244
Pauli Rahkonen SOUTH-EASTERN CONTACT AREA OF FINNIC LANGUAGES IN THE LIGHT OF ONOMASTICS Academic dissertation to be publicly discussed, by due permission of the Faculty of Arts at the University of Helsinki, in the Auditorium XII, Main Building on the 11 th of May, 2013 at 10 o’clock.

south-eastern contact area of finnic languages in the light of onomastics

  • Upload
    others

  • View
    4

  • Download
    1

Embed Size (px)

Citation preview

Page 1: south-eastern contact area of finnic languages in the light of onomastics

Pauli Rahkonen

SOUTH-EASTERN CONTACT AREA OF FINNIC LANGUAGES

IN THE LIGHT OF ONOMASTICS

Academic dissertation to be publicly discussed, by due permission of the Faculty of

Arts at the University of Helsinki, in the Auditorium XII, Main Building on the 11th of

May, 2013 at 10 o’clock.

Page 2: south-eastern contact area of finnic languages in the light of onomastics

Copyright Pauli Rahkonen, 2013

Front cover designed by Designspot, Jenni Muiniekka and the photograph “the River

Vääksy” by the author

ISBN 978–952–5866–15–5

Bookwell Oy

Page 3: south-eastern contact area of finnic languages in the light of onomastics

Contents

Preface…………………………………………………………………………… 5

Abstract………………………………………………………………………….. 6

Introduction…………………………………………………………………… 7

1. General remarks………………………………………………… 7 2. Research questions and research material ………… 8 3. Methods and adaptation……………………………………. 12

3.1. General view………………………………………………. 12 3.2. Methods implemented……………………………….. 13 3.3. Limits of methods: Problems of reliability and

interpretation……………………………………………… 17 3.4. Special case of Russian adaptation……………… 19

4. Individual articles and their main results……………. 20 4.1. Article 1, The Problem of the Čudes…………….. 21

4.2. Article 2, The Problem of the Meryan-Muroma

and ancient Mordvins………………………………….. 22 4.2.1. Meryan-Muroma hydronyms…………….. 23

4.2.2. Ancient and modern Mordvin hydronyms 24

4.3. Article 3, The problem of hydronyms of unknown

origin in Finland…………………………………………… 25 4.4. Article 4, The Problem of the Meščeras……….. 28

5. Special problems………………………………………………….. 29

5.1. Interpretation of the results of the investigation 29

5.2. Heterogeneous sources………………………………. 30

6. The historical Finnic-speaking area………………………. 30

7. Archaeological contexts……………………………………….. 33

7.1. Archaeology and linguistic groups or ethnicity 33

7.2. Principal archaeological cultures between the

Baltic–Finland area and Mordovia……………….. 37 7.3. Textile Ceramics and Western Uralic……………. 42

Literature………………………………………………………………. 45

Page 4: south-eastern contact area of finnic languages in the light of onomastics

Articles

Article 1: Finno-Ugric Hydronyms of the River Volkhov and Luga catchment areas…………………………….. 53 Article 2: Границы распространения меряно- муромских и древнемордовских гидронимов в верховьях Волги и бассейне реки Оки……….. 115 Article 3: Suomen etymologisesti hämärää vesistönimistöä……………………………………………… 153 Article 4: The Linguistic Background of the Ancient Meshchera Tribe and Principal areas of Settlement. 193

Conclusions…………………………………………………………………….. 235 1. The contact zone of Finnic………………………………….

231Novgorodian Čudes……………………………………………….. 236 2. Meryan-Muroma language……………………………………. 237 3. Ancient Mordvin hydronyms…………………………………. 239 4. Etymologically opaque hydronyms in Finland………… 240 5. Meščera………………………………………………………………… 241 6. The ancient West-Uralic languages……………………….. 242 Literature…………………………………………………………………… 244

Page 5: south-eastern contact area of finnic languages in the light of onomastics

Preface

Already as a teenager I was interested in the Finno-Ugrian past. One of my teachers of the Finnish

language, Aarre Rauhala, invited me several times to visit his home and discuss this subject. Later,

his daughter Pirjo Uino PhD became a remarkable archaeologist who has examined especially the

past of the Karelian isthmus. However, in my youth I felt a greater attraction to economics and I

graduated from Turun Kauppakorkeakoulu in 1978. Soon, I decided that business was not for me

and later I went to study Hebrew in Jerusalem in Israel. I graduated with an M.A. in Hebrew with a

focus on Bible translation from the American Institute of Holy Land Studies in 1990. Most of the

teachers there worked at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem as well. The most prominent among

them were professors Chaim Rabin (history of the Hebrew language), Emmanuel Tov (the Dead

Sea scrolls), Gavriel Barkai (archaeology) and Shmuel Safrai (Rabbinic thought).

In the 1990s I accidentally became acquainted with toponyms when I worked as a social worker for

war veterans in the town of Lahti. A military officer gave me military maps (1939–45) of the

Russian North. When examining those maps I was surprised because most of the hydronyms

obviously originated neither from Russian nor any Finnic language. In 1999 I was accepted into the

PhD program at the Department of History and Ethnicity of Jyväskylä University. I wrote a

manuscript for my doctoral dissertation in 2008 concerning the settlement history of ancient Finno-

Ugrian tribes in Central and Northern Russia. However, one of the referees, Prof. Janne Saarikivi,

suggested that I complete the work at Helsinki University’s Department of Finno-Ugrian Studies in

order to be on a firmer linguistic ground. No doubt, this was good advice. After nearly five years I

have finally finished the work.

It is time to express my gratitude to everyone who has contributed to the dissertation and assisted

me. I thank my wife Eija-Liisa who has been my main sponsor. Apparently due to my age, I never

received the kind of financing that would allow me to concentrate full-time on research. I am very

grateful to Jyväskylä University and the Suomalais-Ugrilainen Seura (Société Finno-Ougrienne) for

their smaller grants. I would like to thank my employer Lahti Church of Baptistmission for their

patience as their part-time employee. Many thanks go to the various scholars who encouraged and

advised me, especially professors Janne Saarikivi and Riho Grünthal at Helsinki University, and

Toivo Nygård and Petri Karonen at Jyväskylä University. Special thanks to archaeologists Christian

Carpelan, Pirjo Uino and Mika Lavento for their encouragement and tutoring me in archaeology.

Such linguists or specialists in onomastics as Arja Ahlqvist, Petri Kallio and Jouni Vaahtera have

been most important advisers, and I warmly express my appreciation. My friends in Kotus (Institute

for the Languages of Finland) cannot be forgotten here. Finally, I want to mention Rivka

Bliboim PhD in Haifa and emeritus professor Heikki Kirkinen in Joensuu as important people who

supported me at the beginning of my academic career. Finally, I want to mark this dissertation with

the same initials S.D.G. as did the great composers Bach and Handel.

Lahti 5.4.2013

Pauli Rahkonen

Page 6: south-eastern contact area of finnic languages in the light of onomastics

Abstract

The subject of the present dissertation is the West Uralic past, mainly linguistic and settlement

history. It focuses on historically known ancient tribes and their linguistic backgrounds such as the

Merya, Muroma, Meščera and Čude as well as on some unknown Uralic tribes and languages. The

tools employed are onomastics (mostly hydronyms) and archaeology.

The main results of the study are as follows. The Meščera seem to have been a tribe inhabiting the

left bank of the Middle Oka and, surprisingly, they most probably spoke a Permian language. It

seems that linguistically two kinds of Novgorodian Čudes lived in the catchment areas of the Upper

Volkhov and Luga. Traces are found of “East Čudes” and, further west, “West Čudes”. Both of

these were apparently not Finnic tribes. The language of the East Čudes shows similarities with

Meryan. The West Čudian language shows some features of Mordvin and probably Early Proto-

Finnic.

The Meryans and Muromas were linguistically close relatives. Their languages may have been only

two dialects of the same language. The Meryan language stretched as far as the western parts of

Vologda oblast in the north. A kind of Meryan was spoken in the Moscow area as well. The

Meryan language had a cognate language in the eastern parts of Novgorod and Tver oblasts which I

have called East Čudian. Apparently another related language was spoken in the eastern parts of

Leningrad oblast, in the south-western parts of Arkhangelsk oblast and in Karelia in the Lake Onega

region probably before the Finnic era. Ancient Mordvin-type toponyms are found in Kaluga and

Moscow oblasts. There seem to have been two extreme edges of ancient Mordvin hydronyms, the

first in the environs of the town of Tver and another on the left bank of the Volga between the river

Kostroma and the estuary of the Unža.

It is possible that an unknown Uralic x-language (or languages) was spoken in Finland, Karelia and

in the North Russian lakeland. In my opinion, this language probably cannot be derived from Proto-

Finnic or Proto-Saami. I have presented a hypothesis that this language was spoken by the

population (and their descendants) of the early Textile Ceramics culture. In any event, the lexicon

shows similarities with the Meryan language as defined by hydronyms.

Page 7: south-eastern contact area of finnic languages in the light of onomastics

INTRODUCTION

1. General remarks

This study is an academic dissertation for the degree of PhD in Finno-Ugrian linguistics. It consists

of four articles which were previously published in various peer-reviewed journals. The articles

focus on hydronyms located between Finland and the present-day Republic of Mordovia in Russia,

these regions included. The purpose of the study is to describe, as far as possible, the character of

the languages, the boundaries of settlement and the linguistic relations of the groups investigated in

this dissertation with other Finno-Ugrian groups. Many of these languages are presently extinct.

The articles in this dissertation are the following:

Article 1: Finno-Ugric Hydronyms of the River Volkhov and Luga catchment areas.

Journal de la Société Finno-Ougrienne 93. Helsinki. 2011. 205–266.

Article 2: Границы распространения меряно-муромских и древнемордовских гидронимов в

верховьях Волги и бассейне реки Оки. Вопросы Ономастики 1/2012. Екатеринбург. 2012. 5–

42.

Article 3: Suomen etymologisesti hämärää vesistönimistöä. Virittäjä 1/2013. 5–43.

Article 4: The Linguistic Background of the Ancient Meshchera Tribe and Principal Areas of

Settlement. Finnisch-Ugrische Forschungen 60. 2009. 162–202.

Page 8: south-eastern contact area of finnic languages in the light of onomastics

The character of these articles is more empirical than theoretical. As already stated above, the main

goal has been to determine the linguistic background and areal distribution of hydronyms in

territories under investigation that supposedly were populated by Finno-Ugrian peoples in the past.

The old Russian chronicles mention such tribes as the Čudes, Meryans, Muromas and Meščeras,

offering some useful information on their principal areas of settlement. Because the languages of

these tribes are now extinct without any direct descendants, it is very challenging to reliably

determine toponymic etymologies based on the languages of these vanished tribes. Consequently,

the methods employed must be well grounded. Therefore, I introduce the methods and criteria used

in the articles in detail in this introduction.

In what follows, the Scientific transliteration of Cyrillic is used with the exception of some

generally accepted names (e.g. Moscow, Merya, Arkhangelsk, Ryazan, Yaroslavl, Volkhov,

Sukhona, Erzya).

2. Research questions and research material

It has long been assumed that the vast area between the modern territories of the speakers of Finnic

and Mordvin was once populated by Finno-Ugrians. This hypothesis was first presented based on

toponymic evidence in the 19th century by e.g. Europaeus (1868–70). Later, the same assumption

was put forward by many toponymists (Popov 1965; Matveev 2001–2007 etc.), archaeologists

(e.g. Rjabinin 1997; Sedov 1979; Tret’jakov 1966) and linguists (Vasmer 1932–35; Kalima 1944).

This area between the Finnic-speaking territory and Mordovia was populated, according to the old

Russian chronicles (PSRL 1965), by tribes which later have been assumed to be Finno-Ugrian

(e.g. Rjabinin 1997 and attached literature). It is important to note that the chronicles themselves

say nothing of the linguistic background of these tribes. They only mention that some of the groups

under consideration had their own language (ibid. 1997: 214). The most important source for a

reliable examination of these ancient languages is thus historical onomastics.

Linguists have discussed the paradox that Finnic and Mordvin seem to be closely related

languages both on the basis of the lexicon as well as the grammatical structure, although

geographically they are spoken far away from each other (e.g. Grünthal 2007: 115–135). In

recent studies it has been suggested that Finnic, Saami and Mordvin seem to form a mutually more

closely connected westernmost Uralic branch (ibid. 2007: 116; Jaakko Häkkinen 2009: 46;

Page 9: south-eastern contact area of finnic languages in the light of onomastics

Saarikivi 2011: 88–95, 106–117). In earlier studies, many scholars have used the concept of a

Finno-Volgaic protolanguage (e.g. UEW, Terho Itkonen 1997: 259–262; Bartens 1999: 13) and

even of a Proto-Finno-Volgaic community (von Hertzen 1973: 88). The latter theory has been

widely abandoned among most Finno-Ugrists.

The assumed Finnic-Saami-Mordvin protolanguage or “Western Uralic” (see e.g. Häkkinen 2009)

is phonologically more archaic than, for instance, the Permic or Ugric languages. Terho Itkonen

(1997: 236) claims that there existed only a small difference between “Finno-Volgaic” and “Finno-

Permic” (or even “Finno-Ugrian”). Many researchers, e.g. Mikko Korhonen (1981), Pekka

Sammallahti (1988) and Petri Kallio (2007: 229) note that the consonant system of Early Proto-

Finnic is still very close to that of Proto-Uralic. The vowel system of Proto-Permic, however, differs

considerably from the system reconstructed for the Finno-Ugric or Finno-Permic protolanguages

(see e.g. PS = Sammallahti 1988: 524; Bartens 2000: 58–59), while the vowels of the Finno-Saami-

Mordvin protolanguage show a much greater similarity to earlier stages of the Uralic languages.

It is natural to assume that the languages spoken in the area between the Baltic Sea region and the

Republic of Mordovia may have represented intermediating forms of Uralic languages between

Mordvin and Finnic. One of the main goals of my articles was to reconcile this hypothesis.

Basically, hydronyms give only very limited information on extinct languages. However,

morphological, phonological and some other regularities in toponyms/geographical names make it

possible to draw conclusions on some features of these languages (cf. Matveev 2001: 73–75).

The research methodology is full of difficulties and presents a number of questions. The

methods should resolve certain problems I set out below. The most important questions investigated

in the articles of this study are the following:

1) What happened with toponyms when Slavicization took place in the area under study? Were

the old names usually adopted or were they translated into Russian? To what extent did

Slavic names replace Finno-Ugrian toponyms?

2) How reliably can the original forms of names be defined? What was the role of Slavic

adaptation? Is it possible to establish phonological characteristics of ancient substrate

languages on the grounds of toponyms?

3) How well have ancient hydronyms and other toponyms been preserved until modern times,

Page 10: south-eastern contact area of finnic languages in the light of onomastics

or have most of them disappeared?

4) What kind of material can be considered reliable enough for ethnolinguistic research? How

should a researcher react to the fact that the quality of the different ways to collect toponyms

and the different toponymic materials available in the archives and publications are not

homogeneous? Some of the toponyms are collected from field research, some from vast and

reliable archives or old literary documents and others from maps.

It is obvious that toponyms collected by interviewing informants provide better data,

because in such cases different variants of the same name can be utilized in the research.

Nevertheless, informants have a tendency to create folk etymologies which may damage the

original form of the toponyms. Old names collected from ancient documents are a risky

material as well. Ancient scribes usually represented governmental authorities and were

speakers of the languages of administrative centers. They may have lacked proficiency in

the languages of the autochthonous populations, and consequently names in old official

documents may contain many errors and misspellings. People who draw maps – ancient or

modern – have not always been concerned with accuracy in names. For this reason one

should be critical when using maps as research material. The most correct way to carry out

the research is to compare the different sources with each other whenever possible.

5) Were the naming motivations similar everywhere in the research area? Are certain

toponymic types more likely to occur and is it possible to utilize preconceived models when

searching for toponymic etymologies of extinct languages?

6) How can toponyms of two closely related languages be distinguished from each other? In

which cases do two different but closely related languages stand behind toponyms and in

which cases only two dialects of the same language?

7) What do toponyms reveal of the characteristics of the languages behind the names? For

example, the topographical and phonological evidence of hydronyms show in the Meryan

language the shifts (word-initial) *a > *vo (*vol(o)- < *ala- ‘lower’) and *a > *o

(*kol(o) < *kala ‘fish’) in the first syllable after initial consonants (see below). As for the

vocabulary, there apparently existed such words as Meryan *jäγra/ä, East Čudian *jädra/ä

Page 11: south-eastern contact area of finnic languages in the light of onomastics

(roughly east of the River Msta) and West Čudian *järi (west of the River Msta) ‘lake’.1 The

languages of the Merya and Muroma exhibit many similarities, but there exist minor

phonetic differences, e.g. Meryan *joga ~ Muroma *juga ‘river’, Meryan *veksa ~

Muroma *viksa ‘river connecting two bodies of water’ and Meryan *uht(V) ~ Muroma

*voht(V) ‘neck of land between two bodies of water’ (see below).

One of the main problems is the quality and reliability of the toponymic material. There are some

areas where the material is widely and well documented. Particularly good examples are the Oka

catchment area whose hydronyms have been collected by G. P. Smolitskaja (GBO 1976) with

several variations of names, as well as the catchment area of the River Svir whose hydronyms have

been collected by Mullonen–Azarova–Gerd (MAG 1997). In the present study I have chosen to

extract the names from regional atlases, usually with a scale of 1:100 000 or 1:200 000. This

decision was made for practical reasons, because in many cases this was the only possibility. This

means that many small rivers or brooks as well as the variants of the hydronyms are ignored in this

research. This is most regrettable, but the material collected from maps is in many cases the only

way to proceed, because the research area is too wide for a single scholar to collect the names by

interviewing local informants. Toponyms in Finland are well documented and are available in the

archives of Kotus (Institute for the Languages of Finland).

One should note that among these ignored microtoponyms, the quantity of renamed Russian

material increases and the number of Finno-Ugrian substrate names is smaller. For instance, in the

Kenozero region located in the southwestern corner of Arkhangelsk oblast, the percentage of

Russian names of brooks, according to the material collected by Derjagin–Derjagina–Manuxin

(1987), is approximately 60% (Rahkonen: unpublished manuscript). Russification obviously took

place between the 14th and 18th centuries (cf. Loginov 1999: 107–108). In Novgorod oblast,

Russification began and was complete much earlier in the Middle Ages, while in Central Russia it

occurred approximately between the 10th and 17th centuries (Markov 1998; Rjabinin 1997: 149–

244; Tkačenko 2007: 307). Thus the percentage of Russian names of brooks and riverlets in the

Novgorod area and Central Russia is supposedly higher than in Kenozero. The estimated number

might be 70–90% (see also Matveev 2001: 51; Simina 1980 concerning the Russian North).

1 East Čudian *jädra/ä may originate through old Russian influence from the form *jägra/ä, but the shift *g > d may

represent an independent Čudian development as well (Rahkonen 2011: 241).

Page 12: south-eastern contact area of finnic languages in the light of onomastics

Saarikivi (2006b: 13) states that among the oldest layer of toponyms, most of the substrate

toponyms are macrotoponyms. Thus, because of the meager amount of collected microtoponyms,

something is lost in this study, but not so much as to prevent quite an accurate overall picture. In

some cases, the collections of Max Vasmer’s Wörterbuch der russischen Gewässernamen (1961–

69) [WRG] are also helpful.

It is good to take into account the fact that the casualties of this loss can be minimized to some

extent by focusing the research on what is present instead of what is absent. Thus, one should

examine mainly the most common toponymic types as I have mostly done. It should be kept in

mind that even if a researcher has the best modern sources, a huge number of original toponyms are

lost anyway, and in every case a researcher must be content only with fragments of names.

3. Methods and adaptation

3.1. General view

In Central and Northern Russia the number of substrate names is very high. According to Matveev,

there exist in Arkhangelsk and Vologda oblasts more than 100 000 substrate names originating from

Finno-Ugric languages (see Saarikivi 2000: 405). For the most part, the languages behind those

names are now extinct. Generally speaking, searching for the etymology of substrate names is

challenging (see below). Some of them are impossible, some very difficult and others easier to

etymologize. In this respect there are different categories of substrate names:2

1) Toponym based on a totally unknown language.

example: In Lapland there exist names that are derived from an unknown non-Uralic

language (Ante Aikio 2004).

2) Toponym based on an extinct language that did not leave behind direct successors, but

having modern cognates.

example: Names of Novgorodian Čude, Meryan-Muroma or Meščera origin in Northwestern

or Central Russia e.g. *Ilmeŕ, Uχtoma, Ule|nka (Ahlqvist 1998; 2001; Rahkonen 2009;

2011; 2012).

3) Toponym based on a vanished language that has direct modern successors. Usually names of

this category are linked with protolanguages.

2 See also the classification of Saarikivi (2006a: 12–13).

Page 13: south-eastern contact area of finnic languages in the light of onomastics

example: Proto-Saami names (e.g. Kuukasjärvi, Njuxca) in Northern Russia or in Southern

Finland (e.g. Aikio 2007; Saarikivi 2004b; Mullonen 2002).

4) Toponym based on a modern language that is no longer spoken in the area under study, but

is still spoken somewhere else.

example: Finnish substrate names in the modern Swedish-speaking area in southern Finland

and in Ostrobothnia (e.g. Malax, Pedalax, Terjärv) or Finnish names in the modern Russian-

speaking area that once belonged to Finland (1917–1939) and subsequently to the Soviet

Union/Russia since 1944 (Pitkänen 1985; Nissilä 1975).

Each of these categories has an approach of its own. The etymologies of toponyms in category 1 are

almost impossible to determine. In my study, especially category 2 is relevant. The methods

implemented in this study are described below in some detail. Ante Aikio (2003; 2007) has dealt

with category 3 when examining names derived from Proto-Saami in Finland, Mullonen (2002;

2008) in Karelia and in the River Svir catchment area and Saarikivi (2000; 2006b) and Matveev

(2001; 2004) in the Russian North.3 The Finnish substrate names in Swedish-speaking islands of the

Turku area in Pitkänen’s (1985) study fall into category 4.

As pointed out by Saarikivi (2006b: 9–10), researchers have too often tried to find the correct

etymology only by researching the lexicon of attested languages. Practically their sole criterion for

the toponymic etymology has been that the words in stems should look similar to the toponyms

they are investigating. For example the etymology of the Vuoht-hydronyms are usually derived

from Nsa vuohčču ‘narrow bog’ (SPK s.v. Vuohtajärvi; Sammallahti, Pekka 1989 s.v. vuohčču). A

more exact analysis shows that in many cases of Vuoht-hydronyms in these environments, no bog is

found at all. It is true that many transparent toponyms can be etymologized in this way. However,

there remains a danger of folk etymology and other possibilities for wrong conclusions.

3.2. Methods implemented

I have endeavored to follow methodological rules as simple, unambiguous and reliable as possible. I

have not invented any new methods that have not been presented earlier by other scholars, e.g. by

Ageeva (1989), Matveev (2001), Mullonen (2002), Saarikivi (2006a/b), Salmons (1992) and others.

3 Aikio has used Proto-Saami as a tool of research, not as a realistic spoken language.

Page 14: south-eastern contact area of finnic languages in the light of onomastics

The following principles have been essential in my work in order to find the most probable

etymologies:

1) It is safer to focus the study on naming motivations occurring frequently. In that case the

etymology must be one of the most common. Because the motifs of naming in Uralic

languages everywhere are rather similar to each other, it is possible to track down the

meanings of the words behind the toponyms by comparing them with cognate languages or

protolanguages.

2) There may be only a few dozens of motifs in frequently repeated stems of hydronyms (see

Kiviniemi 1990: 188–189; Saarikivi 2004b: 181–187; 2006b: 18–21). If the number of

toponyms belonging to the same type is sufficient, it is possible to observe regularities or

irregularities in the structure, phonology and morphology (see Matveev 2001: 73–75 ).

3) In Uralic naming systems certain opposite pairs are usual in toponyms. Such pairs include

‘big–little’, ‘white–black’, ‘upper–lower’, etc. Even if the language behind the hydronyms is

unknown and extinct but suspected to have been Uralic, it is possible to examine these pairs

by comparing the hydronyms with living Uralic languages and with layers of

protolanguages. For instance, in the Meryan-Muroma territory the word *il(e) can be

compared with Finnic *ülä ‘upper’ < PU *üli (PS536).4 There occur such il(e)-toponyms in

Meryan and Muroma as Ile|me|nka (GBO95), Ile|m|ka~Ili|nda (GBO193), Ile|nda

(GBO228), Ili|mdina (GBO269), Il’|d (AJO58/59) and Ile|zem (AKO84). These are

regularly located in the upper course of their water system. Correspondingly, it is possible to

discern the word meaning ‘lower’ in the substrate languages by comparing hydronyms with

Mordvin alo/ala, Mari ül-, Proto-Saami *vōlē (Lehtiranta 2001: 152) and Proto-Finno-

Ugric *ela (PS536). In the Meryan-Muroma area there occur such vol(o)-hydronyms as

Vole|š|ka (GBO207), Volo|kša (GBO196), Volo|ga (GBO84), Volo|š|ka

(GBO195,196,262,270, AJO 60), Vol|ovskoe oz. (AJO69), Vol|inka (AJO106/107), Vol

(AKO121), Vol|ma (AKO58/84), Vol|manga (AKO48, Vol|myš (AKO43), Volo|mša

(AKO155) and Vol’|ma (AKO31). The pairs ‘big–little’ and ‘white–black’ can be compared

with assumed modern cognate languages and protolanguages as well. Of course, there is a

4 In the Meryan area there exists also another stem for ‘upper’ vere, which can be compared with Mordvin veŕ ‘upper’;

cf. such rivers as Vere|ksa (AJO57), Vere|me|evka (AKO173), Ver|ženka (AKO184), Vere|na (AKO197) and Ver|ža

(GBO210).

Page 15: south-eastern contact area of finnic languages in the light of onomastics

danger of folk etymology and it is impossible to reach full certainty in all details.

4) There are lakes, rivers, brooks, etc., which are named according to a regular semantic

criterion, in many cases on the grounds of specialized geographical terms. I have utilized

especially names with the meaning ‘isthmus, route for dragging a boat over a neck of

land’ < PU *ukti and ‘river connecting two bodies of water’ < PFP *veksi or *viksi.5 Their

topography is usually easy to verify. However, there must be a sufficient number of this type

of material and their topographical position must be regular.

Especially lakes, more than rivers, may be obviously long, narrow, round or curved which

are typical motifs for naming. In Southern and Central Finland, quite a common stem for

lake names is kukk(V)-, kuuk(V)-. If the shape of the lake is long, the name can be derived

from Proto-Saami *kukkē ‘long’. But if the lake is not long in shape, it might be derived

instead from Finnish kukka ‘flower’ – in this case probably ‘water lily’ – or in some cases

from kukko ‘male bird’ or kukku- ‘hill’; cf. Finnish kukku-la ‘hill’ (see Mullonen 1994). The

rule of thumb is that the etymologies of lake names are usually easier to determine than

those of rivers when using topography as grounds for finding the correct etymology.

5) Examining ethnonyms may give hints for placing hydronyms in the context of the correct

extinct languages. The number of ethnonyms must be large enough. It is important to also

take into account the density of ethnonyms that occur in toponyms. Stray names do not tell

much about the boundaries of settlement. There are some dangers when using ethnonyms as

evidence. Firstly, it is useful to know whether the ethnonyms were used as an exonym or

endonym. Secondly, it is well known that the ancient Russians called at various times

several different Finno-Ugrian tribes чудь [čude] and the Old Russian ethnonym немец

[nemec] could mean ‘Scandinavian’ or ‘German’. In my research most of the toponyms

derived from ethnonyms are of Russian origin . However, one should note that, for instance,

Karelians called Finns ruottši ‘Swede’ and Finns called, at least occasionally, Karelians

ryssä ‘Russian’ according to the their statehood (as opposed to ethnicity). It is not always

easy to determine the origin of hydronyms derived from closely related languages such as

Finnish and Karelian because of the proximity of these languages. Even surrounding

5 In this case the form from the PFP level is defined on the grounds of Komi vis ‘river connecting two bodies of water’

and the name material in Central and Northern Russia and in Finland.

Page 16: south-eastern contact area of finnic languages in the light of onomastics

ethnonyms may not necessarily offer the correct solution. Saarikivi (2000: 406–407; see also

Saarikivi 2006b: 55) has presented the possibility that the Korela toponyms in the

Arkhangelsk and Pinega territories possibly refer to an old Karelian population in the

northern Dvina basin. However, this does not necessarily mean that all the Finnic

hydronyms are of Karelian origin. The Finnic names may originate from an earlier or later

era than the ethnonyms.

6) The study of formants is very useful (Matveev 2001; 2004; Mullonen 2002: 191–228;

Saarikivi 2006b: 29–34). Saarikivi (2006b: 18) has defined formants as phonotactic types of

single-morpheme opaque toponyms having a characteristic feature that makes it possible to

understand the word as a place name. Formants are word-final elements in toponyms often

based on derivational suffixes or original generics of toponyms that have been modified and

rendered opaque. For example, Hima|nka is constructed out of an old Finnish anthroponym

Hima and the formant -nka (the origin of this formant has been debated in detail Räisänen

2003).To set formants within the context of different languages is sometimes very difficult.

In Uralic languages there are formants which are common in several languages. The most

common may be the formant -m(V) that occurs all over Central and Northern Russia and in

Finland (Mullonen 2002: 222–228; Saarikivi 2006b: 31). I have dealt with the problems

related to the formant -lja (-ля) in article 1 of this volume and the formant -ks(V)/-kš(V) in

article 2. It must be noted that these particular formants as well as some others can be

attached to stems originating from many different languages.

7) The principle presented by Salmons (1992: 267), Ageeva (1989) and Saarikivi (2006b: 15)

is essential in my work when determining whether a toponym is a substrate name. That is,

irregular phonetic correspondences occur between the languages or dialects which reflect

similar toponyms or loanwords originating in a substrate language. For example, the stems

Koitere and Koitter- occurring in Finland show a phonetic irregularity, but are most

probably derived from the same original (Rahkonen 2013: 25–27).

8) The entire geographical distribution of each toponymic type is very important when

tracking down core areas of hydronyms. In my work I have defined the total distribution of

several stems and formants of hydronyms. For instance, the distribution map of the

formant -lja (Rahkonen 2011: 235–238) proves that this formant is in most cases probably

Page 17: south-eastern contact area of finnic languages in the light of onomastics

not of Slavic origin, because the distribution does not match with the territories of old

Russian dialects (Vaahtera: personal information; DARJA 1986; 1989). In some cases it is

possible to determine also the directions of spread. Several Novgorodian Finno-Ugrian

toponymic types can be connected with similar types in the Upper Volga area, and at the

same time it is possible to notice the discontinuity between Estonia and the Lake Ilmen area

(Rahkonen 2011: 252–255). This means that Novgorodian types of Finno-Ugrian names

most probably did not spread from Estonia or vice versa, but instead they are linked with the

Upper Volga area. In Finland, such stems as vieks- (viiks-, vääks-), vuoht- (voht-, oht-, uht-),

suont- (sont-), kem(V) have clear and mutually similar continuity with the corresponding

hydronyms between Inner Finland and the North Russian lakeland and the Rybinskij–

Kostroma Volga area (Rahkonen 2013: 19–27).6 In Finland these stems do not occur in the

archaeological area of coastal cultures that is traditionally understood to have been inhabited

by Proto-Finns (e.g. Terho Itkonen 1983; Kallio 2006: 16–18; 2009: 41).

