|
In Lusatia |
|
The Primary Farm |
|
The Farm House |
|
Venetic Roots |
|
| It was a one-family farm |
| Its roots go back to pre-historic times |
| Its existence rejects ideological premisses |
 |
| Igor Modic / Pannonian house. Colourful houses and unique constructions made of wood, straw, mud and thatched roof can still be found in the region of Prekmurje. |
| by Dr. Jožko Šavli |
| In the villages around Tolmin (Slovenia) there are still today several farms that have a piece of land behind the house, which is called guna. Here you will find some fruit trees, a pergola of grapes, a kitchen garden and so on. There is no trace of the etymon »guna« in the literary Slovenian language. But the well-known Slovenian linguist, France Bezlaj, included this word in his etymological dictionary. I would say, Bezlaj's interpretation is not quite accurate. He explains the meaning of the word as a piece of ground in front of the house (svet pred hišo). This general interpretation of the etymon was structured and registered in the village of Krn. But in this type of village the farmhouses are scattered all over the place, and grass is growing around each individual house. In this way, the proposition »in front« instead of »behind« (the house) sneaked into Bezlaj's explanation. |
| In the upper part of Carniola, and perhaps also in other areas of Slovenia, appears the etymon gumno with the same meaning. It is evidently the more original form of »guna«. But France Bezlaj explains gumno in another way: a ground behind the house, where corn is threshed. Yet, the original meaning of this etymon does certainly not derive from threshing the corn. Indeed, it has the same meaning as the abbreviated form »guna«. |
| I was very surprised to discover the etymon gumno also in the Lower Lusatian language. There, it has the meaning of a »garden« (Garten, in German). I think, the Slovenian word guna and gumno, as well as the Lower Lusatian gumno, must have the same original root: an encircled ground. Nevertheless, in Upper Lusatia we find in this meaning the word zahroda. It is connected with the verb »graditi« (to build), and with the prefix »za-graditi« it means "to build around something". It is true, the same etymon "garden", if we go back to the common Indo-European language, derives from the etymon »graditi«, even if the primordial verb has been preserved only in Slav languages. In case of the Upper Lusatian zahroda, it originally ment a fenced in ground. In Slovenian, however, the garden is called vrt (pron. v'rt), meaning precisely a kitchen garden. This term derives from the verb »vrteti« (to turn over). |
| The individual farmhouses with a gumno, whose traces can be found in both, Slovenia and Lusatia, show very probably the primary field partitioning between individual families. Now the question arises: At what point in time did the corresponding field partitioning take place? |
| This process certainly occurred already in pre-historic times. Meaning the period, when primary communities, which were based on large families, developed already a village community (called Vas, in Slovenian). This village was composed of individual families or »houses«. According to my researches, in the area between the Baltic and the Adriatic Sea, which after 1200 BC was settled by the ancient Veneti, this process was a gradual one and started to take place in the Hallstatt era (after ca. 900/800 BC. |
| Anyway, in the Slovenian and other peoples' tradition, which succeeded the ancient Veneti, there are no traces of any kind of the great family. The Slovenians and other Western Slavs, who settled in the ancient Venetic territory between the Baltic and the Adriatic Sea, still today preserve in their language the etymon Vas (village). Its inhabitants form the Srenja (community), whose assembly is called Sosednja. - In contrast to this, we find in the Southern Slav languages the word Selo for both, the village and the commune settlement. The Southern Slavs, because their social structure is based only on the great family, were not familiar with the village community. The word Selo is also found in Slovenian, but it means a smaller settlement, whose inhabitants pertain to the community of a Vas. |
