordance with the largely spread conceptions concerning the Balkank civilization (Machek 1971) This text was analyzed by J. Nemeth (1932) who assumed that the forms ZOA-rn\N and ZQAnAN should be read *čaban, so Buta-ut čaban would mean 'son of Bota/ from the breed of/ čaban', Buj/a-čaban would mean 'Buila/ from thr breed of/ čaban'.Nemeth 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 župan. 9.Following our hypothesis, it is most probable that the forms ZOAnAN, ZQA-nAN are nothing else than ~upanl župan as terms referring to the social and political structure of the newcomers.This changes fundamentally 'classical' conceptions which view early South-East European civilization as a result of important Oriental (Avar or Turkik in general) influences.In our view, the newcomers borrowed civilizational terms from the autochthonous inhabitants who anyway had more complex social organization.Indeed no Oriental influence can be postulated in either case of those analyzed in this paper.

DISCUSSION
The words analyzed in this paper represent an old Indo-European heritage transmitted until modem 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 politicalstructure 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 summarized thus: •~ (a) IE *pa-, also *poi-'to protect; to graze' Thracian *ban-'overlord, • master', also *-pii:n (seemingly only in compounds) 10 • Rom.ban, Hung.ban (undoubtedly a Romanian influence, not vice-versa), Serbo-Croatian ban 'overlord' (a specific term of the political structure).Meaning 'coin' is seemingly derived from that of 'master, overlord', possibly at a very early tirne (late Proto-Indo-European preceding the expansion) as shown by the Old Indian forms (supra). 111 0 Once explained the origin and meaning of the Thracian form *biin, pan (with its parallels) it is not useless to approach to the Greek name of the god Pan, unexplained so far satisfactorily (Chantraine 1968(Chantraine -1980: 855;: 855;Frisk 1960: 470).In our hypothesis,.thename of the Greek god of shepherds simply means 'shepherd' asa heritage from the Indo-European vocabulary, eventually via Thracian, as the forms analyzed strongly indicate.But this is only a digression, yet useful to the topic as a whole. 11 In a recent study concerning an ancient token system, precursor to numerals and writing (Denise Schmandt-Besserat, Archaeology 39, 6, Nov.-Dec" 32-39) we read that the Sumerians had two grain measures: (1) ban, equivalent to c. 1 liter, and (2) bariga, equivalent to c. 1 bushel.Should there be any connection between Sumerian ban and Thraco-Balkanic *ban 'money, coin' and 'overlord'?
The similarity could be one of simple hazard and thus the problem is solved.But if the similarity reflects an old equivalent of exchange, can we assume an old borrowing from a non-Indo-European idiom into Proto-Indo-European?It is not the purpose of this paper to answer such a difficult question but this perspective might prove full of important consequences.For the tirne being we limit to showing that the terms analyzed are not Turkish (or Turkic) and this must become the fundament to further investigations, including the possibility of non-IE (possibly pre-IE) terms .inProto-Indo-European.

Ms.).
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' preserved throughout the Balkans: Bulg.čoban, čobanin, S.-Cr.č6ban, č6banin, Alb.roban, Mod.Gr; -.~o~6Mi; ; Turkish roban should be regarded 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.
Rom. stiipfn 'master' and Slavic reconstructed form *stopani (with the observation that the form is by no means proto-Slavic).Compound built up as giupfn, jupfn, župan.
In the light of the facts presented in this paper, we assume that both phonetic changes from Proto-Indo-European via Thracian till modem 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 'Orienta}' or Slavic (in the sense of Proto-Slavic).The presence of these forms on a large area in South-East Europe is normal, reflecting a common cultural pattem (Thracian) and cultural diffusion.
An interesting question arises: if Romanian may be assumed as preserving a substratum influence how should we 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 stili hear Thracian spoken?These are complex aspects which require complex investigations.These questions will not be answered bere.We expect further