9) A sufficient number of toponyms is needed when attempting to define phonetic

characteristics and sound shifts that occurred in an extinct language. It is highly desirable

to find as reliable a definition as possible for the historical development of the examined

substrate languages. If the sound laws are known, it is easier to find the original form of

hydronyms and to decide how to place toponyms in the context of different languages. This

helps to determine the correct etymologies as well. It is regrettable that the number of types

of many substrate toponyms in my research areas is not as sufficient as one would wish.

However, I have dared to define the system of vowels in the Meryan-Muroma language to

some extent in article 2.

3.3. Limits of methods: Problems of reliability and interpretation

The methods presented above acceptably solve most of the problems that are connected with

toponymic types that occur sufficiently frequently. For several toponymic types, a relatively reliable

etymology can be given because of the regular topographic characteristics of the objects they

denote. In many cases it is possible to verify the ‘upper’ and ‘lower’ bodies of water, special

semantic geographical characteristics, principal areas of ethnonyms and the distribution of

hydronyms under investigation. The linguistic criteria, such as various phonetic and morphological

6 The North Russian lakeland consists of the large lakes Onega, Lača, Vože, Belozero and Kubena.

Page 18: south-eastern contact area of finnic languages in the light of onomastics

characteristics, offer good possibilities for comparing names with living modern languages or with

well-defined protolanguages. Altogether in this thesis I have presented on these grounds several

reliable etymological solutions and defined the connections of the now extinct languages within the

Uralic language family.

In some cases, the narrowness of the research material weakens the etymology of rare stems of

hydronyms. In my thesis this applies especially to the toponyms of Novgorod and Tver oblasts. It

seems that linguistically there existed two types of Čudes.7 One group was close to the Meryans

whereas the other group remains obscure. In any case, even the latter one was most probably not a

Finnic tribe. It appears that in Finland, a Uralic language was spoken that may have been close to

languages spoken in the North Russian lakeland and in Rybinskij Volga region (Rahkonen 2013,

map 23). This layer of hydronyms may be very old, dating back even to the early Middle Ages.

Sometimes the closeness of two different languages poses problems for the identification of the

substrate . It may be difficult to distinguish e.g. Finnish and Karelian hydronyms from each other. I

faced the same problem when trying to define the distribution and boundaries of Meryan and

Muroma hydronyms (Rahkonen 2013). These two languages seem to have been close relatives, but

there are some phonetic differences as well. Sometimes a small detail may provide the solution. For

instance, in those Finnish Häme dialects in which *δ > l, the generic ‘bay, gulf’ is frequently

represented by the word pohja (NA; GT2000; Rahkonen: unpublished material); e.g. Häme|pohja,

Mylly|pohja. Traditionally it has been thought that one of the markers of the Häme dialect (*δ > l)

are the toponyms with the generic salin- < *sadin; e.g. Salin|korpi, Salin|niemi, Salin|suo,

Salin|Kallio (NA).

In my latest article (2013) I faced the problem of interpretation of hydronyms with the stem vieks-,

viiks-, vääks- ‘connecting river between two bodies of water’ and uht-, oht-, v(u)oht- ‘neck of land,

route over land between two bodies of water’. The motif of the toponyms is easy to verify.

However, the linguistic origin of the words behind these stems is very difficult to determine,

because those words or their descendants do not occur in modern languages, neither Finnic nor

Saami. Are they words that have been lost from modern languages or already from their

protolanguages? Or did these words belong to some extinct Uralic language that was spoken in

7 This claim is based on two different words for ‘lake’: *jädra/ä mostly on the right bank of the river Msta and *järi

on the left bank (Rahkonen 2011: 242, map 8). This corresponds with the distribution of the words in which *a >

*vo-, o [right bank] and *a ~ *a (Introduction, maps 1 and 2).

Page 19: south-eastern contact area of finnic languages in the light of onomastics

Finland, Karelia or the North Russian lakeland? The methods described above do not give an

unambiguous answer, although I personally tend to prefer the hypothesis of an ancient separate

Uralic language.

3.4. Special case of Russian adaptation

Here I am obliged to deal with the problem of Russian phonological and morphological adaptations of

originally Uralic toponyms. This is the case especially concerning my claim that in Meryan, the sound shift

*a- > vo- occurred in absolute initial position, while in other positions in the first syllable there occurred the

sound shift *a > o. The development corresponds with the linguistic history of Saami (cf. Korhonen 1981;

Sammallahti 1998). In principle, this phenomenon could be explained by Russian adaptation. In Old Russian

adaptations of some toponyms there existed a sporadic prosthetic v in front of initial o as well; e.g. Oresa ~

Voresa, Orga ~Vorga in the Svir’ region (see Mullonen 2002: 56). However, the prosthetic v was not regular

in different Russian dialects and therefore there should be variants with and without prosthetic v in widely

occurring toponyms. As pointed out below, in the Meryan type of toponyms prosthetic v is regular

everywhere.

map 1. Territories of *a ~ a

Page 20: south-eastern contact area of finnic languages in the light of onomastics

map. 2. Territories of *a- > vo- word-initially and *a > o in other positions in

the first syllable.

I have examined the possibility of Russian influence on original Finno-Ugrian *a utilizing five different and

rather widely distributed variants of stems that seem to vary between *a- ~ vo- and *-a- ~ -o-. They all occur

in Central and Northern Russia. They are variants of the following type: al- ~ vol-, and- ~ vond-, par- ~ por-,

paž- ~ pož-, kal- ~kol-.

The result can be seen on maps 1 and 2. Obviously in most cases the shift *a > vo-, -o- does not depend on

Old Russian influence, but corresponds with the areas of Meryan-Muroma and Novgorodian East Čudic

hydronyms in general (see Rahkonen 2011: 241, 254–255; 2012a: 19–27). As expected, the known historical

territories of the ancient Mordvins and Veps show the conservative form *a ~ a (map 1). The historical areas

of the Merya and Muroma defined by Leont’ev (1996) clearly show the shift *a > vo-, o (map 2).

4. Individual articles and their main results

The articles included in this dissertation have a thematic focus. Most of the area between the

historical Finnic and Mordvinic-speaking territories, those included, is examined. Each of the

articles examines place names (mostly hydronyms) within one or more different linguistic groups.

Research of this particular geographical area is highly important for several reasons.

1) The historical development of Western Uralic languages is not exhaustively described yet.

Page 21: south-eastern contact area of finnic languages in the light of onomastics

This concerns especially the mutual relations between Finnic, Saami and Mordvin.

Toponyms that are inherited from extinct Western Uralic languages might shed some new

light on this problem.

2) The settlement history of the Uralic tribes that have vanished can be properly examined only

by means of onomastic studies, because we do not have a sufficient amount of literary

documents. The boundaries of different ancient tribes who lived between the modern Uralic-

speaking areas in Northern, Central and Northwestern Russia have been defined in these

articles by utilizing toponymic types and phonological features in hydronyms.

4.1. Article 1, The Problem of the Čudes

Article 1 [published in SUSA 93, 2011], written in English, examines the problem of the

Novgorodian Čudes. There has long been the idea that the Čudes are linguistically a Finnic group

(see Grünthal 1997: 150–171 and referred literature). However, no systematic, comprehensive

linguistic study of the characteristics of the relevant substrate has been carried out. My approach to

solving this problem was the following:

1) Determining the boundaries of transparently Finnic hydronyms.

2) Carrying out a linguistic analysis of Uralic formants and their geographic connections or

correspondences.

3) Searching for possible phonetic Finnic features, i.e. such late Proto-Finnic sound shifts as *š > h,

*č > t and the initial consonant h that should occur frequently if the language of the Čudes was

Finnic as it has been repeatedly assumed.8

4) Examining the distribution of ethnonyms, especially Čude and Mer(e)/Ner(e).

5) Determining whether there exist hydronyms between Estonia and the Lake Ilmen area linking the

ancient Estonians with the Novgorodian Čudes.

There do exist some hydronyms in Novgorod and Tver oblasts that are definitely Finnic and,

presumably, of a fairly late origin. For phonetic reasons they seem to be of Karelian origin from the

17th century or later when a considerable amount of Orthodox Karelians moved to these regions

from Käkisalmi county. Examples of the phonetically Karelian type of hydronyms include

8 The consonant h did not occur in Uralic protolanguages.

Page 22: south-eastern contact area of finnic languages in the light of onomastics

Hobol’ka < *Hoaba|la, Huba < *Huaba (from Karelian dial. hoaba and huaba ‘aspen’), Kagra or

Kägrä ‘oats’ or ‘curved’ and Mušto < *Mušta ‘black’.

V. L. Vasil’ev has published articles concerning archaic toponyms in the ancient Novgorodian

Land. He has presented some suggestions of old Baltic toponyms (2001: 8–13) and extensive

research into toponyms based on Old Slavic anthroponyms (2005). His conclusions often seem

tenable, but he has not dealt much with Finno-Ugrian toponyms in more detail.

The main problem of this article was the source material. The names are collected from local atlases

and WRG (see section 3). The Finnic names of Ingria could have been collected more accurately

from the archives of the Institute for the Languages of Finland (NA). However, the hydronyms

mentioned in local atlases are sufficient for determining the boundary of Finnic hydronyms.

This article is a fundamental part of my thesis, because of the rather versatile presentation of the

methods I have used. The total stock of hydronyms does not reveal many names that could be

interpreted as Finnic. Of course, the research material is rather narrow and the assimilation of the

Novgorodian Čudes took place early. This may influence the results to some extent. In any event, it

is likely that these Čudes were not a Finnic-speaking group.

4.2. Article 2, The Problem of the Meryan-Muroma and ancient Mordvins

In Article 2 [published in Voprosy Onomastiki 1/2012], written in Russian, I concentrated on

defining the boundaries of Meryan-Muroma and ancient Mordvin hydronyms. Arja Ahlqvist (1998;

2001; 2006 etc.), O. B. Tkačenko (1985) and A. K. Matveev (e.g. 2006) have written on Meryan

toponyms on several occasions. However, Tkačenko was not critical enough when using Russian

dialectal words from Kostroma oblast as his research material. Matveev did not take into account

the fact that there have historically been Mari populations in Kostroma oblast and in Vologda oblast

as well. This led him to erroneously consider many Mari stems of hydronyms to be Meryan. Arja

Ahlqvist has criticized these Matveev’s views as well (1998; 2001). However, Ahlqvist, in turn, did

not extend the scope of her research to the Russian North or to Tver and Novgorod oblasts. I used

the following criteria when defining what actual Meryan hydronyms are:

1) The demand that an actual Meryan hydronym must at least partially occur in the traditional

Meryan core area in Yaroslavl and/or Vladimir oblasts.

Page 23: south-eastern contact area of finnic languages in the light of onomastics

2) Meryan hydronyms must represent steady and recurring phonemic characteristics from well-

established words of earlier protolanguages. For example, the hydronym Andoma in

Kostroma oblast cannot be of Meryan origin, because hydronyms with the stem and- do not

occur at all in the traditional core areas of the Meryans in Yaroslavl and Vladimir oblast and

because of the Meryan sound shift initial *a- > vo-. The latter criterion is well attested by

several Vond-hydronyms (protolanguage *and- > Meryan *vond-) in Vladimir

(Vondega~Vondoga GBO202, Vondina GBO200, Vonduxa GBO221), Yaroslavl (Vondel’

AJO91) and Kostroma (Vond AKO175, Vondanka AKO73) oblasts.9

The source material is not fully homogeneous in this research. It was possible to make use of the

well-collected material of Smolickaja’s GBO to some degree, but partly I had to be content with

local atlases (e.g. AJO, AKO, AVO, ATO) and Vasmer’s WRG. Regrettably, other sources were

not available.

The phonology of Meryan is presented cautiously. The lack of different variants of hydronyms casts

uncertainty on the result. However, there is no other reliable way to determine what the

characteristics of the proper Meryan toponyms are. I believe that I have presented relevant criteria

for evaluating toponyms in the light of phonetic regularities.

4.2.1.Meryan-Muroma hydronyms

When defining the boundaries of Meryan hydronyms I used three different methods in order to

ensure the results. If all three methods show approximately the same picture, the result is

supposedly on a firm footing. These three methods are the distributions of:

1) Common topographical terms and their dialectal variants occurring in the Meryan core area:

*veksa ‘river connecting two bodies of water’, *uχta ‘isthmus, neck of land (for dragging

boats over)’, *jäγrä ‘lake’ and molo- ‘move from one catchment area to another’.

2) Semantically opposite words *il(e)- ‘upper-‘, *vol(o)- ‘lower’, *väz(ä) ‘little’ (see Rahkonen

2009: 170–176) and the ethnonym *mer(e)/*ner(e) ‘Meryan’.

9 In the Belozero area several names with the stem And- are found. These names probably originate from an ancient

tribe called Ves’ in the old Russian chronicles. The language was likely related to Upper Volgaic languages (personal

comment of Irma Mullonen). The stem might be derived from *emta, which had the meaning ‘give (food)’

(PS 541). In Finland, corresponding hydronyms Antamanjärvi [Ruokolahti] and Antolampi [Suomussalmi] are found

(NA). The motif is ‘lake that gives food’.

Page 24: south-eastern contact area of finnic languages in the light of onomastics

3) Typically Meryan formants -hta/-gda and -pol, -bol (see e.g. Ahlqvist 2001: 446–447, 451–

453, Matveev 2001: 206–211; 2004: 29) and in addition, the not only Meryan but more

widely occurring formant -ksa/-kša.10

All of these hydronyms show rather identical results: Meryan and Muroma were close relatives. In

Moscow oblast occur similar hydronyms as in the core area of the Meryans (Yaroslavl and Vladimir

oblasts). Meryans also lived in the western parts of Vologda oblast. Hydronyms in the Svir and

Karelia areas may reflect a Meryan dialect or a closely related language.

4.2.2. Ancient and modern Mordvin hydronyms

When studying the boundaries of the ancient Mordvins I used as my method the distributions of:

1) Opposite pairs based on the Mordvin words iń(V) – vešk- ,višk-, vež- ‘big–little’, veľ –

al(a/o) ‘upper–lower’ and aš(o), akša – čem(eń) ‘white–black’.11

2) Generics of hydronyms: Erzya Mordvin eŕke ‘lake’, Erzya Mordvin lej and Moksha

Mordvin läj.

3) A specific based on Mordvin piče, pičä ‘pine’ compared with Meryan-Muroma *peč(ä).

Their distributions were compared with one another.

The referees noted a couple of matters. Firstly, what is the semantic motif of Vond- hydronyms? The

stem can be derived from the PFP-level root *emta ‘give’ (PS 541). In Mordvin the corresponding

word ando|ms has the meaning ‘give food’ (MW 1 s.v. andoms). Fish was one of the basic foods for

ancient Finno-Ugrian tribes.

Secondly, was the original orthography of Rha (~ Volga) known in old maps really correct? It is

very important to note that any other orthographic variations do not occur. The oldest mention of

the name is known from Greek sources in the form ΡΑ (Ra) with uncials. Vasmer (ESRJ 1

s.v. Волга) has presented the Greek quotation of the name with minuscules Ρα (Hra or Rha). We do

not know where he found this Greek form, but if it reflects the original, it is necessary to observe

the spiritus asper, too. The sound h in the middle of the word would be very unnatural for Russian

10

An asterisk (*) here means that the word is a reconstructed Meryan word, not proto-language. 11

Interestingly enough, the modern Mordvin word raužo ‘black’ occurs nowhere in hydronyms (GBO; Inževatov). It

seems obvious that the word appeared in use only recently, while in earlier times the word čeme- ‘black’ (orig. ‘rusty’)

was used; cf. the rivers Čeme|r|itsa ? < * Čeme|ra (GBO113), Čeme|s|koj (GBO266), Čemi|s|lej (GBO256),

Čem|rav|skoj (GBO117).

Page 25: south-eastern contact area of finnic languages in the light of onomastics

speakers and there is no reason to suspect that the Russians added it to the original name. The early

cartographers were Flemish (Mercator, de Jode, Ortelius) and it is possible that they wrote *ra >

rha by analogy with the name Rhein. An original Rha < *reha is possible as well. Thirdly, it should

be noted that there is a possibility of misspelling in the variants Vojmiga ~ Vojmira. However, the

names Nev|ra and Nev|lej point to the strong possibility of ra = lej ‘river’. Further, there is an

etymological possibility for -bal, -bol, -pal, -pol to derive them from *poole (cf. Finnish puoli

‘side’).

The evidence of the hydronyms suggests that the ancient Mordvins used to live remarkably further

west of their present area and the Republic of Mordovia. Today the Mordvins live east of Ryazan,

while people who spoke a Mordvin-type language lived in Moscow oblast, in the southern parts of

Tver oblast and in the Volga area between Kostroma and Nizhny Novgorod.

4.3. Article 3, The problem of hydronyms of unknown origin in Finland

Article 3 (published in Virittäjä 1/2013) is written in Finnish. The amount of large lakes in Finland

without any clear etymology is high. Among the names of the 85 biggest lakes, at least 25% are of

unknown origin according to the writers of Suomalainen Paikannimikirja (in English The Book of

Toponyms in Finland). In my opinion the number is even higher. In theory this can be explained in

two ways:

1) Words behind those hydronyms have disappeared from the known Finnic and Saamic

languages or already from their earlier layers, Proto-Finnic and Proto-Saamic.

2) The opaque hydronyms are substrate names originating from some unknown language(s).

They may originate from extinct Uralic languages or from some Paleo-European

language(s). If the language was Uralic, it would be possible to compare the words behind

the names with modern languages or with Uralic protolanguages.

It is very important to determine the whole distribution of these names, and outside of Finland as

well in the Russian North or in Estonia. Mainly I have used the same method as in article 2,

i.e. names connected with necks of land (routes used for dragging boats over the neck) and rivers

connecting two bodies of water. In order to determine whether the words related to the substrate

language notion from which the names under consideration were derived have disappeared from

Finnish or Saami, one should prove that there are systematic sound correspondences with the

Page 26: south-eastern contact area of finnic languages in the light of onomastics

reconstructed protolanguage lexical stock. If the word behind a hydronym cannot be derived

accordingly by means of Finnic or Saami sound correlations from the protolanguage, the word

cannot have disappeared from these languages. In addition, I have examined the distribution and

etymological backgrounds of certain stems, such as kem(V)- ?? ‘stream’ and sont/d-,

suont- ?? ‘curved’, because they are located in the same area as the above-mentioned stems uhta-,

ohta-, v(u)ohta < PU *ukti ‘track (over a neck of land)’, veks-, vieks-, vi(i)ks-, vääks- < PFP *viksi

‘river connecting two bodies of water’.12

The quality of the sources is better than in the case of

those studies dealing with the Russian toponyms, being based on the wide collections of the archive

of Kotus [Institute for the Languages of Finland] (NA).

One may hope more information in variants of the stems based on *ukti and *viksi. It is not easy to

explain the reasons for such variants as Uht-, V(u)oht- and Oht- or Vieks-, Viiks- and Vääks-. I have

assumed that these are dialectal differences that existed already in the original substrate language.

Because we do not know anything of the phonemic characteristics of this language or its dialects, it

is impossible to say anything more detailed.

One of the referees noted the relatively long distance (7 and 15 km) over the necks of land. It is

worth of remembering that the original meaning of the word PU *ukti was ‘track’ according to

Pekka Sammallahti (PS 536); cf. modern Hungarian út ‘way, road’. The point is that there has been

a road or track in common use from one catchment area of a water system to another. The distance

across the isthmus is not important, but rather one must ask, was there a road or pathway in

common use already when these sites were named? In all these cases I have presented (Rahkonen

2013: 12–13; maps 1–4) vuoht(V)-names are located close to such ancient tracks, which necessarily

were in use already since the times people travelled by boat.

Because of the criticism of one referee it should be explained why I assume that vuoht-hydronyms

are not derived from Saami *vuoččo < NwGerm *watjō- ‘wet bog’ (Aikio 2006: 12). At first, as I

have pointed out in the article, in some cases there is no bog at all in the vicinity of the vuoht-

hydronyms Vuohtajärvi in Reisjärvi and Vuohtojärvi in Pihtipudas. Secondly, all the vuoht-

hydronyms are located at the last point in the upper courses of their catchment area both in the

Suomenselkä area and in Karelia. Thirdly, it is interesting that in the core area of the historical

sound shift *čč > ht in the Savo region the original Saami toponym *vuoččō is represented as vuotso

12

The etymological background of the stems kem(V)- and s(u)ont/t- is very obscure. Here the meanings ‘river’ and

‘curved’ are presented only as my suggestion, not as a solid fact.

Page 27: south-eastern contact area of finnic languages in the light of onomastics

and not vuohto; cf. Vuotsinsuo [Joroinen] (NA). If the vuoht(V)-toponyms originate from Saami,

then they may have been adopted into Finnish only after the sound shift *ts > ht in the Savo dialect.

This may be a rather late event. However, this sound shift does not explain the vuoht(V)-hydronyms

in the Republic of Karelia in Russia.

It may be hard to accept my explanation of the variant Indiager ~ Inari due to the lack of a reliable

phonetic explanation. I have assumed that there existed these two variants of the same name for a

long time side by side. If groups of people speaking Proto-Saami came to Lapland in the early Iron

Age, there is a good reason to believe that the Saami-speaking population lived side by side with the

original inhabitants for a relatively long time. It is known that the variant *ind with d in this

particular hydronym was documented already in the year 1593. The first variant without d is

documented approximately at the same time in the year 1567 (SPK s.v. Inari) and is not necessarily

older than the variant with d. This means that the x-language and the variant *Indjäγ(ə)r could have

been in use for a long time after the beginning of the linguistic saamification in Lapland. One

should remember that the biggest lake on the Kola peninsula has two variants of names as well, the

Saami name Avvir and the official name Imandra (EKI; Sammallahti 1989: 512) The hydronym

Imandra as well as probably its corresponding name Imatra are of unknown origin (SPK

s.v. Imatra). It should not be surprising to assume that the name Indiager originates from the Svir

and Sukhona area, because as I have pointed out (Rahkonen 2013: 26), many other hydronyms in

Lapland have correspondences in the Svir region.

The distribution of the above-mentioned stems give proof of linguistic connections between

Finland, Karelia and the North Russian Lakeland and even the Rybinskij–Kostroma-Volga region.

The range follows the distribution of the so-called Textile Ware (1900–800 BC) (see the discussion

below in section 5.3). These types of hydronyms occur neither in the so-called area of the Coastal

Cultures in Finland nor in Estonia. The main problem is that in my research, I did not have the

possibility of examining a larger amount of corresponding hydronyms outside Finland. Article 3

must therefore be understood as only a preliminary enterprise pointing towards a good possibility

for an unknown Uralic x-language. A larger and more accurate study is needed. One basic problem

is that the only reliable means for finding the correct etymologies for the stems treated here lies in

the investigation of regularly occurring geographical qualities related with the name types under

consideration, otherwise the etymological reliability is questionable. For this reason, the problem is

how to find enough required stems of hydronyms in order to verify the regularity.

Page 28: south-eastern contact area of finnic languages in the light of onomastics

There exist in Finland names of lakes with the formant -(V)ri. This formant may originate from a

Western Uralic word derived from the proto-form *jäkrä ~ *järkä ‘lake’ < Proto-Indo-

European *i euHr (see Rahkonen 2011: 239–241 and 2012: 30; Mallory & Adams 1997: 636). It is

very important to examine which kind of stems these formants are connected with. Do the stems

originate from the known Uralic languages Finnic and Saami or are they of some unknown origin?

4.4. Article 4, The Problem of the Meščeras

In article 4 [published in FUF 60, 2009], written in English, I have examined the linguistic

background and the principal settlement area of the Meščeras. Most of the research material has

been adequately collected and published by Smolickaja (GBO 1976). This tribe is known from

some old Russian chronicles, but not the Primary Chronicle [PVL]. According to a chronicle

Pervaja sofiskaja letopis’, the Meščeras lived in the midst of the Mordvins and Muromas (Rjabinin

1997: 214, PSRL 1965). This makes the research of hydronyms especially demanding. I solved this

problem by studying especially such opposite pairs as white–black, big–little and upper–lower,

antonyms that are characteristic of the toponymy of northwestern Uralic areas. In this way it was

possible to distinguish toponyms based on different languages from each other. I compared the

results with the available archaeological data, the ethnonyms and the correspondences with Udmurt

toponyms, because it maybe alleged that the language of the Meščeras was a Permian one.

The weaknesses of this particular article might be my, at that time (2009), insufficient knowledge of

Old Russian anthroponyms. Consequently, it is possible that I have interpreted a few hydronyms to

be of Uralic origin instead of Old Russian, such as Vele|gošča (GBO111) and Vele|goži (GBO109),

for instance (see Vasil’ev 2005). I interpreted the stem vele- in these names as comparable to

Mordvin veľ ‘upper’ instead of the Russian anthroponym *Velegostь > Velegošč. However, in the

Oka catchment area there exists a discrepancy of formants in hydronyms, e.g. Tor|goša ~ Tor|gaš ~

Tor|goš ~ Tor|gošča ~ Tor|gušča (GBO121). This may offer support for the possibility of a Uralic

origin (cf. Mordvin kuža < *kuša ‘meadow, glade’) of the above-mentioned toponyms with a

possible Russian folk etymology. My knowledge of Old Russian anthroponyms increased by the

time I wrote the later articles (2011 and 2012) and similar points of view were taken into

consideration when analyzing the material relevant for these publications.

One may recall the possibility that vil- ‘upper’ could belong to any Finno-Ugrian language where

Mordvinic *i > *e did not take place. In principle this is correct. However, one should remember

that the form vil- is found especially in the same areas with names containing the Permian-looking

Page 29: south-eastern contact area of finnic languages in the light of onomastics

un- ‘big’, ič- ‘little’ and ul ‘lower’. Udmurt vil(i) ‘upper’ is substituted by Russian vili even in

Udmurtia; cf. Vili|šur ‘upper river’ (Rahkonen 2009: 171).

The list of 31 hydronyms which have correspondences in Udmurtia should have been explained

better and in greater detail. Unfortunately, there was no space for a longer article in the publication.

Today I would have shortened the article, leaving this section out. One of the problems is that the

names are of the type CVC-. Thus the stems of the names consist of one syllable only due to the

rather regular loss of second-syllable vowels in Udmurt (Bartens 2000: 61–63). However, I have not

divided the stems of the hydronyms without reason. In most cases I have followed Atamanov’s

presentation of the Udmurt formants such as Čep|ur|inskaja (GBO141), cf. the formant -ur/-ir,

Kad|ym|ov (GBO167), cf. the formant -um/im (Atamanov 1988: 79) and Ir|mes ~ Ir|mez (GBO216),

cf. the formant -mez, -mes, -mis (ibid. 1988: 60–61). I admit that I should have written it down more

clearly.

Altogether, this my earliest article was partly a trial run in scholarly writing, and therefore I admit

that its level is not as high as I hoped. However, I suppose that the basic result that the Meščera

were a tribe speaking a Permian language is justified well enough.

5. Special problems

5.1. Interpretation of the results of the investigation

Some problems are related with the presentation of the results of the investigation. I admit that not

all of etymologies or the interpretations included in the articles of this study are reliable to the same

degree: some are fairly evident, whereas others are hypotheses offered as a direction for future

research. In any event, in several cases I tried to take the uncertainties into consideration in my

conclusions. However, I am of the opinion that it is useful to present not only what is a watertight

case but also what is probable or possible, if it is clearly stated in the text and if there is even some

good reasons lending support to the hypotheses

As I have written above in section 3 and especially in my article 1 (Rahkonen 2011: 214–222), there

are many methods and criteria to employ when endeavoring to prove a hypothesis on past languages

Page 30: south-eastern contact area of finnic languages in the light of onomastics

with the help of toponyms. The certainty grows if there are several different pieces of evidence

pointing in the same direction. These criteria are e.g. linguistic characteristics, topography and

distribution of the toponyms. If all the evidence agrees, the interpretation of the results rests on a

firm foundation. But if only one piece of evidence suits the interpretation and nothing is arguing

against it, then the result is somewhat uncertain but could be possible. If there is nothing that points

in any clear direction, neither linguistic characteristics, topography nor distribution, then any results

presented are speculative.

5.2. Heterogeneous sources

As I have written on several occasions (Rahkonen 2011: 214; 2012: 7), a considerable problem is

related to the fact that the toponyms investigated derive from very heterogeneous sources. Usually

onomastic studies are carried out in a relatively narrow area where researchers themselves have

collected the material (e.g. Mullonen 2002). I have amassed a considerable collection of local

atlases and maps covering almost all of Northern (European) and Central Russia. The archive of

Kotus (Institute for the Languages of Finland) offers a fine collection of the toponyms in Finland.

The topography of the objects can be examined on the site http://kansalaisen.karttapaikka.fi.

6. The historical Finnic-speaking area

Finnic is a label for several different languages descending from Late Proto-Finnic, such as

Livonian, Estonian, Võro or South Estonian, Vote, Ingrian, Veps, Karelian (3 main branches) and

Finnish. Livonian, Vote and Ingrian, though still spoken in the first part of the 20th century, are

now practically extinct but relatively well documented languages. Veps and all Karelian branches

are in great danger of disappearing in the near future. Estonian and Finnish are strong dominant

languages in the areas in which they are spoken. According to the evidence of toponyms, there has

been at least one but probably two or three Finnic languages spoken in the (Northern) Dvina

catchment area and elsewhere in Arkhangelsk oblast (Matveev 2001; 2004; Saarikivi 2006b). It is

difficult to distinguish archaic Karelian or Veps dialects from a possible local independent Finnic

language.

There are many theories on the homeland of the Finnic languages. Terho Itkonen (1983) held to a

hypothesis that the Gulf of Finland was the center of early Finnic. He stated that Late Proto-Finnic

Page 31: south-eastern contact area of finnic languages in the light of onomastics

was divided into three dialects: a northern dialect located in the southern coastal area of Finland, a

southern dialect located in Estonia and an eastern dialect in the bottom of the Gulf of Finland and

south of Lake Ladoga. When defining which words are of Proto-Finnic origin, this model of three

quarter of Finnic is usually used as a basis of definition. Any word that is suggested to be derived

from Proto-Finnic should occur in the northern, southern and eastern branches of modern Finnic

languages. Kallio (2007: 243) divided Finnic into three early dialects: the dialect of the Gulf of

Finland (whence Western Finnish, Karelian, Veps, Vote and Northern Estonian), the dialect of the

Gulf of Riga (whence Livonian) and “Ancient Čudian” (whence Southern Estonian). Ante Aikio has

previously supported the idea that Proto-Finnic was not spoken in the southern coastal area of

Finland (Aikio & Aikio 2001: 11;). Jaakko Häkkinen (2010a: 32), in turn, following Saarikivi

(2004a: 224–225), places the origin of Proto-Finnic somewhere southeast of Finland.

In any case, Finnic probably had its origin somewhere around the Gulf of Finland. Names of large

and central rivers such as Vuoksi (< Finnic vuo ‘stream’) and Neva (< Finnic neva ‘marsh, river’)

must be very old and might represent Proto-Finnic hydronyms.13

In the southern coastal area of

Finland, the names Kymi and Nietoo < *Niet|oja (id. later Porvoonjoki) may also be of Finnic origin

and derive from, respectively, kymi ‘stream’ (see SSA I s.v. *kymi; see however SPK

s.v. Kemijärvi; Rahkonen 2013: 24) and nieto(s) ‘heap of snow’ (SSA II s.v. nietos), in hydronyms

probably ‘high (snowy?) banks of a river’. Mustion|joki is clearly a Finnish name < *must|oja

‘black river’. The river name Vantaa remains somewhat obscure, although Nissilä (see

SPK s.v. Vantaanjoki) has derived it from the Finnic word vana ‘water route’. In western Finland

the names of large rivers, such as Aura and Eura, are supposedly of Germanic origin (Koivulehto

1987).