| All Slav languages have traces of the much greater territorial community called Župa, which combined several villages. Its origin coincides with that of the Germanic Gau. Both etymons derive from the same root. The head of the Župa was the Župan (today's Major). In the Carantanian records of Kremsmünster (now Upper Austria) he is mentioned already in 777 AD (Physso by name). I believe it was not until later, when the village started to expand and included the area of the scattered hamlets, that the Župan became the head of such a village community. In opposite to this, the head of the primary Župa-territory with several villages received the appellate Veliki Župan (Great Major). In Slovenian territory, the role of the Župan as head of the village (and town) has been preserved until nowadays. - In my opinion, in the early Middle Ages, the ancient Župa in Carantania, which originally was a territorial and administrative unity, slowly grew into a county. In nearby Pannonia (Hungary), the similar Županija (or Comitatus - county) is a living proof of such a transformation. |
| I think, that the primary farms of Central Europe, which formed the first villages, pertained to the agrarian system of the ancient Vends (Veneti). This agrarian system and the corresponding social organization survived from the pre-historical period until the Middle Ages and even until nowadays. Originally, each farm had its own field around the house. |
| The archaeological excavations in Lusatia brought to daylight remnants of villages dating back to the beginning of the Middle Ages. They show a similar structure like those in Carantania. A reconstructed picture of a village from the 7th/8th century AD in Tarnow (Kreis Calau), Lower Lusatia, shows that each house has a fenced in »gumno« (guna). The village was encircled by pastureland and forests, which evidently were community property. In the background we see a fort, which served as refuge in times of trouble. (Leciejewicz, p. 82) |
|
 |
| The reconstruction of a village with the refuge of Tornow (Kreis Calau) in Lower Lusatia, 7th/8th century AD. The fenced ground behind the house - gumno is clearly visible. |
| The number of inhabitants of such a village has been estimated to 200 - 300 people. The fact, that in some cases the village was an institution of relatives, is possible. However, even in such cases the great family (Sippe) with a common field did not exist. Irrespectively of relatives, individual families (houses), who owned a proper piece of land, formed the village community. (Blaznik 1970, p. 86). |
| Besides the gumno, a proper ground or respectively a field surrounded the primordial family farm. In Slovenia, such an agrarian complex has been called celek, abbrev. celk (Einödflur, in Austrian German). The denomination derives from the word cel meaning »entire«. This etymon is, however, not a new-coined literary word. It has a parallel in the word Zelg (Switzerland), meaning an »enclosed field«, in German: umgrenzte Flur (cf. Marti, p. 33). The coincidence of celek - Zelg can only be traced back to our common ancestors, the Veneti, who in pre-historic times, and no more later, also settled the Swiss territory. Therefore, I consider the celek-farm as the primary farm, which in the social structure of the ancient Veneti arose after the field division. This very probably occurred already in the Hallstatt period (ca. 800 - 400 BC). |
| Thus, the primary Venetic village consisted of a certain number of celek-farms. The pastureland and the forests remained common property of the village. With the growing population in the village, new farms arose, and new parcels of land had to be taken from the village's community property. It is assumed, that in the beginning the necessary land for a new family home was only a temporary arrangement. But within time it became the family's very own property. |
| Through inheritance and estate sale the primary celek-farm began to be divided. In this way, other forms of field division arose. In the one-time Carantanian territory, the division of the grude (Blockflur, in Austrian) was the most characteristic one among these forms. The gruda is, in contrast to the celek, a piece of land. Pieces of land belonging to a gruda-farm, are scattered in different places of the village area, and they could be located even outside of its borders. |
| Here I am illustrating the village plan of Zatolmin (near Tolmin). The hatched pieces of land pertain to the house called »pri Kacajnarju«. This house was the most wealthy one in the village. I don't know the meaning of its name. However, in another village of the area, called Podlubin, the wealthiest house had a similar name, i.e., »pri Kacjanu«. Considering the dialectal forms and the umlaut o > a, the origin of these names is Kocjan (pron. Kocyan). It could be connected with the name Canzian and his fellows, the martyrs of Aquileia in the late Roman period. |
| But this name could also be reminiscent of »chozjain«, as it existed in Russia (there also called »bolšak«). It represented a member of the Carantanian gentry, who was also called »boljec«, »boncina«, »voncina« and similar appellates. The existence of this social class received the full attention of Matej Bor. |