In Estonia the names of many of the most important rivers might be of Finnic origin: e.g. Ema|jõgi

Est. ema ‘mother’ [Tartu district] (?? cf. the Lake Piiga|ndi < Est. piiga ‘maiden’), Pärnu [Pärnu

district] < Est. pärn ‘linden’, Valge|jõgi [Loksa district] < Est. valge ‘white’, Must|jõgi [Võru

district] < Est. must ‘black’. It is possible that Emajogi and especially Piigandi are the result of later

folk etymologizing of a name with some unknown origin. However, as a naming motif there exist in

Finland numerous toponyms with the stems Finnic *emä (e.g. 3 Emäjoki), *neit(V)- ‘maiden’

(e.g. Neitijärvi, Neittävänjoki, Neittävänjärvi) and Saami stems that can be derived from Proto

Saami *nejte ‘id’ (GT2000; NA).

13

It seems that the word *neva occurred in some language(s) in the Oka catchment area as well, most probably in

Ancient Mordvin; cf. the names of rivers Nev|lej GBO242,264, Nev|ra GBO223, Neva GBO185.

Page 32: south-eastern contact area of finnic languages in the light of onomastics

map 3. The historical southern boundary of Finnic hydronyms, excluding

hydronyms produced by the Karelian refugees of the 17th century.

These seemingly very old names of relatively large rivers in southern Finland, modern Leningrad

oblast and Estonia support the hypothesis that Proto-Finnic was spoken for a long time on

both sides of the Gulf of Finland and it thus basically corresponds to the hypothesis of Terho

Itkonen (see above). In the Novgorod, Tver or Vologda oblasts of Russia, Finnic names for large

rivers cannot be found (Rahkonen 2011: 229). For this reason, it is likely that the Late

Proto-Finnic homeland was the area around the Gulf of Finland.

Beyond the southeastern boundary of the modern or historically known Finnic-speaking area, there

exists a toponymic layer belonging to the supposedly non-Finnic Novgorodian Čudes (see

Rahkonen 2011). In theory it is possible that Proto-Finnic and Proto-Čudian separated from each

other at an early stage or it is even possible that Proto-Čudian was identical with Proto-Finnic.

However, this cannot be proven, because there is not enough material available describing what

Novgorodian Čudic was like exactly.

Page 33: south-eastern contact area of finnic languages in the light of onomastics

7. Archaeological contexts

7.1. Archaeology and linguistic groups or ethnicity

Because in most of the articles I have presented archaeological data, it is reasonable to discuss the

problems and restrictions of archaeology in resolving linguistic or ethnic matters. Lately, there has

been a great deal of discussion on the correlation between archaeological data and ethnic or

linguistic groups (e.g. Tvauri 2007 and attached literature). The subject is essential in resolving, for

instance, the problems of “linguistic homelands” and directions of linguistic spread. Mallory

(1997: 94, 106–117) has written on the possibility of using archaeology and linguistics to solve the

problem of the “homeland” of the Indo-Europeans. He is skeptical about the matter and sees no

purely linguistic method for resolving the problem of IE origins. He also presents several

limitations in resolving the problem by means of archaeology, but he cannot ignore the results of

archaeology entirely.

Malcolm Ross (1997: 141,158,162) criticizes the accuracy of glottochronology and recommends

that linguists compare archaeologically discernable events with linguistic events. He feels that the

comparative method in linguistics is unable to absolutely date linguistic events. He emphasizes the

need to understand that the methods of these two disciplines are very different and stresses the

importance of finding sequences of linguistic events comparable with sequences of material-cultural

events. He speaks of reconstructed linguistic and material-cultural events as manifestations of

change in human societies. Relationships should be sought between them. Without going into

further detail here, it is worth mentioning that he showed with the help of Central Papuan how to

match the spread of Oceanic languages across the Pacific with the spread of the Lapita culture.

Johanna Nichols (1998: 259) presents a linguistic relative chronology on the Eurasian steppe and

their periphery. She admits that in order to define an absolute chronology, one must utilize both

comparative linguistics and the results of archaeology. Some Finnish linguists present similar

opinions (Koivulehto 2006: 153–154; Kallio 2006: 15–16). In short, there is a wide consensus

among linguists that cooperation is needed between linguistics and archaeology.

Page 34: south-eastern contact area of finnic languages in the light of onomastics

Saarikivi & Lavento (2012: 177–216 ) have criticized the so-called traditional way of combining

archaeologically defined cultures with linguistic groups. In their conclusions they present three key

points against the traditional view:

1) Ethnicity and linguistic identity do not always correlate.

2) Linguistic diversity was supposedly more significant in the past than today. Modern

examples show that different linguistic groups may have a rather similar material culture

even though the density of languages is high.

3) Languages spread not only by migration, but also by language shift. Language shift easily

spreads over culturally significant boundaries.

First of all, the concept of ethnicity should be defined. For instance, in Finland there are many

populations who have lived in Finland for a very long time. All of them could be considered

different ethnic groups. There are Finnish-speaking, Swedish-speaking and Saami-speaking

populations. However, in Finland’s sport teams one might find representatives of all these linguistic

groups and yet the spectators (and the players themselves) would refer to all of them as Finns. Barth

(2009) writes that ethnic identities can be considered as boundary identities defined by the members

and the neighbors of the group. The group may be linguistically or culturally heterogeneous. On the

other hand, even though the Roma in Finland are native speakers of the Finnish language, they are

often distinguished in the minds of other peoples of Finland as an independent ethnic group. It is

thus possible to speak of “ethnicities” and “ethnic groups”. Ethnicity might occur at many different

levels. Of course, several scholars have presented their own definitions, but in the following I do it

in the way most relevant for my research.

1) Representative identity: armies, sport teams, citizenship or everything else that is

permanently somehow differing and distinguishes them from other nationalities. In this case

it might be useful to speak of an ethnic macrogroup or of a nationality and their ethnic

subgroups.

2) Linguistic identity. If the ethnicity is determined only according to the language, this may

cause serious difficulties. Are the Finnish Muslim Tatars or Jews in Finland considered to be

ethnic Finns, because they usually speak Finnish as their first language (or in some cases

Swedish)? In Russian Karelia the usual situation is that grandparents speak Karelian as their

native language. The next generation is bilingual, but Russian is the more natural language.

Page 35: south-eastern contact area of finnic languages in the light of onomastics

Young adults and children may hardly understand Karelian; Russian is obviously their

native language. The question is, do people living in the same village, or even in the same

house as a family, belong to different ethnic groups? According to the Russian authorities all

of them were some years ago registered as Karelians.

3) Sociocultural identity. Especially in imperial or/and authoritarian states, such as the former

Soviet Union or China and to some degree even the United States (as historically an

imperial state), there is a large number of ethnic groups who share quite a similar “imperial”

culture because the official culture has a superior prestige or it might even be dangerous to

profess a local identity. In the United States there are ethnic Native Americans who speak

English as their native language but still retain a high sense of their own ethnicity. There are

many speaking Spanish as their first language, but they are identified as “white Americans”.

African-Americans may have their own subculture, partially their own type of English

language or dialect and they have an African genealogy. However, they are deeply

American.

4) Religious identity. A good example are the Jews. If a Jewish person receives Christian

baptism, he or she is no longer regarded as a Jew according to the Rabbinate or the

immigration laws of the state of Israel. However, so-called Messianic Jews who believe in

Jesus as their Messiah identify themselves clearly as Jews. For the anti-semitic Nazi regime,

the definition of Jewishness was not dependent on religion. On the other hand, there exist

religious evangelical Christians all over the world who wish to identify themselves as Jews,

because some of their ancestors had a Jewish-looking name, but they cannot adequately

demonstrate Jewish roots.

Archaeology may reveal something of all of the factors mentioned above. Archaeological findings

may include such objects as:

1) characteristic equipment of armies – representative identity

2) letters, stones, houses or utensils with ancient inscriptions – linguistic identity

3) cultural finds such as pottery, remnants of housing systems, etc. – cultural identity

4) ethnically characteristic religious ornamentation and/or cultic objects, such as the Jewish

menorah, Saami drums, etc. – religious identity

Page 36: south-eastern contact area of finnic languages in the light of onomastics

The result is that on an archaeological basis, ethnicity can in most cases be defined only partially,

not absolutely, i.e. only specific aspects of past ethnicities are discernible in the archaeological

material from a particular period and region. For the reasons presented above, in any scientific

research each of these definitions – representative, linguistic, cultural and religious – should be

examined separately. It is possible to excavate these findings, but the interpretation of the material

is not always easy in the correct context. The more ancient the findings are, the more difficult their

interpretation is. If there is already some historical context, such as literary sources in the case of

archaeology in Egypt, the Levant or Mesopotamia, then the interpretation is much more reliable.

Because ancient prehistoric inscriptions in Uralic languages do not exist, archaeology cannot

independently provide absolute evidence of Uralic linguistic groups in the prehistoric era.14

This

does not mean that the results of archaeology are useless. Archaeological data may in certain cases

confirm conclusions based on toponymic or linguistic (cf. loanwords) material or help in dating

them (Koivulehto 2006: 153–154). However, archaeological results cannot usually be the basis for

conclusions with the exception of found inscriptions or certain national religious objects, such as

ancient Scandinavian runic stones, stars of David, etc.

There are some rules of thumb that can be useful and lend extra significance to archaeological

findings. From the point of view of archaeology, it is very important to distinguish among all the

research material objects that may be relevant for defining ethnicity but not necessarily the

linguistic background. Saarikivi & Lavento (2012: 197, 200) admit that indicators for ethnicity may

exist, but they state that they are not easy to identify.

There are object finds that apparently were trading material. Saarikivi & Lavento (2012: 195) point

to the “fruit knives” found in Lapland as an example. It is evident that these knives can only tell

about contacts between Lapland and more southern areas. How do we know? Because the

distribution of those knives is geographically much wider than most of the other findings, which

seem to be more local. Thus everything that might be traded between different communities must be

ruled out when researching linguistic or ethnic groups by means of archaeology.

There may be material that is typically “imperial” or “representative” in use by many linguistic

groups. It is not always easy to determine which material is of this kind. If a certain non-

14

The oldest writings in any Uralic language are the Old Hungarian texts (10th century) and Novgorodian

birch bark documents from the late Middle Ages.

Page 37: south-eastern contact area of finnic languages in the light of onomastics

commercial object is at first typical only in a restricted area that is suspected to have been culturally

and politically strong and central, and afterwards its distribution increases remarkably elsewhere, it

is possible that the character of this object is “representative” or “imperial”. Along the periphery of

distribution a former culture is often mixed with the new one, especially in the beginning of the

expansion. This is the case during the early stages of Russification of former Uralic-speaking

communities (Rjabinin 1997). This kind of situation means that the users did not necessarily all

speak the same language, but probably belonged to the same political alliance.

There exist also findings that are typical for microareas. According to Saarikivi & Lavento (2012:

197) this is true, for instance, in women’s costumes and traditional ornaments. Women who spoke

close dialects of the same language may have had distinguishing features in their costumes; cf. the

oval tortoise brooches of the Häme and Savo/Karelia type (Taavitsainen 1990: 77–112) or the

different kinds of “horse-shaped” pendants found in Central Russia (Makarov 2006: 277, Fig. 4;

Rjabinin 1997: 180–181). Therefore, this kind of material is not relevant for defining larger

linguistic areas, such as the ancient total areas where the Meryan-Muroma language was spoken

(see Rahkonen 2012: 19–27) or the total Finnic-speaking area. They may show regional and

dialectal peculiarities. As a regional ethnic marker in Finland one can point to rowboats of the

Häme and Savo types, which are clearly different from each other. As mentioned by Saarikivi &

Lavento (2012: 210), the connection between material and ethnicity becomes more difficult to solve

the larger archaeological entities are, as in e.g. the distribution areas of the Textile Ware or the

Ananino Culture in northern and central European Russia.

If the distribution of many different objects of a local nature (non-commercial and non-

“representative”) creates an uniform areal entity and matches the toponymic evidence, there is

good reason to suspect that in this area culture and language belonged to the same linguistic group.

This may offer some possibilities for dating the toponyms of the area. It is important to highlight

that, in most cases, archaeological evidence alone cannot testify to an ethnos or linguistic group.

7.2. Principal archaeological cultures between Finnic and Mordvin

Of course it is true that so-called archaeological cultures are often defined by simplified means. An

archaeological culture cannot be defined only as a territory where a certain type of ceramics was

used. Any material culture consists of several factors.

Page 38: south-eastern contact area of finnic languages in the light of onomastics

A great number of archaeologically defined cultures existed between the territories of historical

Finnic and Mordvin speakers already for a long time before these languages developed. The first

one of note was the early Neolithic Ljalovo culture (circa 5000–3650 BC) [map 3]. This culture

originated in the territory between the Upper Volga and the Middle Oka (Carpelan 1999: 257). It

spread from there northwest towards the Lake Onega region (Carpelan & Parpola 2001: 79). After

the Ljalovo culture came the late Neolithic Volosovo culture (3650–1900 BC) [map 4] almost in the

same region in the Volga–Oka area, stretching to the River Volkhov and the lakeland of the Russian

North. This culture influenced also cultures in Finland, leaving traces in the Kierikki Ware and

Pöljä-Jysmä Ware cultures (ibid. 2001: 83). The third archaeological culture of note created in

Central Russia was the Textile or Netted Ware culture launching the Bronze Age (1900–800 BC)

[map 5]. Textile Ceramics spread from the Upper Volga–Oka region via the southern waterways

(the Volga and Mologa routes) towards the River Volkhov and via the more northern way (the

Belozero route) to the district of the Northern Russian lakeland, Karelia and the inlands of Finland.

This culture had several subcultures even in Finland (Lavento 2001: 166–168). The differences

between the subcultures in Russia have regrettably been poorly examined. In the Upper Volga–Oka

region, the original Textile Ceramics culture split in the early Iron Age into the western Djakovo

and eastern Gorodec cultures. The Djakovo culture reached the Lake Ilmen area in the west

(Patrushev 2000: 90; Fig. 31) bordering on the Kalmistonmäki-Volxov culture south of Lake

Ladoga. The Kalmistonmäki-Volxov culture was another daughter culture of the Textile Ceramics.

It has been assumed that the language of this population was Proto-Finnic (Uino 2006: 363), but

this is very hard to prove.

The feature common to all these Central Russian cultures is the southwestern boundary (see the

SW-boundaries in maps 5–7) that runs roughly from Kaluga oblast over the watersheds between the

Volga and Dnieper and between the Lovat’ and Zapadnaja Dvina (Daugava) to the (north)west. As

already mentioned in this section, there has been a fierce debate about the correlation between

archaeological cultural and linguistic areas. The main question is, does any archaeological cultural

area correlate with historical linguistic areas? It is obvious that at least such long-lasting

archaeological boundaries as the one mentioned above in central and northwestern Russia (lasting

over 5000 years!) or the boundary between the coastal and inland cultures of Finland (which lasted

around 4000 years) no doubt correlate with toponyms (Rahkonen 2011: 211, map 2; 2013, map 23;

Rjabinin 1997: 4, map 1 according to Sedov; Kriiska & Tvauri 2007: 148, map).

Page 39: south-eastern contact area of finnic languages in the light of onomastics

In the following, three maps are presented. At first, it is necessary to state that the historical Finnic

and Mordvin-speaking areas mentioned on the maps illustrate the situation in the historically known

era, and not the era of the presented archaeological cultures. However, if the population behind the

above-mentioned cultures spoke Pre- and Proto-Uralic and the later Finno-Mordvin protolanguage

(West Uralic?) as assumed by many scholars, the location of these cultures might explain something

of the development of the prehistoric Uralic entity and the reason why Finnic and Mordvin are

relatively close to each other.

The Ljalovo culture (circa 5000–3650 BC) [map 5] developed in the Upper Volga region. For

example, Carpelan has considered the Ljalovo population to have been speakers of Proto-Uralic

(Carpelan 2006: 85). Asko Parpola (2012: 288) suggests that it was the population of the Volosovo

culture (3650–1900 BC) [map 6] who were the speakers of Proto-Uralic. Petri Kallio (2006: 16) has

presented similar opinions. Apparently due to the influence of Corded Ware, a new type of ceramics

appeared after the Volosovian era. This was called Textile Ceramics or Netted Ware (1900–800 BC)

[map 7]. Parpola (2012: 288) reminds us that it corresponds to the distribution of West Uralic (see

also Rahkonen 2013, map 23). Von Hertzen (1973: 90) has stated that there is a Volgaic loanword

stratum in Finnic that, according to him, might have been borrowed through the population of

Textile Ceramics.

Lately a doctrine has arisen that protolanguages were spoken in relatively narrow areas called their

“homeland” (see e.g. Aikio 2006: 42–43; Mallory 1997: 93; Nichols 1998: 224). I would like to

briefly comment on this doctrine:

1) No protolanguages were ever spoken in reality in the forms of the different stages presented

and defined by linguists. This means that there never existed a Proto-Uralic [PU] or Proto-

Finno-Permic [PFP] language as a monolithic language. Instead, they are theoretical stages

that correspond to the real linguistic situation only partially. The phonetic shifts probably

happened inside of a certain close, but not exactly similar, linguistic community step by step

over a long time. The reconstruction of protolanguages usually endeavors to illustrate only

the last stage.

2) Every language, ancient and modern, has always had different dialects. Some of them

develop towards new languages and some of them never do. Dialects interact and exchange

borrowings from each other over a long time, causing “linguistic waves” proceeding in

many directions and revising the concrete language all the time.

Page 40: south-eastern contact area of finnic languages in the light of onomastics

3) If we compare the European situation (two basic language families: Indo-European and

Uralic) with the native languages of North America, we notice that there are huge areas

covered by relatively few different language families. In the western part of Canada

(including Alaska as well) the Athabaskan languages have been widely spoken, while in the

eastern part Algonquin languages have been spoken. In the northeastern coastal area of the

USA were speakers of Iroquois languages, in the southeastern areas speakers of Muskogean

languages and in the Central Plains speakers of Siouan languages. (The Native Americans

1991) [TNA]. However, it is true that in Siberia there have been perhaps 10 language

families. Thus, it is difficult to tell whether the northern European linguistic situation should

be compared with North America or Siberia.

Is there any basis to assume that, for example, in Canada those two basic language families

of American Indians were originally small groups living in a narrow restricted area and then

spread over very wide territories, assimilating all the other languages? For me it is more

probable that these linguistic groups already existed in some ancient form (Pre-Athabaskan

and Pre-Algonquin) when the population crossed the Bering Strait after the Ice Age. A

similar situation is possible in the area between the Baltic Sea and the Urals. Proto-Uralic

must be a descendant of Pre-Uralic, which is beyond the capability of comparative

linguistics to reveal. But when talking about the ethnic settlement history, the population of

the Pre-Uralic language must be taken into account. One can assume that a few newcomers

speaking a very early Pre-Uralic language migrated to the place which became the narrow

“homeland” of the Pre-Uralic-speaking population and then began to slowly spread across

the surrounding territory. Therefore, it is possible to hold that the speakers of Proto-Uralic

could have already lived in a relatively large area. Of course, this cannot be proven, but it

remains a possibility.

Page 41: south-eastern contact area of finnic languages in the light of onomastics

map 5. The Ljalovo culture (circa 5000–3650 BC) between the much later

traditional areas of Finnic and Mordvin speakers (? >0 AD),

as featured in Huurre (2001: 25).

map 6. The Volosovo culture (circa 3650–1900 BC) between the

much later traditional areas of Finnic and Mordvin speakers,

as featured in Carpelan (1999: 263).

Page 42: south-eastern contact area of finnic languages in the light of onomastics

map 7. The Textile Ceramics culture (circa 1900–800 BC) between the later

traditional areas of Finnic and Mordvin speakers, as featured in Carpelan (1999: 269).

7.3. Textile Ceramics and Western Uralic

It should be observed that the territory between the historical Finnic and Mordvin-speaking areas

matches quite well with the area of the so-called Textile Ceramics [circa 1900–800 BC] (cf. Parpola

2012: 288). The culture of Textile Ceramics could function as a bridge between these two extreme

points. Languages that were spoken later in this vast territory between Finland–Estonia and

Mordovia seem to derive from Western Uralic (WU) as well. I have called those languages Meryan-

Muroma, Eastern and Western Čudian and an unknown “x” language spoken in inland Finland,

Karelia and the Lake Region of the Russian North (Rahkonen 2011; 241; 2012a: 19–27; 2013: 5–

43). This might mean that the territory of the Early Textile Ceramics reflects to some extent the area

of late Western Uralic.15

The archaeologically problematic area is Estonia, Livonia and Coastal Finland – the area

traditionally assumed to have been populated by the late Proto-Finns. The Textile Ceramics culture

was absent there. It is very difficult to believe that the Textile Ware population in inland Finland

migrated or was even the main factor bringing the Pre- or Early Proto-Finnic language to Estonia or

15

However, it is possible that also non-Uralic languages were spoken in the area of the Textile Ware Culture.

Page 43: south-eastern contact area of finnic languages in the light of onomastics

Livonia. There are no archaeological or toponymic signs of it. Therefore, I am forced to believe that

Textile Ceramics did not bring Uralic-speaking people to those regions. This makes it possible, but

not absolutely proven, to assume that some type of Uralic language was spoken in the region of the

Gulf of Finland already before Textile Ceramics spread to the northwest (circa 1900 BC).

The Corded Ware population in Finland is thought to have been NW Indo-European by many

scholars (e.g. Koivulehto 2006: 154–155; Carpelan & Parpola 2001: 84). At least, it is probable that

the Corded Ware culture was brought to Finland by waves of migration, because the representatives

of the former Late Comb Ceramics partially lived at the same time side by side with the Corded

Ware population. However, it is possible that the immigrants were a population that spoke Proto-

Uralic, who had adopted the Corded Ware culture from their Indo-European neighbors, possibly

from the population of the Fatjanovo culture, e.g. in the Valdai region. This was suggested by

Terho Itkonen (1997: 251) as well. In that case the population of the Typical and Late Comb

Ceramics may have spoken some Paleo-European language (see Saarikivi 2004a). In the Early

Bronze Age, the Baltic Pre-Finnic language that I have suggested must have been very close to late

WU and therefore no substantial linguistic differences existed between the Baltic Pre-Finns and the

population of Textile Ceramics in inland Finland. I admit that this model is difficult to prove, but I

have presented it primarily in order to offer new models of thinking.16

At least, there is no

archaeological or linguistic reason against this idea.

A few remarks should be made on the history of settlements in Estonia as well. This might be

important when thinking of common Finnic roots. The early settlements in the Bronze Age in

mainland Estonia were concentrated in three parts of the country: the northern coastal area, the

Pärnu valley area and the area between the lakes Võrtsjärv and Peipus (Kriiska & Tvauri 2007: 95).

In the late Bronze Age, the population in the area of the Pärnu region seems to decrease remarkably

(ibid. 2007: 97). In the Roman Iron Age (50–450 AD) there seem to have been three principal

centers of population: 1) the Northern Coastal region, 2) the Midland region (Põltsamaa) and 3) the

southern area (Tartu-Võru region).

In the western coastal area, especially in the Pärnu region, only a few archaeological sites are found.

In the Haapsalu region there is a small concentration of graveyards (ibid. 2007: 131). In the Age of

16

Of course the population of the Textile Ware culture was not linguistically totally homogenous, but supposedly

spoke many Western Uralic dialects and possibly different Paleo-European languages as well.

Page 44: south-eastern contact area of finnic languages in the light of onomastics

Migrations the situation is similar to previous eras (ibid. 2007:149). In the Viking Age (800–

1050 AD) all of the country seems to have been almost equally populated, with the exception of the

Pärnu region and the area north of the Lake Peipus as the situation had been already during the

entire Iron Age. The population seems to have been divided into northern and southeastern parts

with the Pärnu valley as the borderline (ibid 2007: 173). This may be reflected in the formation of

northern and southern Estonian languages in accord with the hypothesis of Kallio (2007, see above).

map 4. Principal settlements in Estonia according to the archaeological evidence in the period

0–1050 AD, as featured in Kriiska & Tvauri 2007.

Page 45: south-eastern contact area of finnic languages in the light of onomastics

Literature

AGEEVA = Агеева Р. А. 1989: Гидронимия Русского Северо-Запада как источник

культурно-исторической информации. Москва.

AHLQVIST, ARJA 1998: Merjalaiset – Suurten järvien kansaa. Virittäjä 102:1: 24–55.

― 2006: Ancient Lakes in the Former Finno-Ugrian Territories of Central Russia: An

Experimental Onomastic-Paleogeographical Study. The Slavicization of the Russian North.

Juhani Nuorluoto (ed.). Slavica Helsingesia 27. Helsinki. 11–49.

AHLQVIST = Альквист А. 2001: Субстратная топонимия Ярославского поволжья. Очерки

Исторической Географии. Северо-Запад России славяне и фиинны. Под. ред. А.С.Герда и

Г.С.Лебедева. Издательство С.-Петербургского Университета. 436–467.

AIKIO, ANTE 2003: Suomen saamelaisperäisistä paikannimistä. Virittäjä 1/2003. 99–106.

― 2004: An essay on substrate studies and the origin of Saami. Etymologie, Entlehnungen und

Entwicklungen. Festschrift für Jorma Koivulehto zum 70. Geburtstag. Irma Hyvärinen, Petri Kallio

& Jarmo Korhonen (eds.).Mémoires de la Société Néophilologique de Helsinki 63. Helsinki:

Société Néophilologique. 5–34.

― 2006: On Germanic-Saami contacts and Saami prehistory. Suomalais-Ugrilaisen Seuran Aikakauskirja

91. Helsinki: Suomalais-Ugrilainen Seura. 9–55.

― 2007: The Study of Saami substrate Toponyms in Finland. Onomastica Uralica 4. Helsinki:

Debrecen. 157–197.

AIKIO, ANTE & AIKIO, ASLAK 2001: Heimovaelluksista asutusjatkuvuuteen: suomalaisen väestöhistorian

tutkimuksen pirstoutuminen. Muinaistutkija 4/2001. 2–21.

AJO = Атлас Ярославской области (1:100 000) 2002: Москва: Роскартография.

AKO = Атлас Костромской области (1:100 000) 2009: Москва: Роскартография.

ATO = Атлас Тверской области (1:100 000) 2005: Москва: Роскартография.

AVO = Атлас – Вологодская область (1:200 000) 2008: Санкт Петербург: ФГУП

Аэрогеодезия.

BARTENS, RAIJA 1999: Mordvalaiskielten rakenne ja kehitys. Suomalais-Ugrilaisen Seuran

toimituksia 232. Helsinki: Suomalais-Ugrilainen Seura.

― 2000: Permiläiskielten rakenne ja kehitys. Suomalais-Ugrilaisen Seuran Toimituksia 238.

Helsinki: Suomalais-Ugrilainen Seura.

Page 46: south-eastern contact area of finnic languages in the light of onomastics

BARTH, F. 1969: Ethnic Groups and Boundaries. The Social Organization of Culture Differences

(Ed. by F. Barth). Scandinavian University Books, Bergen, Oslo, London, 9–38.

CARPELAN, CHRISTIAN 1999: Käännekohtia Suomen esihistoriassa aikavälillä 5100...1000 eKr.

Pohjan poluilla. Suomalaisten juuret nykytutkimuksen mukaan. Paul Fogelberg (ed.). Bidrag till

kännedom av Finlands natur och folk 153. Societas Scientiarum Fennica. 249–280.

― 2006: On Archaeological Aspects of Uralic, Finno-Ugric and Finnic Societies

before AD 800. The Slavicization of the Russian North. Juhani Nuorluoto (ed.). Slavica

Helsingensia 27. Helsinki: Department of Slavonic and Baltic Languages and Literatures at

Helsinki University. 78–92

CARPELAN, CHRISTIAN & PARPOLA, ASKO 2001: Emergence, contacts and dispersal of Proto-Indo

European, Proto-Uralic and Proto-Aryan in archaeological perspective. Early contacts between Uralic and

Indo-European: Linguistic and Archaeological considerations. Mémoires de la Société Finno-Ougrienne

242. Helsinki: Suomalais-Ugrilainen Seura. 55–150.

DARJA = ДАРЯ 1986: Диалектологический атлас русского языка. Центр Европейской цасти СССР.

Выпуск 1: фонетика, под. ред. Т.Ю. Строгановой и С.В. Бромлей. Москва: Наука.

DARJA = ДАРЯ 1989: Диалектологический атлас русского языка. Центр Европейской цасти СССР.

Выпуск 2: морфология, под. ред. С.В. Бромлей. Москва: Наука.

DERJAGIN, DERJAGINA, MANUXIN = Дерягин В. Я., Дерягина З. С., Манухин Г. И. 1987: Топонимика

Кенозера 1-2. Архангельск. 1987.

EKI = Eesti Keele Instituut

ESRJ = ФАСМЕР, МАКС 2003: Этимологический словаь русского языка 1-4. Москва: Астрель. Аст.

EUROPAEUS, D. E. D. 1868–1870: Tietoja suomalais-ungarilaisten kansojen muinaisista olopaikoista.

Suomi II. 7:1–190, 8: 27–106.

GBO = Смолицкая, Г. П. 1976: Гидронимия бассейна Оки. Москва: Издательство Наука.

GT2000 = 2000: GT2000 Tiekartasto. Vantaa: Karttakeskus Oy.

GRÜNTHAL, RIHO 1997: Livvistä liiviin: Itämerensuomalaiset etnonyymit. Castrenianumin

toimitteita 51. Helsinki: Helsingin yliopisto. Suomalais-Ugrilainen Seura.

― The Mordvin languages Between Bush and Tree: A Historical Reappraisal. Sámit,

sánit, sátnehámit. Riepmočála Pekka Sammallahtii miessemánu 21. beaivve 2007.Jussi Ylikoski & Ante

Aikio (ed.). Mémoires de la Société Finno-Ougrienne 253. Helsinki: Société Finno-Ougrienne. 115–135.

HERTZEN, ERIK VON 1973: Itämerensuomen lainakerrostumien ikäämisestä. Suomalais-Ugrilaisen

Seuran Aikakauskirja 72: Helsinki. Suomalais-Ugrilainen Seura. 77–103.

HÄKKINEN, JAAKKO 2009: Kantauralin ajoitus ja paikannus: perustelut puntarissa. Suomalais-

Page 47: south-eastern contact area of finnic languages in the light of onomastics

Ugrilaisen Seuran Aikakauskirja 92. 9–56.

― 2010a: Jatkuvuusperustelut ja saamelaisen kielen leviäminen (osa 1). Muinaistutkija

1/2010. Helsinki: Suomen Arkeologinen Seura. 19–36.

INŽEVATOV = Инжеватов И. К. 1987 Топонимический словарь Мордовской СССР. Саранск.

ITKONEN, TERHO 1983: Välikatsaus suomen kielen juuriin. Virittäjä 87: 190–229, 349–386.

― 1997: Reflections on Pre-Uralic and the “Saami-Finnic protolanguage”. Finnisch-Ugrische

Forschungen 54, Heft 3. Helsinki. 229–266.

KALIMA, JALO 1942: Karjalaiset ja merjalaiset. Uusi Suomi-lehti 19.7.1942

― 1944: Einige Russische Ortsnamentypen. Finnisch-Ugrische Forschungen 28: 99–150.

KALLIO, PETRI 2006: Suomen kantakielten absoluuttista kronologiaa. Virittäjä 1/2006. 2–25.

― 2007: Kantasuomen konsonanttihistoriaa. Sámit, sánit, sátnehámit. Riepmočála

Pekka Sammallahtii miessemánu 21. beaivve 2007. Jussi Ylikoski ja Ante Aikio (eds.).

Suomalais-Ugrilaisen Seuran Toimituksia 253. Helsinki: Suomalais-Ugrilainen Seura. 229–249.

― 2009: Stratigraphy of Indo-European Loanwords in Saami. The Roots of Saami Ethnicities, Societies and

Space/Places. Tiina Äikäs (ed.). Publications of the Giellagas Institute. Oulu. 30–45.

KIVINIEMI, EERO 1990: Perustietoa paikannimistä. Helsinki: Suomalaisen Kirjallisuuden Seura.

KOIVULEHTO, JORMA 1987: Namn som kan tolkas urgermanskt. Klassiska problem inom

finlandssvensk ortnamnsforskning. (Ed.) Lars Huldén. SSLS. Studier i nordisk filologi. 67.

Helsingfors: SLS.

― 2006: Arkeologia, kielihistoria ja jatkuvuusteoria. Arkeologian lumoa synkkyyteen: Artikkeleita

Christian Carpelanin juhlapäiväksi. Helsinki: Yliopistopaino. 153–165.

KRIISKA, AIVAR & TVAURI, ANDRES 2007: Viron esihistoria. – Hannu Oittinen & Andres Tvauri

(suom.). Helsinki: Suomalaisen Kirjallisuuden Seura.

LAVENTO, MIKA 2001: Textile Ceramics in Finland and on the Karelian isthmus. Helsinki: Suomen

Muinaismuistoyhdistyksen Aikakauskirja 109.

LEONT’EV, A. E. 1996: The Archaeology of the Merya (the Early History of North-Eastern Russia). Russian

monographs in Migration period and Medieval Archaeology. Gennadii Afanas’ev and Falco Daim in

collaboration with Dafydd Kidd (eds.). Volume 4. Moscow: Russian Academy of Sciences. Institute of

Archaeology.

LOGINOV = Логинов, К. К. 1999: Еще раз о «вепском» прошлом Водлозерья. Вепсы: История,

культура и межэтнические контакты. Карельский научный центр РАН институт языка, литературы

и истории. Петрозаводск: Издатеьство Петрозаводского государственного университета. 104–111.

Page 48: south-eastern contact area of finnic languages in the light of onomastics

MAG = Муллонен, И. И. & Азарова, И. В. & Герд, И. В. 1997: Словарь гидронимов юго

восточного Приладожья бассейн реки Свирь. Санкт-Петербург: Издательство Санкт

Петербургского университета.

MAKAROV, N. A. 2006: Cultural Identity of the Russian North Settlers in the 10th–13th Centuries:

Archaeological Evidence and Written Sources. The Slavicization of the Russian North. Juhani

Nuorluoto (ed.). Slavica Helsingensia 27. Helsinki: Department of Slavonic and Baltic Languages

and Literatures at Helsinki University. 259–281.

MALLORY, JAMES P. 1997: The Homelands of the Indo-Europeans. Archaeology and Language 1.

Ed. Blench Roger and Matthew Spriggs. London: Routledge.

MALLORY & ADAMS 1997: Encyclopedia of Indo-European Culture. J. P. Mallory and D. Q.

Adams (eds.). London: Fitzroy Dearborn Publishers.

MARKOV, ALEKSEJ 1998: Мещёра. www.dlc.fi/~Kokov/mesher/meshchera. Meshchera.

www.dlc.fi/~kokov/mesher/index.html

MATVEEV = Матвеев, А. К. 2001: Субстратная топонимия Русского Севера I. Екатеринбург:

Издательство Уральского университета.

― 2004: Субстратная топонимия Русского Севера II. Екатеринбург: Издательство

Уральского университета.

― 2006: Ономатология. Москва: Российская академия, отделение историко-филологических наук.

«Наук».

MULLONEN = Муллонен, И. И. 1994: Очерки вепской топонимии. Санкт Петербург.

― 2002: Топонимия Присвирья. Проблемы этноязыкого контактирования.

Петрозаводск: Российская академия наук, карельский научный центр: Институт языка,

литературы и истории.

― 2008: Топонимия Заонежья. Словарь с историко-культурным комментариями.

Петрозаводск: Карельский научный центр РАН: Институт языка, литературы и истории.

NA = Kotimaisten kielten tutkimuskeskuksen nimiarkisto. Institute for the Languages of Finland.

NICHOLS, JOHANNA 1998: The Eurasian spread zone and the Indo-European dispersal. Archaeology

and Language 2. Ed. Blench Roger and Matthew Spriggs. London: Routledge.

NISSILÄ, VILJO 1975: Suomen Karjalan nimistö. Joensuu: Karjalaisen Kulttuurin Edistämissäätiön

julkaisuja.

PARPOLA, ASKO 2012: The Problem of Samoyed origins in the light of archaeology: On the

formation and dispersal of East Uralic (Proto-Ugro-Samoyed). Per Urales ad Orientem. Iter

polyphonicum multilingue. Mémoires de la Société Finno-Ougrienne 264. Helsinki: Suomalais-

Page 49: south-eastern contact area of finnic languages in the light of onomastics

Ugrilainen Seura. 287–298

PATRUSHEV, VALERY 2000: The Early History of the Finno-Ugric Peoples of European Russia.

Societas Historiae Fenno-Ugricae. Oulu. 2000.

PITKÄNEN, RITVA LIISA 1985: Turunmaan saariston suomalainen lainanimistö. Suomalaisen

Kirjallisuuden Seuran Toimituksia 418. Helsinki: Suomalaisen Kirjallisuuden Seura.

POPOV = Попов, А. И. 1965: Географические названия (Введение в топонимику). АН СССР,

Географическое общество СССР. Москва–Ленинград: Наука.

PS = Sammallahti, Pekka 1988: Historical phonology of Uralic languages. With special reference

to Samoyed, Ugric and Permic. Uralic Languages. Denis Sinor (ed.). Description, history and

foreign influences. Leiden – New York – København – Köln.: E. J. Brill. 478–554.

PSRL 1965 = Полное собрание русских летописей 9–12. Москва.

RAHKONEN, PAULI 2009: The linguistic background of the Ancient Meshchera tribe and pincipal

areas of Settlement. Finnisch-Ugrische Forschungen 60: 162–202.

― 2011: Finno-Ugric Hydronyms of the River Volkhov and Luga catchment areas.

Journal de la Société Finno-Ougrienne 93. Helsinki. 205–266.

― 2012a: Границы распространения меряно-муромских и древнемордовских гидронимов в

верховьях Волги и бассейне реки Оки. Вопросы Ономастики 2/2011. Екатеринбург. 5–42.

― 2013: Suomen etymologisesti hämärä vesistönimistö. Virittäjä 1/2013.

RJABININ = Рябинин, Е. А. 1997: Финно-угорские племена в составе древней Руси. Санкт

Петербург: Издательство Санкт Петербургского университа.

ROSS, MALCOLM 1998: Sequencing and dating linguistic events in Oceania: the

linguistics/archaeology interface. Archaeology and Language 2. Ed. Blench Roger and Matthew

Spriggs. London: Routledge.

RÄISÄNEN, ALPO 2003: Niemet mieltä kiehtovat: etymologista nimistöntutkimusta. Suomalaisen

Kirjallisuuden Seuran toimituksia. Helsinki: Suomalaisen Kirjallisuuden Seura.

SAARIKIVI, JANNE 2000: Kontaktilähtöinen kielenmuutos, substraatti ja substraattinimistö. Virittäjä

3/2000. 393–415.

― 2004a: Is there Paleo-European substratum interference in western branches of Uralic? Journal

de la Société Finno-Ougrienne 90. Helsinki. 187–214.

― 2004b: Über die saamischen Substratennamen des Nordrusslands und Finnlands. Finnisch-

Ugrische Forschungen 58: 162–234.

― 2006a: Introduction. Substrata Uralica. Studies on Finno-Ugric Substrate in Northern

Page 50: south-eastern contact area of finnic languages in the light of onomastics

Russian Dialects. 7–50.

― 2006b: On the Uralic Substrate Toponymy of Arkhangelsk Region: Problems of Research

Methodology and Ethnohistorical Interpretation. Onomastica Uralica 4. Debrecen. 1–64.

― 2011: Saamelaiskielet: historiaa ja nykypäivää. Irja Seurujärvi-Kari & Petri Halinen & Risto Pulkkinen.

Tietolipas 234. Helsinki: SKS. 77–119.

SAARIKIVI, JANNE & LAVENTO, MIKA 2012: Linguistics and archaeology: a critical view of an

interdisciplinary approach with reference to the prehistory of Northern Fennoscandia. Damm, Charlotte &

Saarikivi, Janne (eds.): Networks, interaction and emerging identities in Fennoscandia and beyond.

Mémoires de la Société Finno-Ougrienne 265. Helsinki: Société Finno-Ougrienne. 177–216.

SALMONS, JOE 1992: Northwest Indo-European vocabulary and substrate phonology.

Perspectives on Indo-European language, culture and religion: studies in honor of Edgar C.

Polomé. Vol. 2. Roger Pearson (ed.). Journal of Indo-European Studies. Monograph Series. 265–

279.

SAMMALLAHTI, PEKKA 1989: Sámi‒Suoma sátnegirji. Saamelais-suomalainen sanakirja.

Ohcejohka: Jorgaleaddji Oy.

― 1998: The Saami languages: an introduction. Kárásjohka: Davvi Girji

SEDOV = Седов, В. В. 1979: Этнический состав населения Новгородской земли. Финно-угры

и славяне. Ленинград. 74–80.

SIMINA = Симина, Г. Я. 1980: Географические названия (по материалам письменных

памятников и современной топонимики Пинежья). АН СССР. Географическое обшество

СССР. Ленинград. Наука.

SMJ = Словарь марийского языка 1-10. Йошкар-Ола. 1990–2005.

SPK = Suomalainen paikannimikirja 2007: Sirkka Paikkala (ed.). Jyväskylä: Karttakeskus,

Kotimaisten kielten tutkimuskeskus.

SSA = Suomen sanojen alkuperä I-III. 1992–2000: Itkonen, Erkki – Kulonen, Ulla-Maija (ed.).

Suomalaisen Kirjallisuuden Seuran Toimituksia 556, Kotimaisten kielten tutkimuskeskuksen

julkaisuja 62. Helsinki: Kotimaisten kielten tutkimuskeskus. Suomalaisen Kirjallisuuden Seura.

TAAVITSAINEN, JUSSI-PEKKA 1990: Ancient hillforts of Finland: problems of analysis, chronology

and interpretation with special reference to the hillfort of Kuhmoinen. Helsinki: Suomen

Muinaismuistoyhdistyksen aikakauskirja.

TKAČENKO =Tкаченко, О. В. 1985: M ерянский язык. Киев: АН Украйнской ССР. Наукова

думка.

― 2007: Исследования по мерянскому языку. Кострома.

Page 51: south-eastern contact area of finnic languages in the light of onomastics

TNA = Richard Collins (ed.) 1991: The Native Americans. Salamander Books Ltd.

TRET’JAKOV = Третьяков П. Н. 1966: Финно-угры, балты и славяне на Днепре и Волге. Москва.

Лениниград.

TVAURI, ANDRES 2007: Migrants or Natives? The Research History of Long Barrows in Russia

and Estonia in the 5th–10th Centuries. – Topics on the ethnic, linguistic and cultural making of the

Russian North. Slavica Helsingensia 32. Helsinki: Department of Slavonic and Baltic Languages

and Literatures at Helsinki University. 247–285.

UEW = Rédei, Károly (ed.) 1986–91: Uralisches etymologisches Wörterbuch. Budapest.

UINO, PIRJO 2006: The Background of the Early Medieval Finnic Population in the Region of the

Volkhov River: Archaeological Aspects. The Slavicization of the Russian North. Juhani

Nuorluoto (ed.). Slavica Helsingensia 27. Helsinki: Department of Slavonic and Baltic Languages

and Literatures at Helsinki University. 355–373.

VASIL’EV = Васильев, В. Л. 2001: Метонимическое калькирование архайских гидронимов в

Приильменье. Топонимия и диалектная лексика новгородской земли. Велики Новгород:

Министерство образования Российской Федерации. Новгородский государственный

университет имени Ярослава Мудрого. 6–13.

― 2005: Архаическая топонимия новгородской земли. Велики

Новгород: Новгородский Межрегиональный Институт Общественных Наук.

VASMER, MAX 1932–1936: Beiträge zur historischen Völkerkunde Osteuropas I-IV. Verlag der Akademie

der Wissenschaften. Berlin.

WRG = Vasmer, Max 1961–69: Wörterbuch der russischen Gewässernamen I-V. Berlin. 1961–1969.

Page 52: south-eastern contact area of finnic languages in the light of onomastics
Page 53: south-eastern contact area of finnic languages in the light of onomastics

SUSA/JSFOu 93, 2011

Pauli RAHKONEN (Lahti)

Finno-Ugrian hydronyms of the River Volkhov and Luga catchment areas

�� ���������� ��� � �����������������"�!"��� �� �������������������� �������� ������ ����� ������� ��� ����� ��!"����������������� ��$���� ��� ��� �"B��� �� � ��������� ������ ����� �����������!�� ���� ����������w����! ��� ��� �������������������������$��� ��� �������� �����! ��������� �������� �! ���� ������� �;�����������$�?����������B�?���� �� ��� ���� �!������� ������������;�����������"��B� ����� ���� ��� ������� ������of the formants of hydronyms, the distribution of Chud toponyms and the names of large !��� ������� �������� �9������ ������"�! � ��^�������������������$��� �� ���������������������� ������������ ����������� �������������$��� �!�������������������������� �������� ������ � ����� ���������;�����$

1. Preface

���������"���������"� ����� ���� ��"����"�������� ���� ��>�����������w���������-� ����� ��������� ��������� ��� � ����������"������ �� ������� ���� ����������� �� �����'++)&&++��Z$�?����������B��"����"�������� ���� ���"������������������� ����� ������ �! �� ����� �������� � �� ��$�?���� ���� �������� ���� ��������������"�������concentrated on the material assumed to be Finno-Ugrian.

����������������������� �� ����������� ����� �� ������"������������ ���$��� �������article, “The Linguistic Background of the Ancient Meshchera Tribe and Principal Areas of Settlement” �����!���� �����Finnisch-Ugrische Forschungen 60 (2009). In this article, the boundaries of the ancient settlements of the Meshchera tribe and their �����������!�������������� � ���� �$��"����� �������������� ����� �The South-Eastern Contact Field of the Finnic Languages. Its goal is primarily to describe the linguis-����� ������������� �;�������������� ����������B� �������;����<=������������� ������� �=�� ��>��������������� ���������� � �� �������� �� �=������ ����������� �����"$1 Furthermore, I attempt to trace as far as possible the languages and settlements of the vanished and poorly researched Finno-Ugrian tribes of the Upper Volkhov and Luga area.

?�� �� � �� � ��� ������ � ?� ���� ����� � ��� �� � ����������� ���� ������� ! � �� �� �;������������������������ ����������������� ��� ����� ���� �� ���"������ ���������chronicles. In Section 2, I present the topic of investigation and its history. Section ,B������� ��������� � ������ �����B�������� �������! ���� ��� ���!����� ������"����� �!�� �������������� ������������ ������ ������B���������� �� � �������� ����-

&� ;����������� ��������������������������������w�������B�^�������B�>�� B�;������B�@�� ����B����� �����B�w�� �����> ��$�;����<=������� � �������� �=������������� �������� � �� �������������" �B���������������� �����������"������ �� ����� �� ���������"������ �������� ������"$�ª ���� �?���� ������ �������������I��� ������������������� �=�����������<������� ���&~CC��?���� ������ ������� ��������"���� ��$

Page 54: south-eastern contact area of finnic languages in the light of onomastics

206� ������ �

������ �$�?��� ������'��� �� � ����������������������� ��������� ���"�;������������ �-�� ������!� �;�������"����"������w ����������������������!�����$ In Section 5, I analyse the (topo)formants of the Finno-Ugrian hydronyms in Novgorod oblast. In � �������B�?� ����� ��� ��������«Ì¬�����«š¬���� �����;������������� �B���� ����� ;����<=�������"����"��� ��� �� � � � ����� �� ���������"������� ��������«h¬� �"������ ����Finnic.2�?��� ������(�?� ����� ��� � �����"��$�;�����"B����� ������C�?B������� � �� ��B� ����� � �� � �"����"��� ��� �� � 9����� �� �$� �� � 9����� � ����� ��� ����� �� ! � ������� ���^�������������������$�?������������������ ������! ����� �� �������� ������ ���^��������B�������������! �����!� ������ ������"�������� �9������ ����$��"�conclusions are presented in Section 9.

?�� �"� �������������� ��� �� � �����"��B� �������� ��� �� ���� ����� ���� �� ����"������B�?��������� �� ��������������� �=$�$�ª��������# ������������ ���ª#��������� � 9 ���� ��� ������� � ��� # ��������� ��� �� ���� ª������� ��������� =� � �9�#������� �� � �� ��������� ����� ��� ���������� � �� ������� �� ��� �"� ���� � ������ B� $�$������$�|� � �B������� ���� ���� ������������������ ������������������ B����linguistic reasons demand it.

2. Research questions and research history

?���������� ��������� � ���������� ��! � ���� �=�� ��>���������w�� �9 ��������populated by Finno-Ugrian peoples until their russification in the Late Middle Ages. |� � �B������ ���� ����������! ����� ������� ��� �������������������� �� � ����-� ������� ��� �$�^���������������� !�� ����������"�! ������� ������!"������ ��������$�For this reason, there has been no deep linguistic analysis. Usually the research has ! ��!�� �����"������ ���� ��������� �!��� ������� �������� � �����! �;����<=�����B�such as the lakes 9�¦��#(D!���ó�#(D(, 9�¦�ÈD#�KD)���óÈD)�KD)�and the river Msta (e.g. ?������&~C`��&(��=����*++���,`~�������� ��*++*��*,*)*,,�$�� ��������� ��� ���� �southern boundaries of Finno-Ugrian toponyms as running alongside the northern side of the river Daugava (~ Zapadnaya Dvina) from Livonia to the Kaluga region ��"�!�����&~~(��'B�;��$�&��������������� ������ �����*�$

Although not only Sedov, but also such scholars as Popov (1981) and Vasilyev (2005: 19) and others have noted the Finno-Ugrian layer of toponyms, I have not heard �����"���� ��� ��� �����"��������������� ��� ���������;����<=������������������������� ������"����������! ����$�������������������� ���� �������!�"���� � �� ����������"���������������������B��������_������������ ������"������� �� �������� � $�>����" ���*++`���������� ������ ��� �"�������� ���������������"��$�?�������������������!-lications include Popov’s Iz istorii finno-ugorskikh narodnostey SSSR (1947), Sedov’s ������ � �^����� ���"� ������� ��� � ��"�� �����������"� _ ����� ��� �� � !���� Finno-Ugry i Slavyane (1979), Tretyakov’s ¡�!!9�»K)���¤�#N����È#����!D�!��Û!DW)D����9#KD�(1966) and Ageyeva’s Gidronimiya Russkogo Severo-Zapada kak istochnik kulturno-

*� ;��� ����� B������ �@�� �����!���������;�������� �������š �����B�!���������� ������"��Âs ¬ š).

Page 55: south-eastern contact area of finnic languages in the light of onomastics

;����<=�������"����"�������� ���� ��>�����������w���������� ����� ������������*+(

istoricheskoy informatsii (1989). In Finnish circles, no thorough study of Finno-Ugrian ��!����� ������"�������� ��� ������! ��� ����� ����������$��� � ����� ���� ����� �-eral assumption that the Chudes belonged to the Finnic linguistic group and lived east of Lake Peipus on the upper reaches of the rivers Luga and Volkhov, mostly in the area ������ �������������!����$�������� �����!�� ��������� ������������������� ��������� �-�� ���������������� ���������������#�������&~~(��&`+)&(&����������� ����� ����� �$

In this study I have, utilizing the discipline of onomastics, endeavoured espe-�����"�������� ��� ���� � ����������������!��������������� �;����<=������������������������� ���� �!��� ������� ������������� �$�?������������� !�� �� �� ���� ������"���confirm a Finnic origin for the Novgorodian Chudes as claimed in earlier literature, �������� "�������B������� �������������� �������� �� ������������������������� �������� ������"���� � �����$����?���� ���� ��"� ������_ �B��� �������������� ����� �� � �a Finnic tribe has been based practically upon only the three hydronyms Ilmen, Seliger and Msta. ;������ ������������ ��������� ����"B��� �����������! ��������� ��!"��� ������������������� � ������!��������������� �w����ª����������� ����;�����$

2.1. Chudes in the research frame

Previous ethnohistorical research on the Novgorodian Land has concentrated espe-�����"���� �� ����� ��� ����� �� ��� �� � ���� ����������� �������� �$3������#�������(1997: 151, 161) has argued that the ethnonym �{%0�D� spread from the original �������������� ����������� ������$�| �� ������������� � �� ���������!� ����������-�������� �� ����������� �� ����� �� ��� �� ������ ���� �� ���� �� � ������ ������"����the area around the lakes Chudskoye ozero ~ Peipus and Ilmen. No doubt, these are ��� ����"��������� ������������ ����!� �$��� ������������� �������� ����� �����#������I��!���������� �����������"�������"������ �� � �������!���� ���������� ���� �� ���� ���$

�"�!����B��������B���� ������� ����������! � ���� ����� �����������B�������������� ��� �������������� �����!�"��� ��� ������������ ��� ���� $��"�!������&~~(��~)&`������������"�� �� � ������ ������������ ����������������������� �*+�� century. His conclusion is that almost all of the Finno-Ugrian nations that the Slavs encountered � �� ������� ���������� � � ������� �"� ���� �� ���� �� ��!��$� &~~(�� ~B� ������� �$�%��� ���������������� ���� ��������������������� ���� ��9�� ���� ��������������� ����oblast and claims the present population to be partly descendants of the Chudes. There ������ ��� ���� � ������"������� ���� �� �� �����! ����� ������������B�� �������information). Supposedly, in that area they may be the descendants of the so-called ����� �� ! ����� �� � � ��� ��� ������ ²�������� 2�^�?�<��X� <���], though the chroni-�� ���������������� � ��������� ������ ���w���������&~~'��&+��9��w�&~�`�$�� � ����;������ ���! ����� �! ������ �� �� ���! � �� ����� ���>�� ��%��������&~,`���}���� �

3 There are numerous mentions of the Chudes also in the folklore of different districts and ethnic groups. Due to a lack of space, I have not broached this subject in the present article.

Page 56: south-eastern contact area of finnic languages in the light of onomastics

208� ������ �

&~`'��?���� ��&~�&�B�> ����ª�!�����&~'(�B� ��������������� �&~�*�������� ��������;�������������������&~`��$���� �������������! ����������� ��������� � � ������-tions. Therefore, in this study I have used the term “Novgorodian Chudes” in order ����� ���"��� ��� �"����� ����� �������� �������"������ ���� ��� ��� ������� ���� ��>�����������w���������� ����� ������ � �� ����� ������� � ���"��������� �$

2.2. Finnic anthroponyms of the Novgorodian Birchbark Documents

According to Saarikivi (2007: 243–244), the Finnic anthroponyms of the Novgorodian Birchbark Documents mainly resemble the medieval names in the Karelian Isthmus and Ingria. It is important to note that the anthroponyms of these birchbark documents have �������������� ����������^����������� �$� ?�� �� ����� �� � ���"� � � �������������"����� �������� � ��������B���� ����������"������! � �� �� �$�?������������� ����"������in the oldest stratum of the documents (ca 1000–1125 AD), no Finnic anthroponyms �� � ��������� ���� ��!��$� *++(��*'&�$������ �������B��� � �B� ��� ��� ������"� �����B� !��������"� ������ ��� � ������� ����� �� ����������������� �� � ������ � ������"� ��;���������! $��� ������ ����� � �� ��!"�#�Ã�������&~~(��&`'�B�������� ���� ���������������administrative language does not mention either the Land of the Chudes or the Chudes �����������B� ���������������� ��� �� � � ������"������������� ��� ������ �� ��w������� �� �Chudes”. One must bear in mind that in the birchbark documents, the ethnonym in question is frequently represented (Janne Saarikivi, personal information).

"%`%�}�,?���������:�@�'��������������������&�'��������

Archaeologists have also studied the Finno-Ugrian ethnohistory of the area to some �� ��$�=��������ú����������� ����� ������� ���<���� ��>������������� �����(++)400 BC). The population of this culture has been understood as a group that spoke 9����<;�������ú��������*++���&'+)&'&��=����*++���,�*�$��"�!����B��������B�������� ��to determine the boundaries of the ancient Vote and Ingrian settlements during the � �� ������ ����"�!�����&~~(��'B�;��$�&������*B�;��$�&C�$��� �!��� ������� ���� ��� -� ����� ����������� ������� �������� �w� ��w��������� ���� ��������$��� ������ ���!������"���� �� �w����ª����������� � ��� ����� �� �������"� ��������� ��$��� � ����� ���boundary of transparently Finnic hydronyms (see Section 4) is also placed rather close to these lines. (See Map 1.)

When studying the history of the Chudes by utilizing archaeological methods, �� � � ������ �� ������ ����� ������ � ���� ���� �����!����� �� �� �� ����� ����"B� ��� ����� ���������������� B���� ���� ����� ������������������½4 This question has produced

'� ?��������������!� ������ ������������ ������������ ��������!\ �������� �� ��� ������ � $�?����������"����� �that any language and certain features of a local material culture together usually form ethnic identities. �� �� � ���������� �� ��������� ����"���������!����"����� ��� ����� ���!�"���������!� ������������������ �-logical material really can serve as an ethnic marker. Such material can supposedly be found.

Page 57: south-eastern contact area of finnic languages in the light of onomastics

;����<=�������"����"�������� ���� ��>�����������w���������� ����� ������������*+~

� � ����������������������$�;��� ����� B����� ����������*++(�������������� ���������-����������� �����������!����������� �������������������������������� ������������$������!� ��� �����B��� � �$�X������������� �� ������������� �������� ���� ���� ������ �����"�! ½�#�� ��������� � ���� ���� � � �� ������� ����� ������� ��������� ���� ����� �� �������� �9������������������� �����B� ���� ���� �����!� � ���������������� � $��� �! ����������������������� ���� ���� �������! ��� � ���� ������������! � ��the Slavs and the Finnic tribes or the Chudes. These supposedly occurred around 400 AD (Kallio 2006: 157). After 1050 AD the chronicles cease to mention the Chudes. ?����������!� �������� �� ����������������� ��� ����������� ����� ����� ���������� ����������� ������ ��������� ���� �� ������������� � ��� ��$������������� ���������� � ������������������������! ���������� � ��B��������������� ������� ���� ��������������������"����� ����������$

2.3.1. The Long Barrow Culture

There has been heavy disagreement about the ethnic background of the so-called long !�������kurgans) and sopka graves.5 The former are found in the Pskov–Novgorod–���� ���)��� ����������� ����������*++(����������� ����� ����� ��� �����*�$��� � ���� �������������`���� ����"��Z����� �! �� ������ �� �� �����"������ �9������ �������������*++(��*`,�$�> �"� ���"���� ���������� �w����ª����������� ��`�� century AD) ������������������� ���� ����������� �B������ �=�� ��>��������� ���� ��!"�ú���������*++���&'`�$�w����!��������� ������! ��������������� ����� �������� �� �=�� ��Z�� � �B������ �9��������� ������� �=�� ��Z��������������^����w��������������*++(��*�&B�*'(�$�w�����&~(,��&+&���������� ���� �9�������������!������������ ����� ��� ������������! �;�����$�?�� ���"���������� � ����B������������ ���������������! ����-� �� �������� ���������������� ��������@������ ����� ��"�����&~'&���� �"�����&~`,�������������&~`+��� ����&~�+�$

��� �� � ���� ������ �! ���� ��� ��������� ����� ������������� �w����ª����������� �����ª���������! ���w"���������&~����&,+)&,&��&~�C��*+)**�������"��&~+,��#�� �&~,+��� ������ú��������*++���&'������������ ����� ����� �$��� �w����ª�����Culture seemingly spread to the Polotsk and Smolensk regions and further to the ��� ��������������� ���� ��Z������$�ª�������� �� ��������� ����� � ����� ��������������� �������� ��������� ���������� ������ �&&�� century AD. The Primary Chronicle, or Povest vremennykh let [PVL] tells of a tribe called Golyad [~ East Galindies] �w���������&~~'��&+`�$�@�������������������*++(��&'C���� � ���������� � B������ ����������B��� ��� ������� �ª������ ��� ���� ��������@����������� ���� �����������'����������� ��� ����������������`��)(���� ����� ���Z�$��� �!������"�! � ���� �ª����������� �;����<=����������������� �����������������"������� ��!�� <� ����� ���� �-entation of Sedov. The Baltic area also included the environs of Polotsk and Smolensk, ���������� � ������ ����� �$�w����!�������� ���������� �� � �������������� ��$�

5 The question of the sopka graves is so controversial that there is no possibility to treat this subject in this article.

Page 58: south-eastern contact area of finnic languages in the light of onomastics

210� ������ �

�� ����"�ª���������! ��������� ������� ������ ������ ������ ���� ��Z������� � ��� �Latgalians. Kriiska and Tvauri (2007: 193) report that after the Age of Migrations (5th–6th � ����� ���Z���� "�� ��� ������������� ���;����<=����������������� � �� ����������w������������������^�������������� ��������� �� �� �$����������"�� �������� �w����ª����������� ���������������������ª���������! �$�����������������B��� ��� ��later became Finnic (Machinskiy 1990: 116–119). Slavs undoubtedly began to move ����� ��� ������� �w����ª����������� ������ �! ������������� �� ��������������� �������millennium at the latest.

Map 1%�W?������'�����?�����?�,�����������:�;���z������������ �������������&�'����@�'��������������Z:��������=������$^^{��_��;��%�$�����"��;��%�$�\%�W?�����,�����������:��?��Chud-toponyms and the southern boundary of Finnic hydronyms (see also Map 11).