 |
| The field division in the village of Zatolmin (near Tolmin), Slovenia. The hetched parts represent the grude (scattered pieces of land) pertaining to the house (family) called »pri Kacajnarju«. |
| In the area of ancient Carantania and the neighbouring regions, mainly in the Eastern and Middle Alps, developed several types of farmhouses and became stabilized there under various influences. I am quoting two types, which appear to be the most characteristic ones. The pictures are taken from the Kozenn - Atlas (Vienna, 1985). In parenthesis, I am quoting also the Austrian German denotations, because the aforesaid Alpine area, the one-time Carantania, pertains for the most part to present-day Austria. |
|
1) The typical Carantanian farm (Haufenhof) is still today present in the eastern part of Carinthia, in Carniola and in Styria. These regions have more flat land, suitable for farming. This type of farm-house is characteristic for its great courtyard, in Littoral called borjac (pron. boryach), encircled by the dwelling-place, stall, barn and several smaller buildings. It is intended for larger farms. It is possible, that in the early Middle Ages, because of enemy attacks, such a farm was surrounded with palisades. Sometimes, the courtyard provides also a fenced in space called mederje (pron. mederye), which is serving different purposes. |
|
2) The Alpine farm (Paarhof) is popular in the territory, which extends from Southern and Eastern Tyrol over Carinthia to Styria and the province of Salzburg. (In Styria we have to exclude the area south and east of Graz and Maribor towards Pannonia). This type of farmhouse consists of separate buildings, the dwelling place and the stall (with the barn upstairs). It corresponds to the medium sized farms, and is well suited for the Alpine mountain terrain, where flatland is scarce. - In western Carinthia and in Tyrol, the one-house farm (Einhof) is also popular. It consists of the dwelling place with the stable on the ground floor, both are under the same roof. |
|
 |
| Types of farm-houses, which were characteristic in ancient Carantania. We see, from the left to the right, the Carantanian farm (Haufenhof), and the Alpine farm (Paarhof) which also appears as a one-house farm (Einhof). |
| In the marginal regions of the one-time Carantanian territory (prevalent in today's Austria) other types of farmhouses are found, as for example: the Pannonian farm (Streckhof and Hackenhof) in the eastern part of Styria, in Hungary, Moravia and in Slavonia. Further on, the Bohemian farm (Dreiseithof) is widely spread north of the Danube. In Littoral, the farmhouses are differently shaped, and are generally known by the not very suitable name Romanic stone house. Among these various structures of houses, the very picturesque Karstic farmhouse deserves special attention. |
| Already since times immemorial, these farmhouses belonged only to individual families. Indeed, in the Carantanian (Slovenian) area there are no traces of the existence of the great family called zadruga, bounded with undivided land. The great family, which is characteristic for the Southern Slavs, has been preserved in the Balkans until recent times. The very ancient social organization of the Carantanians and their descendants, the modern Slovenians, which was based on individual families, cannot be compared with the great family of the Southern Slavs. |
| Several scholars like Roberto Almagià, the well-known Italian ethnologist, were aware of this already many decades ago. What Slovenia concerns, says Almagià in one of his works: The population, that the Slovenians are composed of, is a branch of the Western Slavs, quite different from the Serbians and Croatians, or better, often in antagonism with them: a sober people, laborious, methodic, clever in the affairs; Alpine after the characteristics and a quality of life… (Il Mondo, 1953, p. 839). The Western Slavs and a great part of Central European inhabitants, with different languages, are, however, descendants of the ancient Veneti. |
| The primary farm pertaining to the individual family must be considered a social, economical, and cultural legacy of the ancient Veneti, who after their migrations in the period after 1200 BC instaured their continual settlement area in Middle Europe, which extended from the Baltic to the Adriatic Sea. In this area, irrespective of present-day languages and nations, many similarities, that concern the Venetic agricultural tradition, are still present. The early single-family farm, as well as the village and its community, which remained preserved in Carantania (Slovenia), formed the base of the Venetic social structure. |