Narva

Luga

Msta

Svir’

SyasNeva

Ilmen

Lovat

St. Petersburg

Vyborg

Novgorod

Pskov

Tikhvin

Ladoga

Chudskoyeozero

Chudovo

V o t e I n g r i a n s

Population of the Long Barrow Culture

V e p s

? Chudes

kkoooskskkk eeeeeeeeeeyyyyyeeyyeeyyyyoyoyyoyyyeeoo

yyyyyy? Chudes

Volkhov

Vote (Ryabinin 1997: 4)

Ingrians (ibid. 1997: 62)

Chud-toponyms

the southern boundary of Finnic hydronymsthe boundary of the LongBarrow Culture (ibid. 1997: 17)

Page 59: south-eastern contact area of finnic languages in the light of onomastics

;����<=�������"����"�������� ���� ��>�����������w���������� ����� ������������*&&

Map 2. The boundary of Finno-Ugrian and Baltic tribes in the Age of Migrations (Kriiska & W'�����"##{��$_�\%

2.3.2. Dyakovo Culture (9th century BC–7th century AD)

���"������ ��������������� ���� ��� ��� ������������������ �! ��� ��� ��!"�!����Baltic and Finno-Ugrian tribes during the Late Dyakovo Culture (3th–7th centuries �Z�������� �w����ª����������� ��`��)&+���� ����� ���Z���� ��"�!�����&~~(��&`&����������� �� ��� ����� �$���� ��"� ��� �� �^���"� ?������ B� �� �Z�� � �<Z����������� �(called ��X����^�� ��v���?����� ���������������� � ������� ������� ������� � ���� �$�?���� � �� ����� �B��� ���� ���������� �������� �������� �� ��������"���������ª������������� �������� ������ �����B���������� �=�� ��Z��������� � ������� ������� �������� �� ������ �� ���� �� �����������Z"������������ B�������� �������"������� � ��;����<=�������ú ���������*++&�*`)*(��@����� �����*++&��*C)*~�$�?���� ������ �-����������� ����ú�!�������� ����9����B������!�������� ������������!\ ��������B�������-������������"������*++&��,~�B�������� ���� ���� ��������! � ���� �w����ª����������� ������� �w�� �Z"������������ $���������*++(��*`*)*`'���������� ���!������ ����� ������ ��� �� � ����� ��������� ��� ����� ��� ����������� ��� 9����� ����� � ���� �� �Z"������������ $�|� � �B��� �Z"������������ ��� ������*�����&*�B�������!� �-�����! ���� ��� �� ����������������!������� ��������������$�?���� ���� ����� ��� � � ������

Laatokka

Ääninen

Svir

Sukhona

Dnieper

Volga

Oka

Vjatka

Vychegda

Volkhov

Sura

Unþa

Vetluga

Pietari

Ryazan

KazanNiþnij-Novgorod

Mari-El

FINLAND

St. Petersburg

the area of the Long Barrow Culture

the boundary of Baltic and Finno-Ugrictribes in the MigrationAge (Kriiska & Tvauri2007: 148)

the area of theDyakovo Culture(Patrushev 2000: 90)

Page 60: south-eastern contact area of finnic languages in the light of onomastics

212� ������ �

��������������B������<� �������� �� $�$���_ �� ����&~('B�;��$�'C��������� ���� ������������ ���� �=�� ��>��������������� ��� $�$�9������ ��*+++��~+����������&~~~��``���� �"�����&~����&'`)&`,��#��"������&~�(��(`�$� ?�� �� ��� ���� � ��� ���� ��B�a considerable part of the Novgorodian Chudes most likely lived under the influence of the Upper-Volgaic Late Dyakovo Culture.

2.3.3. Medieval Novgorod

�� � ���� ��� ����� ��������� ��� ����� ��� �� � ��� � ��� �"�������B� �� � �� � � ����� ���Novgorod, has been dated to around 850 AD and the earliest material of Novgorod ��� �������������~*`)~`+��Z��=����*++���,`��$��� � � ���� ������!��!����� ��Nerev|skiy konets and a street called Chudintsevaya ulitsa in the late medieval Novgorod (ibid. 2006: 368).6�?���� �=�� ��>������� �B��� ����� ��������������"��������D)D��I�����ó!D)�D��4�ó(D)�D��are linked to the Meryans (Ahlqvist 1999: 627).

9 ��������������� �����!������������� ������������ ���!��!����� � ����"�@�� ��$��� "� � ����������� ������� �&,�������&'�� centuries, and are commonly thought to have been made by Chudes (Uino 1997: 191, Fig. 6:14.). Altogether at least 64 horse-motif pendants have been found (ibid. 1997: 192 reference to Sedova 1981: *C),'���"�!�����&~C&�$��� ��������������� ������!������� �� �"������������� �;����<Ugrian cultures of the Oka and Upper Volga area. A figure of a horse-shaped pendant �� � �� ��!"��"�!������&~~(��&C*B�;��$�'(B��!\ ���&+������! ���� �������� ����� $������� �������������������� �=������� ���������� �=�� ��>������� �B����� ������ ���� �called Chudskoy Stan.7 It belongs to the group V according to the classification of �"�!����B��������� �������������� ���������� ��$��� �=������� ������! ����������� ��"� �Ç?ÇB�!����� �������������� �������! ���������"� �ÇÇ���"�!�����&~C&��@�������nakhodok, numbers 639–642).

��������������"�!����B��� �=�����<�"� ����� �� ���������� �! �������� �� -�����"������ �@��������>�������������� ���������! � ��w�� �w������������ ��$�|��� �� ������������ ��������������"� ���� �! ������������������ ������< ������-� ������� �������������w������"�!�����&~~(��'~B�;��$�&,$�$�?�������� ����"�������� �type represented by the Uglich pendant is not common in the Meryan core areas. ����������"B��"�!������&~~(��&C~)&C&������� ���� � ���������������� �! ����� �by some subgroup, different from the actual Meryans. Proper Meryan horse-pendants � �� � ����� ��"� �Ç>??����������������"�!������������ ������� �� �����"������ ������-��"������ ���� ��� ���²����� �@�"�_��������� ����� �´���� ����������� ������������������� �����������������������*++���*((�$�����B�Nerevskiy Konets and Chudintsevaya ulitsa ��"B���� �B�! ����� �� �������� ����� �B��������������� �������� ���� ����-dition of the Upper-Volgaic art of horse-shaped pendants in Novgorod as late as the 14th century AD.

6 From an anthroponym Chudin ­������ I$7 Stan ������������������������������� �� ��$

Page 61: south-eastern contact area of finnic languages in the light of onomastics

;����<=�������"����"�������� ���� ��>�����������w���������� ����� ������������*&,

2.4. The old Russian chronicles

�� ����� ������������������� ��� ����! ����"� ������������B� $�$����� �B�� �"���B��������B� ��$�X� ��?���� �������� �� �� � ������� ����������������������������� �B��� "���� � ��� �� �����"����!������� �������� �� ���!����"������ � ���������������-��� ������!"��� ��������� �$�?��� ������� �� �"���������������� �� ��������� ��!"�the Povest vremennykh let (PVL) of Mordvins, Cheremis, Livonians, Kurians and Zhemgalians are taken as reliable, but the mentions of Chudes and Meryans have been questioned only because they have no continuous presence up to modern times. Of ����� ��� �9>wB���� ���������� ����������� ������ � ���B����!��� ��� ��� ����!���� $�$��� ����� �������������� �9��"���������� ��������� �� ��������������w����*++���*`(�$�Nonetheless, the description of the ethnic groups seems reliable because these groups �� ��� � �� ������� ����� ���� �������������� �$�9 ��� ������������� ������� ������������� ��� �� ����� ������� ������������� ���²��������)�� �)ª ��_ ����� �´�8 <���, ^X �� || [Volga–Oka area]:��X�v,�������,�<X�X�� �,�����^�� ))�[north-eastern area]: �����,� �X<X��� || [Baltic area]:� v��� �ú���J� >�� �� � � ! ���B� ?�^�� (Lithuania), 2�����?��(Latvian Zhemgals),���� ��(Latvian Kurians),��X����������������ª������group),�?����(Livonians) (PVL). On these grounds, my opinion is that there is no rea-����������!���� �� ��� ���� �� ������ ��������������!"��� ����������Chude, Merya and Muroma. This is proven also by the ethnonymic toponyms that have been preserved ��������� ������ ���� �! ���� ������(������������*++�!��`*�$

9>w�� ����! ���� � ���"����� ������ ������������� ������ �������������� ����� �� � � ���� � ���� �� ��� ���������� �� ��� �������� �������"� ���������� ������_ �� !"� �� �princes of Kiev as a part of the common army (Lihatshov 1994: 20,24). At a later ���� B������9>w����� ������� �" ���&+,+B��� � ���������������������� ��������������$���� ������� � ����� ��������ú��" ��J����������^����^��������������� ����!��$�&~~'��~��$��� � ����� ����"���� �! �� �����< ��� ���^��������B� �� � ��� ����������� �� ���� ��� $��������"� ��� �B� ��� �� �" ���&+'*B� �� � �������������"���������������� �ú������!��$�&~~'��~~�$�?��������� ��� ���� �ú�������! ������ �����!������������ �����ú��!����J����� ����@����� ���� ����B������������ � �� ��� � � �>�� �B����� �� ����� ������� �^��������$��� � ������������ ������ �� ����� �������� � ����� ! �������������� �;����<=������$��� �� �����������! ���� ������! � �������������"�����paganism that is constantly reported by the PVL. A very typical story from the PVL � ��������������������! � �������������������������������������������� � ������� �year 1040 “in the Land of the Chudes” (Lihatshov 1994: 115). The story reflects the ���� � �� �! � �� �� ������������������ ��������� �� ���������������������"��� $�?����"���� B� �� ��������� ����� ����� ��� �������� �� ������� � ����������������� ����� ��� ��� ��$���� �� � ��B����� ������������ ��������� � ���"����� ������� ���������state, the migration of Slavs continued rather peacefully, leading to a gradual change ���������� �������� ����������������������� ����������� ���� �������� $

C� �� �!���� �������� ����������� ���� ��!"��� �������$�

Page 62: south-eastern contact area of finnic languages in the light of onomastics

214� ������ �

3. Research material and methods

?���� ����������?��� � ���� �����������������������������"B�! ���� ��� ������"���in the present study are very demanding and therefore valid methods are needed. The problem is first of all due to the lack of research history, and secondly to the fact that there is no successor of the language(s) behind the substrate names. The latter point especially makes it very difficult to find reliable etymologies.

3.1. Names under investigation

3.1.1. Material of toponyms

At first it must be mentioned that the object of this research are names of large bodies ����� �$�����������"����� �������"��� � �� ��! �� ���������� �������"������������et al. 2008: 122–125).9 As for microtoponyms, 71% of the toponyms of Kurhila vil-lage in Asikkala parish in Finland have disappeared over the course of 200 years. The ���������}����}������� ����������������������� � ������ �����C&;���!��$�*++C��&**)&*,�$�Therefore, it is reasonable to assume that only a very small amount of microtoponyms named by the Chudes some 500–1000 years ago can be preserved.

�� ���� ���� ���������� ���� ��>�����������w���������� ����� ������! �����-lected by choosing hydronyms from the maps Atlas Novgorodskaya oblast (ANO) 1: 200 000 and Obzorno-Geograficheskaya karta �w9�9��&�'++�+++��� �� � � �� ��$�In addition, I have utilized the material collected by Vasmer and published in his Wörterbuch der Russischen gewässernamen I–V (1961–1969). Toponyms collected from maps are problematic. Firstly, maps may contain mistakes. Secondly, most of �� �����������"�������! ������ �$�������"B����������������!� ����� �� �����������$��� �small amount of microtoponyms is compensated by the fact that the names of large !��� ������� ���������������������� �������"���� �������� � ��� ���� �� � �������������� ����������!��� ������� �$�^� ��������������� ��������������� ������ �� ��������� �� � ������� ��������! ���� �� ����!� B������������ ��� ��������������� ���������� ��not hinder achieving an adequate result.

3.1.2. Substrate vocabulary and toponyms

When researching the substrate names of any particular area, one must choose the ��� �������� �������$��� ��������� ����������� � ��� ��������� �������������� �����-�"��� �� � ��!����� � ��� �$�| � � ?� ���� ���� �������� �� � �� ��� �� ��� �� �� �������������� ������ � ��!����� � ��� �$����������� �*++���� &&)*`�� *++�!�� &`)`*�� �������� ������������!\ ��������������� �$�X� ��� ��������� ���!����� ���� ����������!����"����

~� �� �� ���­����������"�I������ ��� � �� ��� � ������������ ��������� ��!��� ������� �B���������-���"��� ���� �����������������"������� ������ ����B��� ���B�������!������$�

Page 63: south-eastern contact area of finnic languages in the light of onomastics

;����<=�������"����"�������� ���� ��>�����������w���������� ����� ������������*&`

�� �������������������� �B���� ��������*++'��`),'����������� ���� ����� ������ � �� ��!"����������&~~*��*�(���&������� ���� ������������������� ��� � ������ ����������-���� �����������������!����"� �������������������� ��*�� �� �����!����"���� ����-�"���������� ����� ������� �� �� ���� � ���!����� �������� ������"��� ����!� ��,��linguistic structures that are not typical in the dominant language are frequent in the ������'����� ���������� �������� ����� �� ��������! � ���� �������� ��������� ���������� �� ���������������������!����� �������� $�?���� ��� � ���� � �������������������� � ������� � ����� �������������� ������������������ �������� ���� ������ ��!����� �����!����"������������)� �"������"� ���� ��!����� ������)� ��� ��� � ��� �� ���� ���������terms, fishing, hunting, etc. (cf. Saarikivi 2006a: 39–41).

Kiviniemi has discussed the question of original languages reflected in the topo-nyms of Finland. According to him, toponyms can be studied by comparing topo-�"��������� ���������������"������������������� �������� ��������������� ��������� ���� ����������������"������� ��� � ��$�?��!������� ���� ����� ����� ����������������-�������������������� �������� ��������� ���� �� ������������������!� ���@����� ���&~C+��,*+������ " ��*++&��&*,)&*��$����������������! �� � ������������������������ ������ ����� ��� ������"�������� �� � ������� �����"B�!���������� � ����"�������������"������"���������� ���� � ��� ���!����� �������� �������!�!�"����������� �$�|� � �B�����������������������B����� � ������� ���� ������! ����� ������������_������ ���� �������������� �������� �B�! ���� ��� ���!����� �������� ���"�����! �������� ���"������(Saarikivi 2006b: 16).

?���� ��� � ���� � �����?���� ������ ���� �� ���������@����� �����������������in order to select the corpus of toponyms. I have searched for toponyms alien to the ��������������� $�ª"������������� ������"������� ���!��������� ������� ������� �B�it is possible to outline the focus areas of different toponyms and name types. The areas of comparison are Tver and Yaroslavl oblasts and the Oka and Svir catchment �� ��$������� � �� ����� ������"����� ������� ��������������� ����;������������� � �� ������������@������������>��������!�����$��� �������� �������� ���� ������"�Mordvin and Finnic, as these are the most presumable cognate languages.

`%"%���D�,�����?����,��������,������:�,����

The starting-point of the research is that there are certain linguistic reasons to believe that a name originates from the predecessors of the modern dominant population. The ������������ ��������"�! �� �����B����� �����������������$

`%"%$%���D�,�

X� ����� ������������� ������! ���������� ����������������� �����������������"���������"��B��� � ������"�������! ����� �� �����! ����� ����������!����� �������� $�?������������"�� ��"����� �����_ ������"��������!����� ���� �B����� ����� �! ���� ������������ ��������������� ���@����� ���&~~+��,C�� � ���������������$��������� ��

Page 64: south-eastern contact area of finnic languages in the light of onomastics

216� ������ �

look as obscure as proper substrate names. Old anthroponyms are especially difficult ������ ��$��� "�� ����������������� ��������� �!��� ������� �B�!������� ����� �����!� ������� ������� ��������� �����������������"��������� ��������� $�?��;���������������� ��� ���������"��� ������ � ���� ����� � Ikali, Hollo and ParoB� ����� ����� �� oikonyms Ikaalinen, Hollola and Parola are derived (NA). The global evidence pre-supposes that also in the present research area, there should be numerous toponyms � ��� ����������������"��$��� "��� ��������� �������� � �� ������� ������`������-��� ������� ���������-lya.

3.2.2. Phonetic points

Phonetic features may reveal a toponym as a substrate name. Saarikivi (2006b: &`��� � ���������������������� � ����������"��� ��������������������"��B���������Kukas|järvi, Kuukas|järvi, Kuukka «������K%{ID����Proto-Saami *I%IIð�­����I$�?������� ���� �������"������ ��� ���"�� � ��������!����� �������� $��� � ��� ����"��������� ����� �� ��� �� ����������� ��� �� �B� �������� �� ������������� �� � ��� ���Konshur ~ Konchur �#ª�*,&������Konchura ~ Konshura ~ Konshchura ~ Konsyera �#ª�&~C�$�The variants of the second syllable consonants Ì, š, š’, s’ [<, , °, �X�] point to a ���<����������������$�?���� �!������������ � �������! ���;����<=�������������� �ÂÄ�or a sibilant óÀ.

3.2.3. Structure of names

Matveyev (2001: 73–75) believes it is important to pay attention to those morpho-��������� �������� �����������! ������� � ��������� ���"��!����� ������� �� ��$�?�������� B����������������������� ��� �� �������� �� ��"������������������ � �����������-��"��$��� ��������� ����;����<=�����������"������ �����������������B������ �;�������terminology, are called a specific (Finn. määriteosa) and a generic (Finn. perusosa). ;��� ����� B����Jänis|järvi, jänis ­��� I�������� ����������järvi ­��� I���� � ���$��� �same structure is found also in other Finno-Ugrian languages, e.g. Mari Shem|yer «�*Šem|jer�­!�������� I����������In|erka «��¼D�D(ID�­!������ I��Â� �"�� Peche|khra «�óÚDÌD;'�)�/ä ­��� ���� I�����������*++���&��$�?�����������������"����"�! �!�� �����a noun construction, such as �X�� ²X�^X����­ª ������ �IB���������\ ���� ���������2X�� ²X�^XH�X�­ª ���w�� I$���� � ���� � � ��B��"���������;����<=�����������"��B��������� ���������� �������������������������"�� �$10 A generic is attached to the Finno-Ugrian �����ª���������������"�� ����� ��� ����� ������ ������ ����� �� $�$�Pää|järvi � � järvi ­��� I is a generic (Kiviniemi 1990: 106). Thus, any toponym in the research

&+� ;��� ����� B������ �@�� ������ ��!��������� ���������; � ������B����������� ��������������� �;����<Ugrian system commonly occurs: Vedl|ozero, Syam|ozero, etc. These are partial translations from the originally Finno-Ugrian names Viel|järvi, Säämä|järvi.

Page 65: south-eastern contact area of finnic languages in the light of onomastics

;����<=�������"����"�������� ���� ��>�����������w���������� ����� ������������*&(

�� ���������������������������������������� �! ���������� ����������� ������­��� I����­��� �I�� $�$�����D), -khra, -yuga) is most likely of Finno-Ugrian origin.

?������!�� ��"� ��������� �� ��������"����� �� �������� ��������� ���������"������������� ������� ��� � ��������� $���������������������� ���� �� ����� ��^��­!�� I��������:������ ­�������������I$�X� �� �� ������;����<=������ �����"��B����� " ��(2001: 188–248) also uses the term �XX�������­� � �������I������������"�� � ������� � ����$�ª ���� ��� ��� � ���� � ��������� �����"����"������������B�?���� �������������� ��������!� �� ��� ���������� ��������"������� � �� ��$��� �� ���formant is espe-cially useful. ;���������� ����� �� ��������stem of a name. |� � �B��� �� ����spe-cific and generic �� �����;�������� ��������"��� ��� � ��!� � ��� ����������� ������;����<=��������!����� ���� �B������������������� ���������­!�� I�����­� � �������I$

Saarikivi (2006b: 18) has defined formants as phonotactic types of single-mor-pheme opaque toponyms having a characteristic feature that makes it possible to ��� ��������� �������������� ���� $���� ����� ������ �� ���������������"����"��Kolo|kshaB�� � �kolo- ½­����I������ ��� ������� ��"����"������<ksha the formant. In the background of formants there are generics and derivational affixes that have been obscured.

�� � ��� �� � �������� � �����������suffixes���������������������������"��B��������������� ������� ������������� �����������, ������ ���� ��������<�^/-X^�(an old geni-��� �B� ��$�=�����"B�!����������"�B����� ���� ������� ����������"���� � ��������������-���"��������$��������������� ���� ���������� �� ������ ��������"����������"������non-Slavic origin. In using the term suffix������������<������� � � � ���B�?����������this respect Irma Mullonen’s terminology (Mullonen 2002: 69–105).

�� � � ��"� ����� ��������B� � � ����B� ������ �� ���� � ����������� ����� �� ��� �!������� �� �� � ��!������� ���� ����� ��� � ��� $� =����!� ��"B� ���"� ��������� � ����������"�� ���������������� �$�������� ����� ������ ���� �Päijä|nne in Finland. The � ������������������<!!D���ó�!ND�I��occurs in Finnish in such geographical terms as syvä|nne ­� ���� ���������� ����� �I�«�syvä ­� �IB�ala|nne ­����� �I�«�ala ­��IB�ylä|nne ­� �����I�«�ylä ­�!�� IB�paina|nne ­� �� �����B������I�«�painaa ­���� �� ��I$����������� ��� ���������I�� � ��������B� ��� ��� �����!� � ��� ���� � ����� � ����������� ����� ����� �! ��� ���������B�! ���� ��� "� ��� ���������� � �����������"������� ������������ � ��������� � ������ ��� �� � � ����������� ������ ���� ! �� �!���� �$� ��� � ����������� ���� �� ��!"�������� ��������� ����������������"�� � ��������$��%�N)�9���ó�%�N)9;��­!�����!����I���������� ����$�*++C��&&������Laut|ua «�ÂLaut|oja ­�����!����I���}��}� ��*++,��&C�)&C(���;�������oja ­!����I$�?������������������� �� ����������!���� ��� ��������� ������������ ���������������������� B��� � ������������ ������������� ������in the background there is a toponym originating from a substrate language. In the �� � ��� ���� �� � � ���� �� �B� �� �����B� � � ���� ���� ������� are used in discussing ;����<=�����������"��$�?����������B��� �� ��������� ����� ��� ����������� � � ������������������������ ������ �����$

Page 66: south-eastern contact area of finnic languages in the light of onomastics

218� ������ �

3.3. Toponyms and the language in the background

�����������������"������! � ����� ������! ��� �� ��� ������������� ������ ����� �been evaluated and a large stratum of presumable toponyms of substrate origin are � � �� �� ��� �� � ��� � �� �$� ����� ���� �� � � �� ������B� �� � ����� ���������������"������������� �! ��������������������������� �������� ������"���! ����$�?����� �����tackle this question, various scholars have utilized methods that are introduced in the ��������$

3.3.1. Formants connected with different types of toponyms and areal distribution

�����"�������! ��������� ������"� ��!�� �B����� ����� B������ ������������������� ����$�*++C��,~�$������� �B������������ ����� �� �� �����"������ ��"����"������ �� ���� ������B������� ���� ���������!������������� � ����"� ��������� �����������"������one of her methods in order to study substrate names. Accordingly, she has paid much attention to structural characteristics of toponyms. This usually means analysis of for-mants (Mullonen 2002: 183). In the present research, areal distribution and analysis ���������������"����� ������ ���� ����� �� ������`�$�?���� ��� �������� ������������a toponym refer to the same areal direction, the toponym presumably belongs to the ���� ��������������������"� ��������������"�� �� � �� �$�;������������� � ������� �important also because they reflect in many cases different phases of a language shift (Mullonen 2002: 85–96).11

3.3.2. Semantic typology

It is very important to define the most common types and motifs of naming. It is pos-sible to accomplish this by comparing research of semantic typology ���� �� �����������"��� ��� �� ��!����� � ������� � ����������� *++�!�� &����������� �� ��$� *++C�� &&`�$�One useful method for defining an etymology is to utilize semantic opposites such as !��)����� B���� �)�� �B�!����)��� ������ " ��*++&��C`�������� ��*++~��&�~)&(C�$

3.3.3. Comparative linguistic study

���������������"��������� ��� ����!� ���!����� �������� ����� �"���������������� ��� � �������"B�! ���� ��� �������� ������������"�������$��� � ����������������!����"������there are several substrate languages. A presumption might lead to a vicious circle and subjective study. For these reasons, the starting point in the present research is more complicated than e.g. in Pitkänen’s (1985) studies concerning the Finnish toponyms

11� ?����� ���������������������������� ��<����� ���������� ���������������"������������� � ���������� ���see Sections 3.3.4 and 3.3.5.

Page 67: south-eastern contact area of finnic languages in the light of onomastics

;����<=�������"����"�������� ���� ��>�����������w���������� ����� ������������*&~

����� ������������� ������������� �� ����<�� ������� ��� � �����" �B�������������I���*++�!������"����� �������� �;��������!����� ������"�������� ���� ��9�� ���� ����$����� ���������"B��� ������"������������������������ ���� ��������� �� ����� ��!"������� ���*++*��**C)*~+������! ������� �������� ���� ���������������� ������������ �9����<������� ���!�"���������� ������� �!���������� � �������� �$�������� �researchers mentioned above had a relatively clear standard of comparison, making the etymologies remarkably more reliable. The task becomes much more complicated � ���� ���!����� �������� ���� ��������������� ��������"���� ������ ������� ����$��� ��� �������� ����������������� ����� �����"��������������� ������������ ��$������ ���� ������B��� ��������������! �� ������������ ���������������*++'������ ��������!����� � �����"��������� ��� �� ������� ��B�! ���� � ��� �������� � �� � ��������������������������$������� ����B�� �������� ��������� � ������������������ � ������"��B��������������� ���� ���!� �� ������������� � ���������������� $

3.3.4. Productivity of the types of toponyms

�� ���������� �I��� ������ ��� ��� ����� ������������"���� �"� ����� �����"��$�;��� ����� ��� ���������<la of old Finnic oikonyms has changed into the Slavic formant -ichi ������� ��*++*��&C,�$������� ������������� ����������! � ��;���������! ������Slavs. In the Novgorod Land it is not possible to enter deeply into the productiv-��"������� �����������"��B�! ���� ��� ��� ������� ���������������� ����� ���"������there is insufficient documentary material of hydronyms originating from substrate ������� ���$��������!\ �������! ���� �� �������� � �� ������� ������`���� ���� ����� �of formant -lya.

3.3.5. Partial translation

?����� ��<����������� ��� �������� �� ������ �������������� ���������� ��� ���� �� � ����� ��� ��� �� ���� �� � ���� ����� �� � ��� �� ��� ��� ������� B� !��� � �� � �� -������������ ���������������������������� ������ ������"������ ������������� $���������� ���)����� ���������������?���?����­� ��<����� I�!"� $�$������� ��)�����! ����� �� ������������"������� ������ ������� �� ��!�������@�� ������������� ��� ������� ������ ������ ��� �� ��� $�$� ;������ Hiim|d’ogi ¬� �������� ���)�X��� ­�� � ��� �� |���I�(Mullonen 2002: 105–106).

If an original generic can no longer be recognized as a generic, the result may be an epexegesis$��������� ��� � ����������������� ��� ������ � ��� �� �� ���� �������� � ��� �� �"��B� �� �����"� ��� �� � � ����� ��� ���� ���!����"� �� � ��� �� �������� ���#�',)'C�B�� � ����������������"����"�������!0)'();')�,�È��)'();')�,���#)�();')�, and Ú�0)�();')�����������#�'')'`�$�?��� ���������� ������"����� � �� �� ���������� �-ent Finno-Ugrian (or Finnic) layers. The speakers of the latter stratum (Veps) seem-ingly did not understand the element -�(�/-'(�����! ���� � ����½«�Âjäri ­��� I��������-��� ���� ���� järv�������� ������������� $

Page 68: south-eastern contact area of finnic languages in the light of onomastics

220� ������ �

One can assume that the more generics of a substrate language are represented in ��� ������ �B��� ������� ���� ��������������� ��� �� ����������!����� �������� ������������������ $�?����B��� ������ �������������� ��������������� ����������������������!�������������� ����� �"������������ ������B�������������� � �����<� ���!������������is presumable. During the process of the language shift, the bilingual population had ���� �� ��� � ���� �� � ���������������������� ������B�! ���� � �� ����������� ��-��������� �� � ����������������� ������$�ª"��� � �������� ����� ��B��� �� ���������finally obscured and generics became pure formants. This is the case e.g. in the upper ����� ������ ���� ������B�� � ��� ���������<dra, ���� �� ��������� ���«�Âjädra/ä ­��� I�B�����! ������ �"��� � �� ���� �� ������`B���������<dra, Map 7). Similarly �� ���� ������� ��������"������ ��������>����������� ��� �"��� � �� ���� ���������-khra ��������� ������ �������(�$�?������! �� ��� ��������� �����Â;'�)�/ä ­��� I������! ���� ������� ���!����� �������� ������ �� ������� �����"�� �"��"�������$��� ����������� �� ��!"��� �³R��lakes [Yakhr-] (see Ahlqvist 2006: 12).

3.3.6. Ethnonyms

^�����"��� ������� ! � ��� ����"� ��� �B� � �� ������� �� "� �� � ���!� �����$� ?�� ��� �������"���� ����������� ������� ���� ������"���� ���� �����"�� ����������� ��-���"�$�;��� ����� B�@�� ������� � �� �����;����������� � �����"��ruotši ­� � I������???�&+C�$� ?�� ����������������� ������������� ���������� �����"����������� �"�enough, their testimony increases remarkably. Also Matveyev (2001: 65–71) has introduced them as useful tools of onomastics. I have earlier used this method to some �� ���� ����"�������� ��� ��� ���� ��� ������ ��� � ���������� ���� ���� �������� �� ���������� ���� ������������� ��*++~��&�C)&(+B�����&�$

`%_%� ����������������������������������:��D��,����������

��� �� � �� �� �!�� B� ?� ��� � ����� �� ���"� �������� �� �������� ��� ���� � ��� �����B����� " �� ���� ���������� � �� ���� ������ �� � ������� ��� �"����"��$� ������ �� ����Ahlqvist took their starting point in smaller collection areas that they then broad- � ��������� �� ����� ����������� �� ����������$�;�������������B�?���� ��������� ���on previously gathered material or map names because my research area is very large.12�?�������� �� ��� ��� � �������"���� ������ ����>��� �I�� ���"�����Die Alten Bevölkerungsverhältnisse Russlands im Lichte der Sprachforschung (1941). In a study like this, phonetic matters become even more important. A study of comparative � � �������� �� ���� � ����� ����������"������������������� ��$���������"B����� " ���*++&B�*++'B�*++(������ ����� ������ � ����� ���������� ���������B�!���� ������������"�chose smaller subregions from among these large areas (ibid. 2004: 111–187).

&*� �����I��� � ������� ��������������� �­�� �����"������������!����� ������"������;������I��*++(������� ���� ����;������$

Page 69: south-eastern contact area of finnic languages in the light of onomastics

;����<=�������"����"�������� ���� ��>�����������w���������� ����� ������������**&

�� ��!\ ������ �� ��� � �������"� ��� ��� ����� � �����"���!�� ����� ������� ���-guages. Thus, many of the methods of defining etymology used by other research- ����� ����������B�������� ��� �!�� ����������������� ������ ���!�"�� ��� �������<languages. Because there is no continuation of those languages, one must choose as �� � �"���������� ��������� ������ ��������"� ������������ ���� �� � �� ����!� � ���� ���cognate languages and reconstructed proto-languages. One can assume that in most ��� ���� �! ���� �������� ���� � ��!"��� �;������������� �������������$������� � �� ����������������������! �� � �� �������� ��$

�� � ��� ���� ��������������������� ������"�������� �� �"����� ������ ��� ��!"����������������� ���������� �! ��� ��������� ������ �� ���!�"������ �������������� ���������������� �������"$������������� � $�$�ó;'�)�/ä ­��� IB�ó%{N����­� ����������B�!����dragging road over dry land’, ó!D)�D��­� �"��IB�*veksa ­��� ��! � ������!��� ����� ��IB�ó�#�D���­��� �IB��9#�9���­�� �IB�óD!����­!��IB�ó�'��'��­�����I�����������&~~(B�*++'B� *++��� ���� " �� *++��� &,,)*,,�� ������ �� *++*�� *&*)*&,B� *~&�� ������ ��*++~�� &(*)&C+�� ����� ���� *++(�� &&`)&&��� &~C`�$� ?�� ���� ��� �B� �����"��� ��� �� �� �"����� �����������! ������� ���������� ������������������� ���!�����$

�� ����� ������ ����������� ���������������� ��������� ��� ����������� ���!� �� ������������ �� � �"�����"���� ��� � ��!����� ���� �����������! ����� �� ��� $�$�kub-toponyms (Kubena� ��$������! ������� ����������$�����$����>��­!��B������I���#��&~(+�� ����9����<9 ������gu+ b ­!��B������I� �w"�����G�#��"�" ��&~~~�� C'�$���� ��� ����� ��������� ������������������<������� ������ ���B���������9;=�Âukti ­�����I��������������&~CC��`,��������������� ��� ������� ������»I{N���� can pre-����!�"�! �� ��� �$��������������� ��� �� ����������������� ����� ��$

�� ����!�!����"�������������������������� �� ������� ���������"��! ������������� �������������� �� ���"$�#��������������������������������������"���!�� ����������� ��������� ���� �������"�� ���������"����������������� ���������������� �$��� ������ ������� �� ������� ���������� ��� �� ���� � �;����<=������ ������� �� �� �spoken number at most around 50. Among these the most phonetically and topo-graphically reasonable alternatives can be found. Saarikivi (2004: 186–187) has presented the 20 most common Finnish specifics of lakes and 20 Saami specifics ��� �"����"��� ��� ;������� w������$��� � ����� �� ��� ��� ���������� �� � � ��� � ��� ����� � ����� �� �� �� ��������� ����������� ��� ��� � �� ��B�!��� ��������������� ������ ��������� �­������IB�­����IB�­���� IB�­!��IB�­� ���IB�­��"IB�­����¼�����IB�­��� IB�­���I$�?�� ��������B� � � ���� ;������� �� ������� �� � ­��� IB� ­!����IB� ­����� IB� ­�����IB� ­� �IB�­���� �IB�­������IB�­��� �IB�­����� IB�­�� �IB�­��� I�����������­!��� ���� �IB�­�����-_ �IB� ­���� �IB� ­���� �����!\ ��� ������������������ ����IB� ­���� �IB� ­� ������I�����different species of salmon.

����B����� ����� B��������� �������� ������������� ������"�������� �� � ������� ����������� ������"������!� ��� ��������� �����������! ������� �������� ��� ������� ��������� �� ���� �� � � ������ ­����� I$� ?�� �� � � �"��� � ����� � ��� �� !"� �� � ���������������� �B� ���"� �� � �����!� � �������� � ��� �������"� ������� �� � �"����"��� ���� �� �stem vyaz- ���� �� �������"������������������;����<=�����������"��$�������� ������be derived from an original *�'��'��­����� I$�����������������! �������������������B�e.g. Mordvin �DÅ�and Finnish �'{'���ó�'Ê'�­����� I������???�'(C�$�?����������B��� � �

Page 70: south-eastern contact area of finnic languages in the light of onomastics

222� ������ �

is topographic evidence for the etymology *�'��'��­����� I�������� ��*++~��&(`�$�?������� ����!�"����"�������!� ������������� ����� �� �������� �������������;����<Ugrian specifics, and for this reason it is possible to find a phonetically acceptable etymology if there is only a large enough quantity of toponyms. In order to discover �� �� � �����"���� �� ������������� ��B� ��� ��� �� ������ ��� ����� ��� ������� ���"� ���� �areal distribution of toponyms.

?����� ���� ����� ��������������������� �� ���������"������� ���� ��>������������� ����� ���������! ����� �� ������;���������=�� �<>��������������������� ������ ������� ������� ���½� �"��B�½��������$��� ����������"����� ��������� �����������some stems and specifics can phonetically be derived from both Finnic languages ����������� ��������B��������������������"��B� � ����� ������ ������������$������specifics or stems include ó�!0��/9�,�ó�#(���,�óI�*��� and *msta, commonly found in the Upper Volga and Oka area. In such cases formants, core areas of the names and an ��!� ���!� ��� ��������������������� ���� ����� ����� ������������ �� ��� ��������������������� � ������� ������������"�������� ������! ����$

|� � �B�������"�����!������� �"�����"������� ��� ����������������� � ����� �����������*++�!��*&B���!� �&�$�?����� ���� ���� ����������"������!��"������ ����������������"����� �����B�� ����������������� � �� ��������� ������������� ����������������� ��������� ����� ������!����"����� � ���������� � �"�����"�������� �� ���� �"������� �� ����� ������"���������� ����$�*++C��&&`�$����! ����������"����"���� ��������-����B� �� ����������� ���������������������������������$�|� � �B� �� � ������! ���� �than one case of variants to assure us that it is really a matter of translation, and ���� � �������!�� ����� �� ��������� ������� $���� ����� �"������ ����� �����"�������� ���� ������������� ����� ���� � �� ��!"������� ���� �!�� �������������������������� ��*++*����#�$�?������������������� � �! ���� ����� ������������������ �"-������ ����� ��$���� ��� �� �����"�! ��� ���� ��� ����� ���� ���������� �B����������� ��� � ��������������� ���"�� �$��� � �����������!����"���������������"��� � ����a cluster of specifics occurring in various types of topographic objects in the same �������� ��� $�$������ �B�����B�����������������"����� ��� ���� ��� ������$���� ����them may have preserved the original specific better than the hydronym itself. It is possible that the hydronyms have been translated in the process of language shift, but some other object of the cluster has preserved its original form.

3.5. The problem of adoption

The adoption of toponyms from a substrate language into a dominant prestige language ��� ���� �� ����� ������� � ��������!� �$�^�� �����"������� ����������������� ����� ��� �"�����"B���������� �������������������������"������ � ����"$ Saarikivi (2006b: 23, table 2 and 25, table 3) has presented tables concerning adoptions from Finnic into ������������� ���� ��9�� ��������� ����� �$������� ���*++*��,~)(*��������� �� ������� ���� ����!� ��� �"����������"������� � �� ��� � ���� ����� ������� ���� ��������� �$����� " ���*++&��&,+)&`&��������������� ������������!\ ������� ���������������������;����<=�������������������� � ���$��� ���!� �! �������! ����������� ������� �

Page 71: south-eastern contact area of finnic languages in the light of onomastics

;����<=�������"����"�������� ���� ��>�����������w���������� ����� ������������**,

!���������� ������B�� �� ������������� ���!�������������%�����������������*++�������%�����>���� ����*++~������ �������� ����� ����������"������ ���������������� $

Finno-Ugrian

Slavic Finno-Ugrian

Slavic Finno-Ugrian

Slavic

t ,���(non-initial) �"�I�� ��� a �,���(early)k �,���(non-initial) s ,�,�2,�H e X,�ñ,��,��,�7p �,���(non-initial) h R,��, Ø (initial) ee X-tt- �� -hk- �R�, �^��,���� i �,�>-kk- ��� �%���� �^��� o, oo �,�X�(late)-pp- ��� u �,��� (early)m �,�� Ì,�Ä, c <�(non-Finnic) ü [,��,�>-mb- ����, ���� , �,��,�X�(non-

Finnic)ä v,�X�(early),

��(2.syll.)ö ñ, ½>

Table 1. The most common rules of adoption from Finnic and other Finno-Ugrian languages Z!���������'�\�����!��'�,%�W?��!��'�,�,���������������*���������?���������,����?����%

_%� =���&����;��,�?���������@�'���������&�'� and Leningrad oblasts

As mentioned above, it is often assumed in the literature that the Finno-Ugrian tribes ������ �� �������w�� �9 �������������� ��� ������� �=�� ��>������� � �ª������;������� � $�$�#�Ã������&~~(��&`~)&�'������� ������� ����� ����� �$�|"����"����������� �- ������"���������������� �$��������� ���"�;�������"����"������������ �����!!����� ������ ������������� �������� �#�������;������B��� �� ������ ������w�� �w�����������1). Some researchers have suggested hypotheses concerning the area presented above ��� �� ���!����"������ ��������������� ������B�!�������� ���� ��������������! �� �� �������� $�;��� ����� ��� �@���������}��<>��������"� �� ���� �� ������������ � ���"�Iron Age (7th–4th centuries BC) found in the southern coastal area of Lake Ladoga ��� �! ������� ������������� ��������9����<;������������������ú��������*++���&'&��Uino 2006: 363).13 According to the terminology of Petri Kallio, these tribes later ! ��� ��� � ��� ������������;���������! ��������� ��� � ��� ������� �������� �#�������Finland (Kallio 2007: 243).

Names of settlements in the area of Novgorod are irrelevant from this research’s ������ ��� �� B� ! ���� � � ����� �"� ��� � ��� �� � &(��� � ����"� �� � �����!� � ������� ������������ @�� ������ ����� @}�������� �����"� ���� ?�������� ����� ?������ ��� �� �� � ����� ��� ������������ ��� ������"����@����� ��&~~'��&�`)&(&�$�|� � �B��� ���migration could not change the overall picture of hydronyms. The same concerns the ����� �� ������ �������������������������� �����@�� ������������"��������"���-nyms in the vicinity of Leningrad.

&,� ��� �� �����"���������������� ������������ �������������#������������������������"��w�����$

Page 72: south-eastern contact area of finnic languages in the light of onomastics

224� ������ �

Map 3%�����,���������������:������������?���D���:������:�����&������,��������?��${�?�,������}��Z:�����������&���$^^_��$x_\%

I have divided the possible Finnic toponyms in Leningrad and Novgorod oblasts into ������ ���� �$��� � ��� ���� ������������ ������"�! ������� � ��;�����$��� � ��� ��������� ����� �������������� �����$��� ��������������� ������"��������������� �&��non-Finnic formants, 2) specifics typical in the Upper Volga and Oka catchment area ����,����������������������������� ������"������!�"����������������������������������$

Laatokka

Ääninen

Svir

Volga

Pietari

Vologda

Finland

St. Petersburg

Msta

Mologa

Lovat 475

StarayaRussa 548

Novgorod 282

Valday477

Ostashkov265

Tikhvin 542

Borovichi1796

Bezhetsk1945

Volkhov 233

Ladoga

Page 73: south-eastern contact area of finnic languages in the light of onomastics

;����<=�������"����"�������� ���� ��>�����������w���������� ����� ������������**`

4.1. Leningrad oblast

Finnic hydronyms (visible on Map 4 according to the numbering):14

1) Avloga ~ Aulokanjoki cf. Aula|nko����;���������� �����������aula ��� ������� possibly ~ Fin. oulu ­V���I

2) Khabolovo oz. ~ Haapalanjärvi�­��� ������� �� (-la-formant refers to a settlement, a farm or a family)

3) Khepoyarvi oz. ~ Hepojärvi�­���� ���� I4) Kostuya ~ *Kostoja ­ ����� �I5) Kusega ~ *Kuusjogi�­����� ���� �I6) Kusi|nka ~ *Kuusijoki�­����� ���� �I7) Lembolovskoye oz. ~ Lempaalanjärvi�­��� �w ������I��

��#D(W9�­���� ����"������������������ �I8) Pinega ~ *Pienjogi�­����� ���� �I9) Sestra ~ Siestarjoki�­����������� �I10) Voitolovka ~ Voittolanjoki�«������"��Voittola�«�voitto�­������"I11) Voloyarvi oz. ~ Vuolejärvi�«������!�"����9����<�������������­�� ����� I12) Kavgolovskoye oz. ~ Kaukolanjärvi�«������"��Kaukola13) Azika ~ Asikka�«����������"��Asikka14) Lava ~ *Lavajoki�­V������� �I15) Kivuya ~ *Kivioja�­���� ���� �22) Lipyarvi oz. ~ *Lepjärvi or *Lippojärvi�­��� ����� I����­��������� I23) Shuyarvi-Shu, bol. ~ *Šuojärvišuo15�­������������������ I

Possibly Finnic hydronyms:16) Galmach|ikha�½«�;������halme ­* ��I����� �����B�! ���� ��� �����! ������� �

�����"������� ������ �w�� �9 �������� ���������������^�����������>�� �17) Rap|lya�½«�;������rapa ­!��I���� ���������<lya ������� ����� ������ ������������18) Okhta� ½«�9����<;������Âokti�­! ��I���� ��"����"�������! ����� �� ������

� ��������������� �����������Okhta, Ukhta-��� �������� �� ������­����-� ���! � ������� ��I

19) Ukhta�½«�;������huhta ­!��������������* ��I��� ��� � ��Okhta above. The ����uhta is not found in Vote. The hydronym Ukhta is located in the Vote area.

20) Voya�½«�;������oja ­�����B���� �I�«�9=�Âwoja (Saarikivi 2006b: 31). Possibly the �"����"�������� ������ ������ ������ �w��������!�� ������������ ��� ���������more archaic language.

21) Volgom|ka�½«�;������valkama ­!�������� I���� � ��� ���� �������� ������volg- in the Upper Volga area.

&'� ��� �������Â���� �� �������������������;�����$��� ���� ����� �� � �� ��������� ����� �����������$15 Phonetically this name occurring close to Tikhvin seems to originate from the South Karelian dialect ����������� �����"���� ��!"�@�� ������ ��� ���&(�� century AD). The Veps form should be Sojärvso.

Page 74: south-eastern contact area of finnic languages in the light of onomastics

226� ������ �

4.2. Novgorod oblast

No certain Finnic hydronyms found.Possible Finnic hydronyms:

24) Andolovka�½«�;������antaa ­������ I�����������"�������¬�ÂAndola. Hydronyms ����and- ��������������� ������������$��� ���������<#����in names of rivers is ���� ������������ ���������������� ��$

25) Ilmen�«�Â�#(D(�½«�;������ilma ­ ��� �B����I$�|"����"�������il’m- are com-�������� ������������������`���������� ���������-er (see Section 5, formant -er).

26) Yaim|lya�«�ÂÄimläj ½«�;������äimä ­� �� I$�;������'�('���PU *äjmä and there-fore the stem here is not necessarily of Finnic origin. The formant -lya is very ����������� ��������������� �� ������`�$

27) Kiba�½«�;������kivi ­���� I$���*�����"����"������������������ ������������$�?��the Novgorodian dialect *����*�is usual (Zaliznyak 2004: 55).

28) Kirva�½«�;������kirves ­�� I$��� � � �������������������������������"����"���Finnic I�!K���������������������#�,(BC,�$�����������"B�;������kirves could ��� �! ��� ������������^�. Kirva ����! ������� ������������� ������"��Kirvu ����� ���� ��>���������� "������ �@�� �����?������B���������!�!�"�����-inated from an anthroponym.

29) Msta, Mstizhskoye oz.�½«�;������musta ­!����I$����"����� ����� �� �����msta-�"����"������������� ������������B� � ������� �w� ��@�"�_����� �������`�$

30) Oskuya, Oskuyskoye oz. ½«�ÂOskaoja. |� � �B���$����Oskom|lya in Tver �!���������~'B�&*,��½«����������"��Oska ���������! ������� �������� �Uska names in Finland.

31) Rabe|zha ½«�^��$�raba ­!��I$��� ���� ��V�������������"��� �B�!�������� ���� ��hand the formant -Å������ �"������������ ��������������� �� ������`�$

32) Voldom|itsa�½«�;������Âvalkama. �������������������������ó��#I�(����^�?������������ ������"������!� $�|� � �B�voldom hydronyms occur also in the Oka catchment area.

?�������������������������w ���������!����B the certain cases are much more frequent ������� ���� �������� �B���� ��������������!������ ��������� ��������� ����$��� � ��� ���� ��~���"����"������ ���� ������"����!�� ������� �� ������� ����� �� ������� ������������ �������� �=�� ��>������������� ������������������ ������ ����������� � ������ ������������$

The hydronyms Oskuya and Kirva ��"�� �� � ������ ��� � � ��� ���� ���� ������������� ���� ����� ������!�"������ ��� ���� "� � ������ ����������������½�*9I�����9�I�B�½�Âkirves/z ¬�kirv-) or those names are not of Finnic origin. The ele-ment -uyaB��� � �B�����! �� ��� �������;���������������Âoja ­�����B���� �I������ " ��2001: 258). This makes the Finnic origin of the name more probable. The river (and lake) Oskuya �������� ����������������� ������������"������> ���� ������"$��� ��"���-nym Kirva can be attached to the toponym Kirvu ��� �� ���� ��>���������� "$��������� ���"���� �! ����� ���!"�@�� ������ ��� ��������� ���� ��>�������� �$

Page 75: south-eastern contact area of finnic languages in the light of onomastics

;����<=�������"����"�������� ���� ��>�����������w���������� ����� ������������**(

In Tver oblast there are some hydronyms that can be interpreted as Finnic: �{�N)I���� oikonym Khititsy ����&(Cª,�� «� ;������*hiite ­� ���B� ������ ������-ping place’, Yarvy oz. ����~~�'��«�;������Âjärvi ­��� IB�Kagra ����`(�*��«�;������*kagra ­����I� ��� ��� � ���!�!�"�*kägrä ­���� �IB� Kivy ����(��&�� «� ;������*kivi ­���� IB�Mushto ����(��'��«�;������*musta ­!����I$������ ���������!�������������B���������� � ��� ����� �� ������@�� ������ ��� � ��������� ���!������� �����,���@@�B�������@����� ��&~~'��&��B�����$�?����������B� �� �����"��� ��� �������mušta and kägrä or kagra � � ������ ������"������ �@�� ������������ ��@@��???�,C&��@@�B�����~��$�One must remember that these hydronyms are located in the catchment area of the >�����)������� ���� ��>�������)������������ "��� ������� ������ ��� ����� ������"$

Map 4%�;��,�?��������������������&�'����@�'�������������

Narva

Luga

Msta

Syväri

SyasNeva

Volkhov

Ilmen

Lovat

St. Petersburg

Vyborg

Novgorod

Pskov

Tikhvin

L a d o g a

PeipusChudovo

Borovichi

Finnichydronyms certain

uncertain

the southern boundary of certain Finnic names1

2

3

6

7

9 1211

18

10

13

58

1719

14

4

15

16

21

20

2223

24

25 2627

28

29

30

31

32

29

Page 76: south-eastern contact area of finnic languages in the light of onomastics

228� ������ �

In Novgorod oblast �� ���� ��������� �!��� ������� �B�w�� ��#(D!���ó��#(D(�4�®?�3���� $�$�@�� �����*++&��(��������� ��*++*��*,'�������� ���� ����N����²3 � are often ��� ��� � �����! ����;������������$�|� � �B�!��������� � ���� ����"����� ����� �� �������� �������� �=�� ��>��������������� ��������`�$�?����������B��� ���������<er/-or (cf. �#()D() is typical in Valday region and in the Upper Volga and Oka regions: e.g. Lam|er|skoye oz. (ANO36), Pud|oro oz. (ATO54), ÈD#�K)D)���óÈD)�K)D)�9�¦�(ATO117), Sud|er|ev’e oz. (ATO142), Ø�()9))Å��9�¦�(ATO54), Tum|er|to oz. (ATO256). Ahlqvist (2006: 17–20) has also mentioned some -er/or-names of lakes in Yaroslavl oblast, although according to Matveyev (2006: 207–208) in the proper Meryan area there �������������� �� ������ ����� $��������!\ �������� � �� �������� �� ��������� ������`B�formant -er.

Map 5. Il’m- and Mst-���������@�'�������W'�����������'������������������������������and in the territory of the Oka catchment area.

Laatokka

Ääninen

Svir

Sukhona

Dnieper

Volga

Volga

Vjatka

Volkhov

Oka

Sura

Unzha

Vetluga

Pietari

Ryazan

Kazan

Mari-El

Novgorod

St. Petersburg

Il’m-hydronym

area

Mst-hydronymMst-oikonym

area

Page 77: south-eastern contact area of finnic languages in the light of onomastics

;����<=�������"����"�������� ���� ��>�����������w���������� ����� ������������**~

?�������� ����"���������;��������������@�� ���B�Ilma-�"����"��������� �� ���������­��� ����� I����­��� ����� �I�����! �� ��� �������9����<������Âeº #ð�­��� �I����Âeº #(ð�­��"B� ½��� �� ����I� ���� � � ���!�!�"� ����� �� ����� ������ ����� ;������ ������� ��������� ��*++~��&(&B�������� �C�$�;��� ����� B�������������������������;������B��� ���� ������!��"������ �����Ilma|järvi �#�*+++���+�'�$�?���� �>������������ ����� ���� � � ��� �� � ��� �� Ilmee ~ Ilmet|jokiB� ��� � ����� � ��� � ��� ���� �� Ylimäinen Finn. ­��� �����I�������� ��*++*��*,C)*''�B���� ������!����"������ �@�"����\����������� ��Ilmiinoja and its source lake Ilmiinjärvi �#�*+++��`&^��$�?���� �;�����<�� �������� ���� � ��� ���� ���� ��� � ��� �����ilma ����� ���"�� ����­���I�������� ��*++*��235). It is geographically natural that Lake *�#(D(�refers semantically to a upper posi-���������� ��� ���"�� ������� ��� ����������� ��������w�� �w���������w�� �?�� �������� ���� ��>������$�|� � �B��������������������w�� �Â�#(D( seems very improbable. �������������������}B��� ����� ���������olhava (Volkhov ~ in Finnic Olhava��­����B�� ������ ������ �������I������� �������� �������������� ������ ������ �@�� �����Isthmus (Nissilä 1975: 28–29). The shores of the Volkhov are in many places very �B�! ���� ��� ����� � �� ������ ��� ��� � ��! � ���� �w�� �?�� ������w������������"�&`�� �� �������� � ��� ��� ����� ������� �"�������������������$�?����������!� ������the original meaning of the hydronym Volkhov ~ Olhava����­��������� �I$

?�� ��������B� ���� � ��� w�� � ?�� �� ���� ������ ��� ��B� �� � � ����� ����� �� � ��� ��>������� ���� ���!����"B� �� ���� ��@ � ��B��������� �� ���� ������� �� �� � Ilmen|ka ����**�`�$� ����� �� ������ ��� �� ����� � ������ �����"� ��� � ! �� ��� �� ��� �� �grounds of the motif ilma ­���I$�X� ��! �������������������� �������� ����� ���!�� �and thinking objectively, the name *�#(D(����������� ��� � ��!�"�! ����� �� �������� �>�������� ������������������� ����;����������� �������������� ����������������B�the formant D(, the phonetics and the areal connection (Map 5).

The strongest evidence against the hypothesis of a Finnic Chudian population in Novgorod oblast is the fact that there does not occur any remarkable amount of those ;�������������������� � ���������B������������������ " �B��� �� ���������� ���� ��� �������;������ �����"��� �������� ����������� $�$�!D(������ó�!�D(�, ���#�, matka �� ó�(�NI�, randa *-ranta, luda *-luoto, sel’ga *-selkä, I9�I���� ó�I9�I�, #�(*����*-lampi, ��#(����ó���#(�, korba *-korpi, pelda/palda *-pelto (Matveyev 2001: 297–298). The same concerns specifics that, according to Matveyev, are the most common ���;��������!����� ���� ���������� ����������� $�$��I{!���ó�{�D!,��D!D�{����ó�D!D{, vekhk/��I{I���ó�D{I�,��I{�#���ó�{�#�,�I��0���óI��N�,�I��I���óI��I�,�I9�I���óI9%II%, I9��*��� óI9�W�,� I9#I��� óI9#II�,� I9)N��� óI9)ND,� I9NI������ óI9NI�,� I%����� óI%���, lakhn-/#�K!���ó#�{!�,�#�(*������ó#�((��,�#DK(���ó#D{(',�#D(*���ó#D(W�, *lempo, #�!0���ó#�!N%,�(�NI���ó(�NI�, myagr-/megr�«�Âmäkrä, myand-/mend�«�Âmänty,�WD#0���*pelto,�W�I{I���óW�{I�,�)�!0���ó)�!N�,�)D*������ó)DW9,���#(��ó��#(�,�ND)����óND)��, hab/K�*��� ó{��W�, khavd/K��0��� ó{�%N�, khavk/I{�%I��� ó{�%II�, khain/I{D�!���*heinä, kheb/I{DW����ó{DW9, khid/khit/I{�Å���ó{��ND,�I{�(������ó{�(9, khong/K9!K���*honka, khjarg/khjark/kherg/kherk�«�Âhärkä (Matveyev 2004: 33–80).

| � ���� ��������������������������`&���������� �``�;���������������"�������� �Novgorodian birchbark documents mentioned by Saarikivi (2007) do not occur in

Page 78: south-eastern contact area of finnic languages in the light of onomastics

230� ������ �

oikonyms of Novgorod oblast. If a great number of bearers of these names had lived there, those names should be reflected in oikonyms. Four (4) uncertain names are found: the anthroponym Ù�*�!3 (2007: 210) ~��� ���� ��Libya [Valday], the anthropo-nym �-#�;�I��3�(ibid. 2007: 215) ~ oikonym Velyash|eva Gorka [Luga], the anthropo-nym �I�K�#3�(ibid. 2007: 220) ~ oikononym Ikand|ovo [Valday] and the anthroponym ��#�Ì3�(ibid. 2007: 222) ~ oikonyms Melecha [Valday] and Mele|gusha [Tikhvin].16 ?������������������������ � ������"����� ������ ��!�������>����"���������� �!�����-�� ����������������"������;������� ��� � �������� ������ ���������w���������������$�?��>����"���������� ��� �����w������� ��B��� ������ �� ����@�� ���������?������� ��� ��on toponyms is very possible.

The anthroponym Uda, occurring in the document no. 124 (Saarikivi 2007: 226–**(�B���������� ���������� � $��������_�"����*++'���`C���������� �B�Uda toponyms �� ��� ��� ����������� �������������������������B�9����������� ���!����� ��� ��B�e.g. Uda (ANO6-7V1) [Dedovichi, Pskv obl.], Uda|l oz. (ANO39V4) [Borovichi, Nvg. obl.], Uda|kha ����,&#&�� ²9������B� 9���� �!�$´B� Udo|vishchi (ANO26A3) [Ljubytino, Nvg obl.] and Udo|m|lya ����'+#,��²=����"�B������!�$´$�ª ���� ����������� �������!�����B��������� ����!� ���������� ��������� �9����"��������"�� ���� ��Uda����������� ������������"���� ��!"��� ����������������� �$������������*++(��227) suggests that this name from the birchbark documents originated from an old Finnish anthroponym *»N����»N%#�, Utti, Utupää, but he also states that its etymology ������ �����$��������� ���"�! �!�� ����������������� ���� ������������������������both in Finnish and in the (Novgorodian) Chudian language.

5. Formants of hydronyms in Novgorod oblast

-oda (�� )17

��������������������������������� �����������Vong|oda [Kotlas], Vong|uda [Onega], Volg|uda, Lamb|uda, Novg|uda, Chemb|uda,� Ø%!)%0�� �� óØ%!K)%0�� [Sev. Dvina], Tung|uda [Belomorsk]. Matveyev (2004: 21) believes that the formant originates ������������;����<=������ ��\ ���� � �������Â<�D�½�/ä�� ��$�> ���korged ­����IB� Âval-ged ­��� IB�������9#K,Wdo ­!�����I$��� ������������������������� ������������������ ������� ����� �������� ���� ��@������������� ���²@�"�_��������� ����� �´��Udg|oda (AJO41), Sukh|oda �#ª�*&'�B� Shikh|oda �#ª�*&'�$� ���� " �I�� �� � ��� �� � ���-���������������������������� � ������"����� ��$�;��� ����� B�Ù�(*)%0����Finnic lamb ­����I�����Vong|uda «�;�������9"I��­� ���������������� �I��� �����!�� �������\ ���� ��as the hypothesis of Matveyev presupposes.

16 In the Upper Oka the hydronym Melech|eva occurs. Melecha in Valday should perhaps be connected ���������������������! �������<;����<=������������$17 In Novgorod oblast: Chag|oda (ANO13A5, ANO19B5), Chag|od|oshcha (ANO6-7A8), Chag|od|skoye oz. (ANO34B2), Tig|oda�����&*#*�B�Tig|oda (ANO14A2).

Page 79: south-eastern contact area of finnic languages in the light of onomastics

;����<=�������"����"�������� ���� ��>�����������w���������� ����� ������������*,&

���������� ��� �������"����"������� �� ��������������������������! �� ��� ��from the Finnic languages. Phonetically impossible are Chagoda and Chembuda, because of the initial *Ì. w ������"����<;�������� �Tigoda, Tunuda, Udgoda, Sukhoda, Shikhoda and probably also Novguda. The stem volg- ��"� ���� ! � ���� �� �� ����;����������� ������"B�! ���� �����������"����� ����� �� ������������ �=�� ��>�����area.

Interestingly enough, the formant -oda/-uda � ������"���������� ������� ��g (or the spirant ó��«�Âg or the combination *"K�½���ó�KK�) and b. This seems to refer to �� �� ��� ���� ���� � �������"$� ?� ����� �� ��� B� ��� �� � ��� ������ B� ����� ��� �� � !���-��������� ������������ �����Â;9�����or ó;9K����­��� �IB�����������¬�<oda. As vis-ible in the names of lakes in the region of Valday, the formant -dra being connected ���� ��� �� �� �! ����������� <dra), it seems that the plosive *g �½�¬��� has been replaced by d, e.g. ó;'�)�/ä or *jägra/'���;'0)�/ä�­��� I�¬�<dra. Correspondingly the development ó;9���or *joga ­��� �I�¬�<oda ��������!� ����$��� ���� ��Ioda ½��ó;9���or *joga ��%��*�&������������������� ����"�����"!������������������� ��� �� ����������hypothesis.

�� �^���"������������������������������ÂK���0 (Mullonen 2002: 65 referring to ���������&~�*��(')(`����������� � �����! ������������������$�����������������������this phonetic shift (regressive assimilation) *��¬��, *��¬�B��!� �� ������������������� �� ������������ �B��������! ��� ��������� ������������������������"�!������������-������������������������ �����������������$�?���������! �� �����!� ���������� ��� �� �������������������óK���0���������������� ������"��������� ��������� ��� ��-������!����� �������� ��½�������������������� ��$���� �������������������"���� ������"�! ������� ��!"��� ��������������� ���� ��"����"������� ������� ��������������³��)�2X���[Yang|ozero] ~ Veps Jänd|ärv ���#'��$�?���������� B����������� ��� ����-tion, there occurs -ng- ����� ����������������B�����������������<nd- in Veps. Veps *K�����������d is possible, but *0���K������ � ������"�����������!� ��$������ � ���������one can assume that the Veps variant originates from some previous substrate lan-���� ��½������������������ÂK���0.

-ra (��)18

The formant -���)��occurring in the names of rivers is very common in the Upper Volga and Oka catchment areas, e.g. Cheche|ra ~ Checho|ra �#ª�&+~B&'C�B�Kamo|ra �#ª�*,�B*`C�B� Kato|ra �#ª�*,+�B� Koya|ra �#ª�&*~�B� Koshi|ra �#ª�&++�B�Vyaze|ra �#ª�*``�B�Voymi|ra �#ª�**��B�Vikshe|ra (AJO37), Cheche|ra (AJO11), Checho|ra (AJO87), Pezo|ra (ATO106). There are also numerous formants of the type -���)�: Ist|ra �#ª�'+B&+�B&+(�B�Kost|ra �#ª�*&(�B�Kust|ra �#ª�*(+�B�Mat|ra �#ª�&~`�B� Pem|ra �#ª�*``�B� Pom|ra �#ª�*�`�B� Sukh|ra �#ª�&~(�B� Shim|ra �#ª�*&&�$��������� �� �������� ������������� � ��� �� � ���������!����� �������� ��� ��-������ ���a, e, i, o�������������� ��� ���� ������! ���������� ������������ ��$

18 In Novgorod oblast: Checho|ra (ANO28V2), Yashche|ra (ANO6-7A1), Bol. Vishe|ra������&'#'�B�Mal. Vishera (ANO23A6), Bol. Vishe|r|ka (ANO23B5).