| In the Roman, and still in the pre-Roman period, the predecessor of Carantania was the Kingdom of Noricum. The fact, that in its territory the typical Roman latifundia did not exist, brought the scholars to the conclusion, that there the ancient pre-Roman field division, which formed the basis for the existence of small farms (with individual families), was preserved. The existence of the civitates (pl.), which the Roman records adduce in the Alpine and in the Danube area (cf. civitas, Pauly 1903), can only be referred to the villages and their agrarian communities. |
 |
| The panoramic Logarska Valley in the Savinja Alps, Slovenia. Until today, in such mountain valleys the characteristic celek-farms with the Carantanian farm-houses have been preserved. A mountain valley of a minor extent were often owned by a single farmer, as the names of the valleys Matkov kot (Matko's Corner) and Robanov kot (Roban's Corner), running parallel with the Logarska, bear witness. |
| These, and still other facts are in a flagrant contradiction with the viewpoint of the majority of academicians, who continue to consider the great family a basis of the primordial social organization of the Slavs. They still are using this linguistic term in the improper ethnical sense, predisposing the people of the "ancient Slavs", who never existed as primordial ancestors of Slav speaking nations. However, if one is deeply engaged in this question, he is aware of the fact, that the division of the races, either pertaining to the linguistic families of the Western, Eastern or Southern Slavs, were also of a different origin, with different social, cultural and historical characteristics. |
| Anyway, the majority of the scholars are still today searching for the ancient Slav homeland, mostly, the area between Vistula and the middle Dniepr is of interest to them. And there is still more: Russian scholars, who are writing works about early Russian history, usually give them the title Slavjane, i.e., the Slavs (cf. as example Sedov 2002). In these cases, they continue to suggest that all Slav peoples had a common origin and homeland. The same phenomenon is present in the West. |
| As illustration, I quote the work called Les Slaves, written by Francis Conte, which was translated into several languages (Conte 1986). A very informative work, but the author's assumption is not correct in its basic conception, because the Slavs, as an ethnical entity in prehistorical and in historical times, does not exist. A critical reader of his work cannot ignore this fact. This cognizance has to be established irrespectively of circumstances, that the author studied in Oxford, at Harvard, in Sankt Petersburg, that he led the Slav Institute at the Bordeaux University, and that he is now Professor for Russian Culture at the Sorbonne in Paris. |
| Regarding the above exposed facts, the primordial one-family farm of Carantania and likewise of Lusatia must be considered as one of the most important proofs, which rejects the conception of the Slavs in capacity of the descendants of the »ancient Slavs«, a pre-historic ethnical group. Moreover, this form of the primordial farm neither corresponds to the social organization of the Celts nor the ancient Germans, which was based on the kinship (clan, Sippe), similar to the great family. Therefore, in the Central European context the individualization of the Carantanian farm dismisses the ancient ideological constructions, as they have been plotted for the needs of the Slav, German and Celtic ideology. |
| Selected Bibliography: |
|
Bezlaj France: Slovenski etimološki slovar /Slovenian Etymological Dictionary/, Lublana 1976 | |
|
Kozenn - Atlas (99. Auflage), Wien 1972, p. 53 | |
|
Leciejewicz Lech: Jäger, Sammler, Bauer, Handwerker. Frühe Geschichte der Lausitz bis zum 11. Jahrhundert (2. Auflage), Bautzen - Budyšin 1982 | |
|
Marti Otto: Die Völker West- und Mittel-Europas im Altertum, Baden-Baden 1947 | |
|
Blaznik Pavle: Poljska razdelitev /Field Division/, in Gospodarska in družbena zgodovina Slovencev, Zgodovina agrarnih panog I, Lublana 1970, p. 185 ff. | |
|
Vilfan Sergij: Kmecka hiša /The Farm House/, in Gospodarska in družbena zgodovina Slovencev, Zgodovina agrarnih panog I, Lublana 1970, p. 559 ff. | |
|
Alberto Almagà: Il Mondo attuale, volume I, tomo II. Turin 1953, p. 839 | |
|
Paulys Real-Encyclopädie, Supl. I, Stuttgart 1903 (Civitas) | |
|
Sedov Valentin Vasiljevic: Slavjane. Istorisko - arheologiceskoe issledovanie, Moskva 2002 | |
|
Conte Francis: Les Slaves. Aux origines des civilisation d'Europe, Paris 1986 | |