Page 80: south-eastern contact area of finnic languages in the light of onomastics

232� ������ �

The areal distribution (Map 6) offers the most likely possibility to connect the Novgorodian formant -ra ����������� ������ ������� �=�� ��>������������$������is true especially because the Novgorodian (Nvg) specifics of hydronyms have coun-� ����������� ���������������������$�����Chechora ��$����Chechora �#ª�&+~B&'C��²�����´B�����Yashchera ��$����Yashcher|ka �#ª�&&&��²�����´B�����Vishera vs. ���Vikshera (AJO37) [Yaroslavl].19 It is possible that the formant in question can be derived from an original generic *)�{���­��� �I$

?������������� ���� ��>������������ ��Rha. ����� ��������� ��������&`~`�� ���������� ��Volga flu olim Rha ­�� ���� ��>����B����� ��"����I$���� ������&`~`������denoted the Volga as Rha occidental ­ �� ������ ��I���� �@�������Rha orientalis ­ ��� ��� ��� ��I�$�Z � %�� �G� % �������� �&`(&�� �������� ��Volga Rha ­�� ���� ��Volga’. On the basis of these maps, it seems that ó){�����)����������� ������ �­��� �B�stream’ (in Meryan-Muroma). This idea is supported also by such variants of hydro-nyms as Voymi|ra ~ Voymi|ga �#ª�**��B�È%I{))��4�È%I{)#����óÈ%�)#';��#ª�&~(��and the names Nev|ra �#ª�**,������Nev|ley �#ª�*'*B�*�'�$

Map 6. The area of the hydronyms with the formant -ra.

19 The variation of sh ~ ksh ��������� �� ���"������ ������"������� ��������������� �! ����� ���������-sh/-ksh.

Laatokka

Sukhona

Dnieper

Volga

Volga

Oka

Volkhov

Oka

Sura

Vetluga

Pietari

Vologda

Ryazan

Penza

Moscow

Nizhniy-Novgorod

Novgorod

St. Petersburg

MstaMologa

Klyazma

-ra-formants

Unzha

Page 81: south-eastern contact area of finnic languages in the light of onomastics

;����<=�������"����"�������� ���� ��>�����������w���������� ����� ������������*,,

-lya (���)

In Novgorod oblast and close to its borders -lya-�����"����� �������!�� ������������in footnote 20 (numbering according to ANO):20

General view

����������&~~C���*~B�''��&~~C!��&'������! ��� �� ��9������&~('��*+)*&B�*(����� �stated that both formants -lya (�?v) and -l’ (�?�) can be traced back to the same origin ���^�_"����������lej and Moksha läj ­��� �I$������������*++�!��`*������� ���������-lar opinion. Some variants of the same names support this idea: Mar|ley ~ Mar|lya �#ª�*'&�B�Tishem|lya ~ Tishim|l’ �#ª�&��$�|� � �B������ �� ���� ������"������that the matter is very complicated and it is possible that the formant -lya has several �������B��������� ����"�� �� ��������� ���� �����$�?���� ����������?��� � ������ �alternatives. Most of the -lya-toponyms are names of rivers. In Novgorod (ANO), Tver (ATO) and Smolensk (ASO) oblasts, 37 toponyms are rivers, 20 settlements, 12 lakes and 6 other natural sites. At least 10 of the oikonyms can be derived from names of rivers and many others from the names of lakes and other sites. This proves that -lya ����������� ��������������������������� �� ��������� �������� ��$

Areal distribution (Map 7)

In Novgorod oblast -lya-toponyms are concentrated in the boundaries of Novgorod and Tver oblasts ����� �� ���� �������� ���� �����������������$��� "��� ���� �-���� ����� ������ ����������$� ��� � �����"��� �� � ������ ��� ��� �� � � �� ��� ��� ��B�e.g. Yaim|lya� ½�� *Äim|läj [Krestitsy], Tuleb|lya ½�� *Tulema|läj ²�����"�� �����´$�The specifics Þ��(��� ó';('� and Ø%#D*��� *tulema might be interpreted as Finnic, !����� ��������� � �! �������!�������������! �� ��� ������� � ��9����<=���������$�PU *äjmä ­� �� IB�*toli ­��� I��������������&~CC��`,�B�`'+�$�?������ �����!�����a remarkable concentration of -lya-����������������� ������� �� ���� �������� ����- ��� Z�� � �� ���� Z������� ����$� Z�����$� ^�� �����"� ��� ���� � � �����B� ��������� ����������������������!�"���� ������ � ��� �������ª��������������;����<=������������� �$

20 Settlements (11) "�Gadom|lya (40V3), Khotim|lya (55A2), Loshchem|lya �'&#`�B�*Sitom|lya (6-7A4), *Sukrom|lya (6-7A7), *Tuleb|lya �,,#`�B� Tukho|lya (35A4), *Tushem|lya (19B4), *Udom|lya �'+#,�B�Zhelom|lya �,C�,�� rivers (14) "�Tsynov|lya (53A4), Dup|lya (35A5), Izlom|lya (52B2), Yaim|lya (36B2), Korkom|lya (30A3), Nikom|lya (17A5), Pyardom|lya (17A6), Radu|lya (25A5), Rap|lya (16A2)~Ryap|lya (16B1), Sitom|lya (LPNP:L5/N), Sukrom|lya (ATO251A1), Shadom|lya �*C#*�B� Tuleb|lya �,'>*�� lakes (7) "� Chuchem|lya (27V5), Karkom|lya (40B3), Radu|lya (26A2), Retom|lya (17V5), Sudom|lya (18B1), Udom|lya �'+#,�B�Zdym|lya �&C>,��� ��� ���"�Gorodom|lya (isle) (54V2), Sudom|lya (marsh) (18B1). � ��������"���������� �� ��� ��������"����"��$

Page 82: south-eastern contact area of finnic languages in the light of onomastics

234� ������ �

Stems of hydronyms based on anthroponyms

���"������ ��� ������� �� �������� ���������<lya can be derived from old Slavic anthroponyms, e.g. �{%&{D()#���� Chucha (Ahlqvist 2006: 19 referring to Veselovskiy &~('��«�����$�����$�<�<��­�!��������I��Z���?>��&��B���$�Chude, �{9N�()#�����$�����(Vasilyev 2005: 182, 186, 249), È%09()#�����­�������,�­��� ?�^�(ibid. 2005: 323), Tukhom|lya «�ì�R���(ibid. 2005: 246, 249), Ø%�{D()#�����ì�X��(ibid. 2005: 246), Lyutiv|lya,� Ù�%N9()#����� è[�� (ibid. 2005: 41, 271), £�09*)#����� ¯������ (ibid. 2005: 68, 249), ý{D#9()#�����¬X?X|�� ��(ibid. 2005: 141). Stems of some names ����! �� ��� ����������������������������������! ��� ������ �����������������-onyms: Retom|lya ½«��X�^�>6�­�������I��Z���?>�~,�B�Dremov|lya ½«���X���­�� ��B�doze’ (Dal I 491), Kokh|lya ½«�����$����� ������R���­������ I��Z���??�&C+�$

Map 7. The areal distribution of toponyms with the formants -lya and -(V)mlya.

Laatokka

Ääninen

Svir

Sukhona

Dnieper

Volga

Volga

Oka

Vjatka

Volkhov

Oka

Sura

Sheksna

Unzha

Pietari

Vologda

Ryazan

Kazan

Moscow

Nizhniy-Novgorod

Mari-El

Novgorod

St. Petersburg

-lya-toponym-mlya-toponymIn Novgorod, Leningrad, Tver,Smolensk, Yaroslavl oblasts and in the Oka area

the boundary ofFinno-Ugric population ca 1000 AD according toSedov(Ryabinin 1997: 4)

Page 83: south-eastern contact area of finnic languages in the light of onomastics

;����<=�������"����"�������� ���� ��>�����������w���������� ����� ������������*,`

Stems of hydronyms based on old dialectal Russian words

��� ������ ������"����� �!�� ��������������������� ������ ������������������ ����-ally related to obsolete cultural customs: Khatom|lya «���������²������G�X ��´�R���­������ I� �Z��� ?>�`',�B�Sukrom|lya «��������� ²��������¼9����´� ������ ­���� � ����food, etc.’ (Dal IV 359), Tsynov|lya «���������=>��^���­� ��!��������!���I��Z���?>�575), Posokh|lya «����������� �R�­���� �� �I�������I��Z���???�,,~�B�Zdym|lya «���������[Pskov] 2�>��­���������������!\ ��I��Z���?��(��$

Finno-Ugrian specifics

Some of the -lya �����"������ �;����<=�������� ������$�;��� ����� B������ ��������"�of Novgorod there is Ø%#D*)#�����óØ%#D()#������ ���"�­�������������� �I�����Yaim|lya ­� �� ���� �I$�?���� ����� ����� ���������������� ���� � ����Kev|lya �#ª�*`�� ­���� �river’, Shuzh|lya �#ª�*`+� ­�������� �I�����Osh|lya �#ª�*`,� ½«�ÂAsh|lya ­��� �river’. In the Mordovian names the formant -lya certainly has the same original form and meaning as Mordvin läj ­��� �I$

Unknown stems of hydronyms

Some of the specifics of lya-�����"��� � ����� ���������� ��� ������$� �� � � ������ �Itom|lya, Korkom|lya, Pyardom|lya, Karm|lya, Oskom|lya and Kasp|lya. The last is ������ ����!����"������ ���� ��Z�����������$�Z�������������������� �����!���� that ������! �� ��� ��������� �ª������������� �����$�w���$�kaspinas ­��!!��I��w���&~C`��&�(�$��� ���� �����"��������� �����������������������"����� �! ���$

Etymology of the formant -lya

ª ���� ������������!� �������� ���������������������������������� ������;����<=�������� �����������"��B����������!�"� � ������ª�������� �B�������� �"��������������� ��� �the original source language, if there really is only one etymological origin. The dis-���!���������������(�������������� ���������<lya does not occur in the historically �����;������� ������"������ �> ������������� �"������ �� ������"������ �� �"�������the chronicles. According to the distribution map, it is possible to assume that possi-!�"��� � ���"������������ ��������� ����� ��� �� ���������������������� ��������� �tribes the appellative #';���ó#'I'�­���� "B���� �I������� ���������������� ��������"�be �^����²¦ ΢ ¤�¨´ ­���� "�� � ������ ������I�$�9��� ������"�9����<;����<>�������*läkä ��������!� B�����ÂI���;��%��� ����������B�� ��������������������ª��� ���&~~~��,C��w ���������*++&���C�$

?���� ���������������;����<=�����B������ �!������������ � ���"�! ������������������ �� ��� ��"� ��� �� � ª����<������� �����<������� �� ��$� 9����<������� ó#�;.� ­���IB�Lithuanian lieju �^��%� ???� `+'�$� �� � � ������ ����� ��� w������� �� � ���� lej|a ­���-� "B��� �<I��9�\���� ����$�&~~(��&&+�������������! ��� ������������� ��������$�����B�

Page 84: south-eastern contact area of finnic languages in the light of onomastics

236� ������ �

a Balto-Slavic or Baltic origin is a possibility. A Slavic origin seems unlikely because ����� �������������!����������� ���������<lya in the Slavic-speaking area.

@�"�����*++���**`��� ���������������������B����� �� ������� �����B��� � ���� -times occurs a possessive element *-j �Ù�$������ � � �������� � � ��!"�«�?�¬���� ���� �labial consonants �, ^, � and�:�� $�$�³�� ?�^)?�,�X�� ���)?�,�:�?� �:)?�$�|� � �B�������� ������������������ � ���������^/�X^, so such a type as ¯� �^)?� is not pos-��!� $�@�"������ �������� � �����"� ����� �������� ���!��������������«�¬B�!������-��� ��"��� � � ������������� �����$����� �!������\����������X��:���)?)[. In many cases the formant -lya ������� ��� ���"���� ���� ���!����«m¬$��� ���������<lya could, ����������� B��������� ������������� ��� ���B�!�������������� ���������! �������������� ��������������� �������� ������Kokh|lya in Smolensk oblast (ASO34B3) or Rod|lya ���@���������!�������@�,'ª,��������� �������� ��$�?����������B��� � � ������ � ����-lya-toponyms that are not based on persons or their names. There are good reasons to ��� �%�����>���� ��I���� �������� � �������� �������������� ������������������ ������ ���������������� ������������ ��������� ��� ���������!����������� �������������� �����$�Instead, he considers it to be caused by a substrate (Vaahtera: e-mail 8.9.2010). This ���������� ����������������� ��� ������� � �� ����������� ��������� �9������ ������������� ���� ���� ������ �B�!��������������������������!����� �������w�� �?�� ���� �Map 7).

Formant -om-/-emlya

Among 54 -lya-�����"��������?���� ����� �� �����������B��� � ��� �*(������"�������the element -om-/-em- (see Map 7). In most cases it is difficult to believe that all of �� ���������������� ����������� � �����������"����������������<mir endings, such as ��09)(�)�����09(. �� � ��� B�?��� ��� ������ � ���������������� � � � ���<m at least in some cases is an original Finno-Ugrian genitive marker *!���(. The variation of m ~ n ���������������������� $�$����������&~~~���*()�*~�$��� � ��� �����������-tions also in -lya-�����"�������� ������� ��"�� ���Rado|m|lya �#ª�&CB*`B**'����$�Rado|n|lya �#ª�,*�$�# ����� ����������������� �� �"����������������"������ ��� �����!�� ������ ���������� �$��� ����������������"�������<m|lya do not occur �����"� � �������� �����!�����!����� ������ ����������� �����(������ ������;����<=������������$��� �!������"���� �� � � �����"��� ������� ��������� ���I�� ��"�!�����1997: 4, map 1) and Kriiska & Tvauri’s illustrations of the ancient Finno-Ugrian set-tlement (see Maps 2 and 7). In Vologda and Kostroma oblasts �� � � ����������� � ��-�����"����"������� �� ��������������!� �$������������ �w�� �ª ��_ ����� � ��������Rodo|m|boy ��>�`,ª`�B���� ������ �� ���� �������� �=�_����� � ��������� ��Rod|lya ��>�C,#`�� ����� ��"� ! � !�� �� ��� �� � ���������"�� ¯���� [Rod’] (Vasilyev 2005: 254). An appellative boy ������������ ��"����"�������� ��� ����"ª ��_ ���� ����$�Saarikivi (2004: 200–201) has interpreted it as derived from PU *woja �¬�;�������oja) ­��� ��� �IB���������������� ��� ����������������Rodom|boy ������! �­����I����� ��� �I$�Rodlya �������! ��������� ��­���<��� ��� �I$

Page 85: south-eastern contact area of finnic languages in the light of onomastics

;����<=�������"����"�������� ���� ��>�����������w���������� ����� ������������*,(

�� � � ������������ ������������������ ����� ���������������������� ������"�������� �� �!����$� ;��� ����� B� � ����� Drem|ov|lya ����*+&ª,�� ��� ����� Dremov � ������! ���� ���������� B������� ���������������������­Z� ��I����� �I$��� ����� �-��� ��������� ������� �������?��� ����� ��!"�@�"������ ��!�� �� ��� ���"��� ���������������� ������<ev/-ov ��������@� �����������B�! ���� �<ov or -ev are already genitive markers. This seems to assure that the formant -lya does not originate from �������������� ����� ��������� $

The name of an island in Tver oblast ����� �w�� �� ��� ���«�ÂSeriger), Gorodom|lya (ANO117B1), may offer proof for this presumed Finno-Ugrian genitive in m �«�Ân). �� � ������� ��� ������ ��! ��� � �� � ����������������$�^���� �� �� � ����������� ����� ��!"����� �����!��� �B������! ���� ����� �� ������ ��������� ���$��� ��������mentioned in an ancient (from 1150 AD) document Ustavnaya gramota (Isakov 1985: ���$��� ��� ������� ���� ������ ������������� ���"�� ��� ��������� �������������gorod ­������������ ��I$��� ������gorod|om might be a Chudian genitive *gorodo|n ­����� ����I$�?���� ������ ������ ���������� � � �������������������������� ������������! ��� �reason for the formant -lya. On the other hand it is possible that the original meaning ­���� "B���� �I������ �������������!���� ��������� �����������! ������� ���������������of toponyms.

It is probable that the Novgorodian Chudes adopted Slavic Christian personal ��� �B������������ ������� ������������� ������ ���� ��"���� $�$�@�� ��������� ���� $������"��� ��� ������ � ������� � � \������� ���;����������$� �� ����������������-onym ±� � �v���Karelian ���N9���oikonym Nasto|la ����� ������������������"���������6��� Karelian Kuopio ¬� �����"��� Kuopio|la, Kuopio (SP 195, 286). On these grounds it is possible that among the Novgorodian Chudes there occurred such shortened personal names of Slavic origin as £�09���hydronym Radom|lya�­����I��river’, È%09��� hydronym Sudom|lya ­����I�� ��� �IB� ��I9��� hydronym Nikom|lya ­����I�� ��� �IB� ��$� ��������� �������� � ������� ��� �� ������ ! � Ita, Korka, Oska, Pärda, Uda, Shada.21 They occur as stems in several -omlya hydronyms. Their cor-respondences are e.g. in the Middle Volkhov Osk|uya ­�������� ��� �I�����&'ª*�B���� �� �������� ���"�� ����� �� ���� ������� ����� �� �ú�������Pyardomskoye oz. ~ Veps. Perdomjärv (close to a village called Chudskoye), in the Oka area Perde|ley �#ª�*�~������Perd|ino oz. �#ª�&*'�B�Shadym|ka �#ª�*`��B�Itja �#ª�&(,�$��� � � ������������������"��Uda in Novgorodian birchbark documents that has been inter-�� � �����;����<=�����������������*++(��**�)**(��¬�Udomlya. It is possible that the � ������� ����������� �� � �� ��!"�o������������������������"���� ��� ���� ��,, i.e. Uda :�»0,!���»09(. ^�� ��������� �����B�������� ��<lya-hydronyms are relatively �������� ��������������! ������� � ����������������"����������������������� ���������families offering good grounds for naming.

Undoubtedly, there are also toponyms that truly are shortened forms of old Slavic ���������"�������<mir (*-(�)����(). The river Tukhom|lya in the upper courses of

21 Perd-/Pärd-���������"��������"����"�����"�! �� ��� �������������������?���<^���� ���Âpertä ­���I�J�=��$�burd (Koivulehto 2006: 183).

Page 86: south-eastern contact area of finnic languages in the light of onomastics

238� ������ �

�� ���� ��w������ �� �������� ����� $��������� ����� ��Tukhom|ichi is located close to the river. This type of naming by adding -ichi ! �������"������"������ �������������tradition. The construction consists of a personal name Tukhom :�����������������-ichi �>����" ��*++`��*'�B�*'~�������� ��*++*��C')&+`�$

-zha (��)22

����� �������� ������� ����������� ��������� �!����� ���� ��� ���� �� �� ���� ��� ��$� ?������������������ ��� ������� �� � � ��������� �������� ������������$����� " ���*++'��*&�������� ���������!�!�"������������ ����� �$�?�� �������"���� ����������������-sider -�{��� to be derived from diminutive. The sibilant ��{��of formants can pos-��!�"�! �������������!������ ����������������� ��Âà ~ Proto-Finnic diminutive *�ÌÌ%�(Saarikivi 2006b: 32).

-sha��-ksha��-ksa (������������)23

It seems that -�{���� has the variants -ksa/-ksha. ����� �������� ���� !���� �������� ��������� �"����ú�������������>������� oblasts: Volo|ksha ~ Volo|sh|ka �#ª�&~����� ó�9#9)Ê�, Shumo|ksha ~ Shumo|sh �#ª�&*��B� Kolo|ksha �#ª�*&+��J� Kolo|sha �#ª�*&C�B�Tome|ksha ~ Tomu|sh|ka��#ª�*&*��«�ÂØ9(,)Ê�.

|� � �B��� ���������ksa-/ksha �� ����������������� ��� ������� ������<� ������Z"������������ B�� � ����"�<�{��� formants occur: Lav|sha �#ª�&+��B�Nero|sh|ka �#ª�'&����ó�D)9)Ê�, Pono|sha �#ª�&+`�B�Tol|sha �#ª�&'*�B�Ugre|sha �#ª�CC�B� ��$��������������� ����������� ���� ��� ��� ���<�{���������� ��������� ���� �������"�spread -ksa/-ksha. ������������������������������������*++'��&*�������� � �� �$

|� � �B��� � ���������������"������������� �������������� �����$������������� �usually considered a reverse development,�óI���� �, according to the history of the � �� ����������;����<=������������� $�$�;���$�vari|s : vari|ks|en [crow : crow’s] (cf. ������ ��*++*��*&()***�B�� � ��� �� ���� �������<ks- has been understood to be ��� �$�ª��B������������ � �� ���!�� B��� � ��� �� ������ ��� ���������!������� ������contradict this hypothesis.

Matveyev has connected the formant ��{��������<�{����(Matveyev 2001). The variants of formants -sha ~ -kshaB��� � �B�����������������������������$�?���"�����-ion -�{����is of different origin, a diminutive marker as presented above. Both Ahlqvist and Matveyev claim that the formant -gda/-khta could be derived from an earlier for-mant -ksa/-ksha ����� " ��*++'��*()*C�����������*++'��&&)&,�$��� ��������������-ants of the same hydronym prove that a development *-IÊ����ó�IÌ�����K0�/-khta has taken place: Molo|ksha ~ Molo|khcha ~ Molo|khta �#ª��*+&�$

22 In Novgorod oblast: Kobo|zha (ANO28A3), Kobo|zha (ANO30A2), Molog|zha (ANO25V5), Orede|zh (ANO20B1), Rabe|zha (ANO47V5), Sere|zha (ANO55A3), Vereg|zha (ANO33A5), Volo|zha (ANO34V4), Volo|zh|ba (ANO17A5), Voro|zh|ba�����'&#'�$23 In Novgorod oblast: Yere|sha (ANO21B5), Kolo|sh|ka� ����,*>*�� «� ÂKolo|sha, Nurdy|sha (ANO33B5), Ragu|sha (ANO17B5), Shildu|sh|ka�����*`ª'��«�ÂShildu|sha, Mene|ksha (ANO14V2), Nudo|ksa (LPNP:K6/N).

Page 87: south-eastern contact area of finnic languages in the light of onomastics

;����<=�������"����"�������� ���� ��>�����������w���������� ����� ������������*,~

-st’ (����)

The Novgorodian hydronym Kerest’ (ANO14V2) has a correspondence Kerost’ (AJO110A1) in Yaroslavl oblast. ?��� ������������B� �� �����"������ �� �"��<�������� ������"�� ��� ��!"����������������� �B��� � ��������������� ���"����"����������� ���formant -st’/-sta: in the Klyazma region Lakho|st’ �#ª�*&~�B������ ������� ��Nere|sta �#ª�&,(�B�Uro|sta �#ª�*�&�B�Vob|sta �#ª�,~�B����ú����������!���� Sulo|st’ [a set-tlement] (AJO102), Shigolo|st’ (AJO80) and in Kostroma oblast Yakhru|st (TKKO36). �� �������������� ��������"���� ����������������������� �;������� ��������������-����Â<�N����(Finn. -sto/-stöB�^��$�<ste, Veps -���ÊN).

The stem �D)��������� �"����������������� ��������� �������� �"���� ������"��Kero|st’ (AJO110), Kero|ma (AJO17), Kera (AKO182), Ker|bash (AKO138), Ker|na (AKO133), Ker|nas (AKO160), Kera �#ª�*,'�$�?���� �;�������� ���� � ��� ���� �-���������"��������� ��� �������D)�����ID)�)N'�­�� ��IB�!����� �� �!����� ��� �������# �������*skeranB���������� �"������ �"����! ����� �� ������� ������������������-�"��$��� ����� ����� �� �! � ��Kerest’ [Chudovo, Volkhov] and Kerost’ ²������B�=�� ��>����´� ������ ������"����"������ �� � ���������� ���"����� �� �=�� �<>�������connection.

������ (���)24

The formant -D)�4��D(�4��D)9/-oro����� �� ��������� ������������� ��� �"����� ����������������������� ���� � �"�����"������������D(ID/jä�kä and Mari jer/jär. (Ahlqvist &~~(��*~��&~~C���'*��*+++��&�)&C��*++'��&`��*++���&*B�&()*+������ " ��*++&��*~+)292.) The formant originating from shortened form -�(/�'(�­��� I that occurs only in a ���� ���������� ������� � ��� ���> ���� ������"B���� �"��� ���� ������� ������� ���� ���"������#�B��������� � ������"����� �� �������� ����������������� ��! ���� ������ ��� ��������� ����������������!�����$

�� � �"�����"������ �;�����������järvi ­��� I��������� ����� �B�� ���������������the Proto-Finno-Volgaic *järwä �=^X�??��,,���������! �� ������ � �B�! ���� ��� ��������������� ��� �� �� �"����"����"���vR���«�Â;'�)�_' cannot be derived from �� �������� � �� ��!"���� �$��� ����������������! ���� ���"�� ���� ����ó�I)���ó�)I. ��� � ��������� ��� � � ��� �� �� � ���� ����� �� ª������ ���������� ��$� w���$� ;\%)�� ­!��I�«�9����<?���<^���� ���Âeu/ er- (Nuutinen 1989: 497–501). This solution too seems �������!� ������ �! �������������� �� �"�������ó;'�)�/ä. Arja Ahlqvist has studied the problem of Nuutinen’s presentation (2006: 20, footnote 13) having critics against ���������������� ��$������������*++�!��,`����������� �����������<��������*-kr-. Indo-^���� ����������������������$�ª � �B��� � �B���� �� ��������� ���� �9?^��������*i/ euHr- (Mallory & Adams 1997: 636). The assumption of a laryngeal in the Indo-^���� ��������<������� ������� ��������� �� ����������� �� ���� ����Â�I)���ó�)I� I suggested above, because *-Hr- ¬�<kr- should have been more unnatural for speakers

24 In Novgorod oblast: 9�¦��#(D!���ó�#()D( (ANO34B2), Lam|er|skoye oz. (ANO36B3), Nev|ery oz. (ANO46B3), Never|ka (ANO 46B3), ÈD#�K)D)�9�¦���ÈD)�K)D) (ANO54V2).

Page 88: south-eastern contact area of finnic languages in the light of onomastics

240� ������ �

of Finno-Ugrian languages than -rk-. Proto-Uralic had liquid+plosive combinations, !��������� :����������!��������� � �� �"���� ��9 ����@�����B�� ����������� ���$

Proto-Saami *;|�)ð��� �"���ó;'�)�/ä and the *jädra/ä that occurs in the terri-tory of the Novgorodian Chudes (see the formant -dra�! ��������! �� ��� �����-out difficulty from the root *jäkra/ä. Finnic *järve, ��������^�D(ID�M �;�'�kä and Mari jer/jär can be derived from *järkä. In that case, the -kä of Mordvin jä�|kä is not a diminutive marker as usually has been thought (SSA I 259), but part of the original stem. The element -i ����� �� ������"���!� ����;���������� ��� � �� ���������w������������ ����������� ������������ ����� �� �������"������ ���� �� ������"���!� �-vi, because Liv. ;|)�, Proto-Saami *;|�)ð, Mordvin *jä�kä and Meryan ó;'�)�/ä refer ����� �������������� ��Âa/ä in the second syllable.25��� �^������������ ���������järi is declined in the genitive as järve �^^X��+,���������������������������� � ��� ����������� �����Âjärve and does not represent an independent development from the original root of the proto-language.

�� � � ��� ��� �� ��� ����������� ������"� �� � ����!� � ��� �� � ­��� I<�"����"��� ���Novgorod oblast � � �!����jer (jär��«�*järka/ä and *jädra/ä�«�*jäkra/ä hydronyms ������������!�� ������� ������������C�$�;��� ����� ��� ������� ����D(�of the lake ó�#(D(�������! �� � ��� ������� �����������Â;')I'���ó;')����ó;')�. The last stage *järi ��� ������� ��!"� �� ���� ���� �� ���� ��Yary|nya ²�ÎÔ|�±´� ����,�>,�B� <nya ! �������"���������������������$��� �w�� �Lam|er|skoye (ANO36) is the source of this river. The specific of the river could thus be *järi ­��� I�¬�Yarynya ­��� ���� �I$�?��>����"� �������� �w�� �Nev|ery ����'����-ery ½���*järi. ���� ������ ��������> ����"����������������� ���� ��Yere|sha ����*&ª`�B���� �����������������"�! �ÂJäri|š. �� ���� ��������������� �������!���� � ������ ����� ��Goriyskoye oz. is located.

The stems of -er/-or-lakes in Novgorod (ANO) and Tver (ATO) oblasts have � � �������� ����� �� �������� ���� �������� �������� �=�� ��>�������%������������ ������ �#ª����#$��% &' (ANO34) vs. Il’ma (AJO109), Il’mezh (AJO36), Il’menka (AJO112), Lam|er|skoye oz. (ANO36) vs. Lam’ (AJO27), Lamo �#ª�**+�B�Lamekh �#ª�**,�B� Lamenka �#ª�**'�B� Lam|ka �#ª�*'��B� Pud|oro (ATO54A4) vs. Pudega (AVO76), *Serig|er ANO54 vs. Seruksha (AJO115), Serenga �#ª�&'(�B�Seroksha �#ª�*&+B*&*�B�Tam|or|zha (ATO54B1) vs. Tamara (AJO102), Tum|er|to (ATO256B2) vs. Tumash (AJO98), Nev|ery ANO46) vs. Nev|ra �#ª�**,�B�Nev|ley �#ª�*'*B*�'�B�Neva �#ª�&C`�$26�����B����������������!� �������� ����� �����*järi ����� ��"����"��������������������� ���!������������ �^������������järi�«�Âjärve.

25 Sometimes an original *k/g ����! �� �� � �� ������� ���"���!� �����������������;���������v�� $�$�W9)��)����w�� ������ �����borghare (SSA II 402) offering the phonetic possibility of ó;')�������;')����.26 It is unlikely that the stem *serig is derived from a fish *serig ­�����I�������� �� ��!"������� ��(2002: 235), because in Finland Särki|järvi ­��������� I����� � ���� ���� ������"�!������ ��#�*+++��272–273). The etymological background might be the same as Mordvin �D(D"� ­����I�¬�óÈD)D");')���*Seriger ­�������� I���X�?>�&~(+�$�w�� �� ��� ���������� ������� �>����"����������B�! ������ ����� ���lake in the Volga catchment area.

Page 89: south-eastern contact area of finnic languages in the light of onomastics

;����<=�������"����"�������� ���� ��>�����������w���������� ����� ������������*'&

-dra (� �)27

The fact that in some ancient language in Novgorod and Tver oblasts there has been ������*jädra/ä can be concluded from -dra-���������������������������� �� �������� ���� �������� ������� �� ��������� ���� ��� ���������������� �*(�$�?����������B����Valday there occur such names of lakes as Yedr|ovo oz. (ATO50A1) and Yedr|itsa oz. ����,*�,�$�?���� ���� ������� ������� ���� ��Z���������������� �w�� �Edr|itsa oz. (ATO50A1). Some -dra-formants are found also in the Svir region Kuz|dra ���#*�B�in Yaroslavl oblast Savo|dra|nka (AJO67A1) and, on the boundaries of Vologda and Yaroslavl oblast Yashkon|dra (AJO22B1).

?��� � ��������� ���������������������� � ������������­��� IB�Âjäri and *jädra/ä, �� �����������"���� ��������� � ��������$�?����������������� ���!����� there may ��� �! ������������������ �B�� �� ��������� ��� ���������C�$�?���� ��� �������� � �� ��� ���� �B� �����"� ��� �� � �����< �� ��� ��� � ��� �� � ��� �� ����B� �� � � ������ $�$��� ������Â(�%��N��­!����I (Map 5) and *järi ­��� I$�|� � �B����!��������� � �������� ���� ����� ������������"������������ �;������������� ������������� ������ ��*š ��{�and óÌ���N��� �! ���� ��������$�?����������!� ����������������� �������� ������� � �� ������� ����X����������� ������"����� ����9����<;����������� �9����<;����<>�������������� $������ ���� ��������� � �� �����! ���� ������������� ����� �to Mordvin: WCh ÌD)D ~ Mordv. Ì�(D�­! ������������ IB�X���lama ~ Mordv. lamo/lama ­����¼!��I��� ��"����"����!�� �B�X���N%(����4�Mordv. tumo/tuma ­���I��� ��"����"����!�� �B����������!�"��� �����vel- ­��� �I$��� � ��� ������������� ���-� �������� ���� ��Vel’giya ½�«�Â�D#;9K����­��� ����� �I (ANO39A4) and some others ������ ��� ��vel-. Many of them are so small that it seems difficult to derive them from the Slavic stem ^X?��­!��I$�?���� ��� � ��������� ����������������!� ���� �� ����� �deeply into this subject.

�� �������� ������ �� ��� ������� ����^����� ��������� �������� ����������� �������� �������� ����� ������� �� ������"������ �� �"������� ��������������������� �����$�^���jädra/ä ~ Meryan ó;'�)�/ä [*K���0]. There are also indications of a common �����9#�9����Finno-Volgaic *ala ­�� �I ���^�������� �"����� ������������ ��*++~��&(*�$������ �� � ��������� ������� ��� ��� �� ��^��� ������� ������ ��������� ���� �������� �������� ����� ������� �� �"���� ������"������������&���� ��������historical root *jäkrä ­��� I�����*���� ����� ���������������������Â�����9. It is important ��� ������_ �������� �!������� �� � ������ �"�������$����� ���;����<=���������! ���������� ���!�������"������������������������� ���!������� �$

27 In Novgorod oblast Keza|dra oz. (ANO41V3), Lima|ndr|ovo oz. (ANO39A5), Limandrovka (ANO39A5), Nez|dr|inskoye oz. ����*`#,�B�Shabo|dro oz. (ANO40B1), Shabo|der|ka (ANO40B1), Sherego|dra oz. (ANO27B4), Tikhoman|dr|ica (ANO40V3), Tishi|dra oz. (ATO54A3).

Page 90: south-eastern contact area of finnic languages in the light of onomastics

-uya (���)28

=����!� ��"B� ����� �������� ��� � ��� �� ����� �� � ;������ ���� oja ­�����B� ��� �I� �� �Matveyev 2001: 256–261). The specific Osk- may be a result of a metathesis oska ��ó9I���­���I����Âoksi ­! ��I$����������������� ���������� �Oska is possible, even ���!�!� ��� ��!�� ��� ���������<lya, Oskom|lya (ATO94A4) and Oskom|lya ruchey (ATO123A1). Oskuya is located close to the boundary of the area of Finnic hydro-nyms (see Section 4, Map 4).

-nda (�� )29

The formant -nda has correspondences in Finnic toponyms (cf. in Finland Vesa|nto, Pyhä|ntä�B�!������������� ���������=�� ��>������ ��������$�Ile|nda �#ª�**C�B�Leve|nda �#ª�&~,�B� Uro|nda �#ª�*&��B� Shura|nda �#ª�*`*�B� Bol. & Mal. Kolo|nda (TKKO21), Meze|nda (TKKO21). The majority of these are located in Kostroma and Vladimir oblasts. The same formant also occurs in the region of southern Lake Onega

28 In Novgorod oblast: Osk|uya (ANO14B2), Osk|uy|skoye oz. (ANO14B3)29 In Novgorod oblast: Vero|nda (ANO33A5)

Laatokka

Ääninen

Svir

Sukhona

Daugava

Dnieper

Volga

Volga

Oka

Vjatka

Vychegda

Volkhov

Oka

Sura

Sheksna

Unzha

Vetluga

Pietari

Vologda

Ryazan

Kazan

Moscow

Mari-El

Novgorod

St. Petersburg

Msta

Mologa

Klyazma

yakhr-, -khrayedr-, -dra< *jäkrä

yer-, -er(o), -or(o)< *järkä

ancient *jäkrä-/*järkä- boundary

SW-boundary of Finno-Ugricpopulations

Proto-Saami

Meryans

Mordvins

Finnic tribes

“Eastern Chudes”

“Western Chudes”

*järka/ä

Para-Saami

*jäkra/ä

Map 8. Yakhr-���khra� yedr-���dra and yer-/yar���er(o)� -or(o) names of lakes in Central and North Russia and the possible boundary of the proto-language words *jäkra/ä and *järka/ä.

Page 91: south-eastern contact area of finnic languages in the light of onomastics

;����<=�������"����"�������� ���� ��>�����������w���������� ����� ������������*',

���� �� � ��� �� ������ Luzha|nd|ozero (AVO12), Sula|nd|ozero (AVO12), Vera|nda ���#*�B�Yulo|nda ���#&C�B�Sura|nda ���#&,�B�Viksi|nda ��@�@&&��� �� ������Mullonen 2002: 199, 290–292).

Ahlqvist (1992: 27–28) has pointed out that the formant -nda varies in central �������� �����"��� ���� �� � �������� <nga. Such nk ~ nt variation is found also in Finnish dialects: e.g. ó!I����!N�����$ *I�%W%)!I����I�%W%)!N��­���I������?�,,*�$�;�������toponyms also display the variation *nti ��!I�����$�Â�!%)!N�����!%!I�,�ó"9##�)!N����Holla|nki,�ó�%9#�)!N�����%9#�)!I����}��}� ��*++,��&`B�*&)**B�C+)C&�$

�� ���� ��Veronda (ANO33A5), close to Velikiy Novgorod, has a counterpart in the river Vera|nda ~ Vere|nda and the lake Vera|nd|ozero ���#*�� ��� �� �=�� ��Svir. Direct Finnic counterparts, such as *Vierunta are not found in Finnish toponyms (NA), but the lakes Vierus|järvi �#�*+++�� &`��*�� ���� Vieruva|n|järvi �#�*+++��'(;&�� ��"� ���� �����$� ?�� �� � ���� � ����� ��� ��� ��� ��� ú��������� ���� @��������oblasts there occur the probable correspondences Ver|da �#ª�&(~B&C`�B�Vere|pa ½«�*Vere|upa��#ª�&�+�B�Vere|sh|ka�«�ÂVere|ša��#ª�'&�B�Ver|zha �#ª�*&+�B�Ver|kusha �#ª�&`*�B� Vere|ksa (AJO57), Ver|bush|ka (AKO186), Vere|me|evka «� ÂVere|ma (AKO173), Vere|na (AKO197), Ver|zhe|nka «�Â�D))Å� (AKO184). The stem �D)�D�������! ������� �������������������D(/�'(�­��� �I�����B������ �������������� ��� ���distribution of this specific, seems to have belonged to the language of the Meryans ����� ��������� ����� ��$

Conclusions

�� �;����<=����������������������������!���������! ��� �������� ���������&���� �Oka–Upper-Volgaic group, 2) the vast Finno-Ugrian group, 3) the Finnic group, 4) the local group and 5) the Finnic–Upper-Volgaic group. Many of these groups have con-� ����������������"����������� ���������B�!���! ���� ��� ������"����� � ��� �� �"�� � ��� � ���B������ ������������������! �������� � �����������������$

The Oka–Upper-Volgaic group contains the formants -ra, -lya and -er. The vast Finno-Ugrian group contains the formants -sha/-ksa/-ksha, -zha, -ma/-ba, -ga. The Finnic group has only the one representative -%�����ó9;�. The local group is repre-� �� ��!"�������������������!� �������óK���0��<oda ½« *joga,� �0)����ó jädra/ä�½«�ó;'�)�/ä. The Finnic–Upper-Volgaic group contains the formants -�N����and -!0���. �� � ���������������� �� �� � ������ ������� ����)=�� �<>���������� ����������� �;������������������� �$�|� � �B��������������!������� "��� ���� $����"�����"���-�"����� �������Kere|st’ [Chudovo] and Vero|nda ²> ����"���������´$���� ��� �they are strongly represented in the Oka–Upper-Volgaic territory.

Page 92: south-eastern contact area of finnic languages in the light of onomastics

6. The Finnic sound shifts *š > h���� > t and Novgorodian hydronyms

One of the most essential sound shifts in Finnic is óÊ��� {� and another is *Ì� ¬� t �������������&~~~��(���@������*++(��*,,�$�;��������� ������������ �"��� ������� ���-ine names containing š,�Ì�and h. With the help of these names it is possible to verify � �� ������� ����� ���������� ��������� �� � ������� ���� �������"������;������������shifts did or did not take place.

6.1. Hydronyms with < š >

To this category belong such hydronyms as Shabo|dro oz. (ANO40B1) ��ó1�*9);'0)� «�ÂÊ�*���� ­��� �I� XX�Shadomlya ����*C#*��½«�Šadonläj� ­��� �����C���I� XX�Shuya (ANO16V3) � *šuj�­�����!�"�����������������"� ���� ������� �I���� ����������"����*šuj-�"����"����������������� ������������������"����� ���������������� ������-tion) || Yashche|ra �w9�9���'¼���«�Â�'�I�Ê'))��� *;'�I�Ê'�­����I��� �����?�*�+�� XX�

Ilmen

Volkhov

Msta

PolaLovat

Luga

Oredezh

Shelon Mologa

Msta

VyshniyVolochek

Shlino oz.

Valdayskoye oz.

Velye oz.

Seliger oz.

Novgorod

Chudovo

Kirishi

Kholm

Valday

Kresttsy

Borovichi

Pestovo

Novgorod oblast

Formants of hydronyms:

-oda -(V)ra -lya -sha -zha -ksha, -ksa -dra -st’ -er -nda -ma

the boundaryof Finno-Ugrianformants

Map 9. Finno-Ugrian formants in Novgorod oblast.

Page 93: south-eastern contact area of finnic languages in the light of onomastics

;����<=�������"����"�������� ���� ��>�����������w���������� ����� ������������*'`

Bol. & Mal. Vishe|ra ����&'#*¼*,���B�Vishe|ra (ANO22V2), Bol. & Mal. Visherka ����*,ª`��«�*više/ä�­����<���B����� }I��� �������������&~CC��``'�$�����������"� � ����� ����� �� �"����"�� !�� �� ��� �������B� �� � ��� �� Msta ­ª����� ��� �I$��� � �hydronyms have numerous correspondences in the Upper Volga and Oka region.

6.2. Hydronyms with < � >

To this category belong such rivers and lakes as Chagoda (2) ����&,�`�����&~ª`�B�Chagodoshcha (ANO6-7A8), Chagodskoye oz. (ANO34B2), Checho|ra ����*C>*�����$� �_"����������Ì�Ì9)(����óÊ�Ì9(��­���! �!���I���X�?�&~')&~C���$ $�­����� ���� �I�(this river is the last one in its catchment area)30, Cherma (LPNP:Z1/S) and the Lake �{D)D(D!�I9�D���óíD)D(�����$�^�_"����������Ì�(D�­! ������������ I ��X�?�*�~����� � ��� ����� ������ �������� ����������� ��!��"������ �$��� � ��� �� � �������� ����-dences in the Upper Volga and Oka regions.

On the basis of the hydronyms mentioned above, it is possible to conclude that some Finno-Ugrian language ��� ���� �� �������������!����� ���� ��� �� � ����� ��B������< �� ������� ��� ������������w ���������!��������������������! �;�����B�! ���� �the sound shifts *š�¬�������ÂÌ�¬�������������� ������ $��� ��"����"�������� �� � ������� �� ������ ���������"����� ���� � ��� �� �=�� ��>������������� � �����$��� � �� ���*ÌD)�D���and *ÌDÌD��� � �!� ��� �^�_"���������������Ì�(D�«�šere�­! ������������ I and Ì�Ì9)(��«�ÂÊ�Ì9)(��­���! �!���I$�?���������� B������ �������� ������� ��� � ��������������� ������"�«�Ì�¬�������^�_"���������$�

6.3. Hydronyms with < h >

The initial Finnic h can be substituted �����������������������!"��� ������������R, � and j- (v, X, ñ, 6, [) or by zero Ø (Mullonen 2002: 51–56).

6.3.1. Toponyms with initial Russian kh- (��\��

Khaba|l|inka (ANO20B2), an oikonym in Leningrad oblast in the upper course of the ��� ���� � _�$�=����!� ��"B� �� � � ������ ��� �� �!�������������?�����������{|W��­���������� �I������?�&*��$��� ������"���������� ������ ������ ������������"������southern boundary of Ingrian settlement.

Khobo|l|ka ����`&ª'���������� ������� ���� ������� ������ ���� ��w����$��� ���� ��������!�!�"�! �� ��� �������@�� ��������� ���������²>����"´�hoaba ­��� �I��@@��� �� � ���� ,�B� ! ���� ���� �� �� ���� @}�������� @�� ����� � ��� �� �@����� ��

,+� ?���� �� �"����� ���������� �"�È{�&{�����"����"���½�«�� �"���ÂÊ�Ì�����~ Mordvin Ì�Ì9)(�, Ê�Ì9)(� ��PFP óÊDºÌ�.

Page 94: south-eastern contact area of finnic languages in the light of onomastics

246� ������ �

&~~'��&`'�$��� �;������������������� �������"�� �� � �� ������������������� ��������� ������� ��������������$�Suomi ­;������I�¬�������������îÓËÙ �^��%�???�C+,�$

Khuba (ANO23V6), Khub|ka ����*,>`���� ����!����� ������� ��� ������� ������ ���� ������$�?���� �!������������ � ���"��� ��� ��@�� ��������� ���������huaba ­��� �I��@@��$�?���� �� ���������� �����B�����������!"��� �@}��������@�� ����������taken place (Kirkinen 1994: 154). In principle, it is possible to derive the toponyms ������������ �;����������hüvä ­����I$�?���������� ��� �;������ó¢�������������and the Finnic *v ¬����������, ����� ��������!� ����������� ��� �� � ��� �������������� ���the Novgorodian area (Mullonen 2002: 58, 68). The latter is more rare as a naming ground.

6.3.2. Toponyms with initial Russian ��

Gebezhkoye oz. ����`+�*�� ½«� Â"D*9Å);')��� ��� �� ��� � ��� �� � w����� �� ��"�� ��close to Khobolka. Phonetically it is possible to derive the specific from Tver-Valday Karelian hebo ­���� I$

6.3.3. Toponyms with loss (Ø) of the original initial Finnic *h-

Izhina ����,+ª'���������� ��������� ������� � ��� � � ��� ������� ��������������oblast close to the border of Vologda oblast. This hydronym can most probably be derived from an original *"����Å�)!�. In that case, in the background there may be the ������@�� ��������� ���������{��Å�� ­� ���B���������������������� I� �@@��$��� ���� �� ������� ���� ��"� ����� �� �> �" ������ � ���� � � ���� ������� ��@�� ������migrated in the 17th century (Kirkinen 1994: 166).

6.3.4. Toponyms with *h ~ Russian ����������

Toponyms of this category are not found.

6.4. Conclusion

?��� ����������� ������"������������������Âh- ���������� �� � ������� �$�|� � �B�they can be derived either from Ingrian or Karelian migration in the 17th century AD. ^� �� ��� �� "��� ����� �� ��������� ���� ������������B� �� ����! ����� �� � ��"���-nyms is so small that most probably they are not inherited from the aboriginals of the Novgorodian territory, i.e. from the Chudes ����� � ���"����������������� �$����� ����the toponyms based on the diphthongs -oa- (hoaba) or -ua- (huaba) originate from the Karelian language.

Page 95: south-eastern contact area of finnic languages in the light of onomastics

;����<=�������"����"�������� ���� ��>�����������w���������� ����� ������������*'(

7. Ethnonyms Chude and Nere ~ Mere

7.1. � !"����

�� � �� �� ��� �����"��� ���� �{%0�D�� is vast.31 The areal distribution is focused in Novgorod, Leningrad and Tver oblasts. A total of 30 names have been collected here. ��� �����"������� �� ���� �����������������!�$ (4), Yaroslavl obl. (4), Pskov obl. (3), Ivanov �!�$��*�B��� �� ��!�������@�� �����*�B����� �����!�$ (2), Vladimir obl. (2), Kaluga obl. (1), Kirov obl. (1), Kostoma obl. (1), Tula obl. (1). Arkhangelsk oblast ������ �� ��!�������@������ ���� �����B�! ���� ������ � ��� ������ �������! ������������the chronicles referred to as�ý��9#9&{I�����{���%0D�[%�^�?�<��v�ç[��´�­�� ����� �! ������� �� ����������I$��� ����� �����������������! ������� ����������������� ��is not yet solved.

If the &{%0�D��toponyms at least mainly reflect the ethnos of the Novgorodian ���� ��� ����� ������� ����������������� �B��� ���������������� ���� �������� ��-ments of Novgorod and Tver seem to correspond to the core area of Chudian settle-� ������� � ��������&+�$�?������ �"����������������� ����� ��� ���� � ��� ����! ��of &{%0�D�������"��������������� �� "�������� �����������$�^� ����������� �> ����� ���� ������ ������ ��!"���������B� �� �&{%0�D��toponyms do not occur in the histori-����> ���� ������"������� � �� ����������� � ������������������������� ���� ������ �marsh Choudy|boloto ���#`,������� ��� ������� ���� ��������������� ���� ������� ������ ���� ���"��$�^� ����� �����������������������>��������!����B���������������� �atlas AVO (2008), &{%0�D��toponyms are totally lacking. In the traditional Meryan ter-ritory in Yaroslavl, Vladimir and Kostroma oblasts �� ����! ������������$�������� �of &{%0�D��hydronyms, Chud|ozero and Chudo|järvi������������ �� ��!�������@�� ��������� �9���\}����� �������� ��$��� � ��"����"�����"�! ������������������ �� ������������ ����������� ���� ������������������ �! � ����������������������������� ���#�Ã������&~~(��&`��$

31 Chudina (oikon.) (ANO48), Chudinovo (oikon.) (ANO43), Chudinskoye bol. (marsh) (ANO36), Chudintsevy Gorki (oikon.) (ANO32), Chudovka (river) (ANO24), Chudovo ����������&,�B�Chudovo (oikon.) (ANO38), Chudsko (oikon.) (ANO32), Chudskoye oz. (lake) (ANO50), Chudskoye (nature) (ANO28), Chudskoy Bor (oikon.) (ANO13), Chudtsy (nature) (ANO16), Chudskoye ozero ~ Peipus (lake) (LPNP:Z1/S), Chudskaya Rudnitsa (oikon.) (LPNP:I1/S), Chudskiye Zakhody (oikon.) (LPNP:I1/S), Chudtsy (oikon.) (LPNP:K7/N), Chudskaya (oikon.) (LPNP:I7/N), Opol’skiy v Chyudi�������$����"�!�-nin 1997: 18), Toldozhskiy v Chyudi (oikon.) ibid., Chudinka (oikon.) (AMO57), Chudinovo (oikon.) (AMO115), Chudtsevo (oikon.) (AMO37), Chudtsevskoye oz. (lake) (AMO37), Chudnovka (ATuO69), Chudnenkij (oikon.) (AKalO51), Chudinovo (nature) (ASO32,63), Chudino oz$����� �������C�B�Chudi-novo (oikon.) (AVldO43), Chudskaya (oikon.) (AVldO65), Chud’ (oikon.) (AIO18~AKO189), Chudin-ka (nature) (AJO21), Chudinovo (oikon.) (AJO38), Chudinovskoye bol. (marsh) (AJO61), Chudikha (oikon.) (AKO121), Chudal|ovo (oikon.) [Kir. obl.] (AVO67), Chudinka (oikon.) [Yrl obl.] (AVO92), Chudino (oikon.) (ATO67), Chudinovo (oikon.) (ATO134,152), Chudinovskiy (river) (ATO16,123), Chudiny (oikon.) (ATO96), Chudnikovo (oikon.) (ATO80), Chudovo (oikon.) (ATO189,211), Chudskoy Stan�²=�����´���"�!�����&~~(��&�C�B�Choudy boloto������������#`,�B�Chudojärvi ���� ����@�@C+�B�Chudozero����� ����@�@C&�$

Page 96: south-eastern contact area of finnic languages in the light of onomastics

There are some interesting stray toponyms. In Kirov oblast close to the border of Vologda oblast there occurs a village name Chudal|ovo. Close to it is another village called Chegado|evskiy. �� � ���� ��� ���������������"�������� ��������Chudovo ���� �� ���� ��Chagoda� ��� �� ������ ������ ���� �� ���� ��>������$�����B� ��� � ����!������ ����� �� � ������"��� ���@������!�������� �! �� ������ �� �� ����� �� ���� ��Volkhov area.

Laatokka

Ääninen

Svir

OnegaDvina

Sukhona

VolgaVolga

Oka

Vychegda

Volkhov

Oka

Sheksna

Unzha

Vetluga

Pietari

Vologda

Ryazan

Moscow

Nizhniy-Novgorod

Novgorod

FINLAND

St. Petersburg

Chude-toponym

the boundary of theprincipal areas of theChudes

Map 10. The areal distribution of Chud(e)-toponyms.

Page 97: south-eastern contact area of finnic languages in the light of onomastics

;����<=�������"����"�������� ���� ��>�����������w���������� ����� ������������*'~

7.2. #�������$������

The majority of (D)D�D��and�!D)�D��toponyms are located in the traditional area of the � �"����������������� ��� ��!"��� ����������������� �$32 Merevskoye oz. on the border of Novgorod and Leningrad oblasts is �����"����� �� �������������� �"���B�!������ ����!�!�"�������� ���������� ��Mereva ~ Nereva (see Machinskiy 1986: 8–9). ����� ������������������������ �Povest vremennykh let in a literary form Neroma. It ����! �������� ���"���� ��� � ������������������G��� �!���_<X �_���&~`,�$

The variants (D)�D��4�!D)�D�� in the Upper Volga–Oka area seem both to refer to the Meryans of the chronicles. Ahlqvist (1999: 626–630) has seen a reason for the ������������������ó!���(�������������������������$�ó!9))(�!���(%)(�!�­��� �����Viking’. In that case the original ethnonym should be ó!D)�D�. Ahlqvist believes ����� ��� �������� �� ����� �� � ��� � ��� w�� � � ��� «� ÂIn|jer. As a naming model her ��������������� �"�� �����!� B�!����� � ��� ���������� ����!� ���� ��$�?���� � ������"����� ������������ � �����"���Merya�«�ÂNere and Nereva ~ Nereva ~ Neroma of 9����)��������� � ����B� �� � ����������� !�� �� ��� �� � �"����"�� Nero oz. is very ����� �"$���� ��"�| �������� ����'C`)'*+�ª������ �����������������"����� ��Neuri. ������������������� "���� ����� � � ��! ������� ���"������������� �� ���!������������� �������������½���������$��� � ��� �������� ������������ ���������������� ������� �'���� ����"��ZB�������������� ����������� ���� ������� ������ ���� ��Z�� � �$��#��!�����&~�,��~~)&++�$

?�������� � �������� ������!����"�������� � ������ª���������! ������� ������ ��� ���� ���� ��Narev �����"��������� ���9������������ ���� ��Neris (today in Belarus and Lithuania) ������������� ������� ���� ������� ������� �Z�� � �������� �@�����)�������� �$��� ����������� ���� ����?v�� (~ Galindian�$�?����������������� � ��- ���#������������� ������� ������ ���!���������� ���� ����� �$�?���� ���� ������� ������� ���� ��Z�����������$�Z�������� � ����������� ��Nar|yazykovo ­�� �� ������� ����<������� I$�������"����"������! ����� �� �������� �������������Nerevas. It ��������!� �������� �;����<=�������������� ���������� �"��������� ���� � �����"��from the neighbouring Balts.

32 Merevskoye oz. (ANO20), Mereley��#ª�*`(�B�Mer|ka��#ª�&&+�B�Mer|lyay��#ª�*'+�B�Mer|ovka �#ª�&*,�B� Mer|skaya� �#ª�&&+B&*~�B� Meryan|ovskoye� �#ª�*+`�B� Meryak|in� �#ª�*(*�B� Mer|skaya (AJO69), Mera (TKKO49), Merem|sha (TKKO41).

Ner|ach|ino oz. (ANO40), Nere|ts|koye oz. (ANO37), Ner|tsa (ANO37), Ner|ash� �#ª�*+~�B�Nere|vets� �#ª�*�*�B� Nere|vka� �#ª�*�&�B� Nere|vskoye� �#ª�&*'B&'&�B� Neres|l’� �#ª�*+C�B� Nere|sta �#ª�&,(�B� Nere|khta� �#ª�**(�B� Ner|l’� ²@�"�_��´� �#ª�*&'�B� Nere|buzh|skoye� �#ª�**&�B� Ner|ga (AJO72), Nere|khta (AJO85,95), Ner|l’ [Volga] (AJO106), Nero oz. (AJO102), Nere|to (ATO21), Nere|g (TKKO62), Nere|khta���@@�'`B`+��XX�X�#��Nerizha�@�$���� �B�#$�����B Nero|sh|ka�@�$�� �"�B�#$�@�-luga, Nere|ta ~ Narata�@�$�Z�����B�#$�>�� !��$�@�$�¾����"B�#$�¾���� ��� ��$

Page 98: south-eastern contact area of finnic languages in the light of onomastics

250� ������ �

7.3. Other ethnonyms

�� � � �������� ���� �� �����"���������� �� �� � �� ��� � ����"�� �"�!�� ��"������ ���������������Kurlyandskoye ����'`�'��«�­@��������ILibya (ANO47B4), Livitsa ����'C�*��«�­w�������ILitvinovo ����,�ª*B����',>'��«�­w���������IMeshcherskaya Kromka ����,`>`��«�­� ���� ��INemtsovo ����'&ª'��«�­# ����B�������������I

Map 11. The principal areas of Chud(e)� Mer(e) and Ner(e) hydronyms.

Laatokka

Ääninen

Svir

Sukhona

Dnieper

Volga

Vjatka

Volkhov

Oka

Sura

Sheksna

Unzha

Vetluga

Pietari

Vologda

Ryazan

Kazan

Mari-El

St. Petersburg

the principal area of Chud(e)-toponyms

Mer(e)-hydronymNer(e)-hydronym

the principalarea of Mere-and Nere-hydronyms

Volga

OkaMoscow

Nizhniy-Novgorod

Novgorod

Page 99: south-eastern contact area of finnic languages in the light of onomastics

;����<=�������"����"�������� ���� ��>�����������w���������� ����� ������������*`&

8. Pskov region

Neither Finnic nor Upper-Volgaic Finno-Ugrian macrotoponyms occur in the sur-��������������� ��������9����$��� ���� �����!��� ����� ������������� ���� ������"�Slavic, and therefore it is possible to presume that the Slavs have lived in the Pskov region for a long time. In the map Obzorno-Geograficheskaya karta (LPNP) 1: '++�+++� �������� ������������������ ���"���������"����"������(D!I���������������X���­���� IB�È{&{DWDN������������°X���­����IB��D#�I��������������^X?���6�­!��IB��!9K������������������ ­������ �$ $�!��IB�Shiritskoye oz. «������������� ­!����IB��{D)!��������������<ñ��>6�­!����IB�¤D#I�������������X?>6�­��� I�����X?���­�����-rel’, Velino oz.���������������^X?�6� ­!��IB�Brannoye oz. «��������������>6� ­!��-�� B���<IB�Zabel’skoye oz. «����������X?>6�­��� I��������!�!�"��������Zhel|tsa ½«��������� Hñ?>6� ­" ���IB� Polon|ka ½«� �������� ��?��� ­���� ��B� �� "IB� Obdekh ~ ^��������Optjogi ½«��������������­�� ���� IB�Lochkina ½«���������?�<����­w�������communis’, Uza ½«����������2��­! ���I

In addition, there are etymologically obscure, possibly Old Baltic names such as Ú�I9�����óÚ#�D�I9������$������ �����w���������Plisa �^��%�???�,~(�B�Tolba ½«�*tol|upe��cf. Lith. tolimas, Latv.�N|#��­� ��� IB�w���$¼w���$�upe ­��� �I$�?������ �����!���� in the � ���� �������� �Z������������������� ���� ��Tolba (ASO84A2). The names of the rivers Keb’ and Kebtsa could be of Finno-Ugrian origin, i.e. from Finnic *kive ­���� IB�!����������� ��� ������������� ����!� ����������� ��������� ��� ��«�e�¬$

X������ � �� ����������� ����������"����"��B����������������!� ����� ��� ���"������ ����� ���"����"������9������ ����������;������������� �$�?�� ����������� ����"�������� ������������ �Chudskoye ozero (~ Peipsijärvi ~ Peipus) is not the name of �� � ����� ����������� ��������!� <��� B������ ��� ���� ��Pskovskoye oz. The &{%0�D�������"������ �����������"���������� �� ��� ��������������"�������<>�������� �������"������ ������ ������������� ���� ���$ $������ ���� �Chudskoye (see Map 1).

9. Conclusions

9.1. Finnic toponyms

As presented in Section 4, the southern boundary of transparently Finnic hydronyms ������������ ������< �������� �����w�� �9 �������������� �� ���������������B��������������� ��� ������� ������� ���� ���w��������>����������������!�"�;�������"����"���occur (Map 1). Their areal distribution is located mainly in the area of Leningrad �!����$�?������������!������� � ����������"�� ��"����"���������� ����� ������!�"�;�����$�?���� ����������������� �"�� ��;�������"����"����������������!��������������! ��������� �������� �����$������� �������� ����������! ������"����"��������� � �����! �;����<=�����B��� "��� ����� ��� � � ������� "� � ��������;������������$��������into account that most of their stems or specifics occur also in the Upper Volga and ������ �B� $�$��"����"�������Il’m-, Kib- and Mst- (see Map 4) or that they have an

Page 100: south-eastern contact area of finnic languages in the light of onomastics

252� ������ �

Oka-Volgaic formant (e.g. Yaim|lya, Map 6), the Finnic origin of these hydronyms must be considered uncertain. The most remarkable argument against the Finnic ori-���� ��� �� � ������������ ���� �� ��� ����� �� � � ��� ���� ����� ����� ;������ �� ������� ���� � ���������� ��"����"���������� ����� ����������� �����!����$

�� �������� �! ������� ��������������"����"�������� ���� ����������������;�����B� �� �����"� ��� �� ��$� ª��� �� � ������� � � �! �� ����� �� � �� ��� ��� ;�������� ����� ������������ ��������� ������9����<=�����$���������� �����������B��� ���������������"���������w�� �9����<;����������������� ������ ��� �� ����������óÊ���{�(e.g. in the hydronyms Shuya, Shabo|dro oz., Yashchera, Vishera) and óÌ���N�(in the hydro-nyms Chagoda, Chechora, Cherma, Cheremenskoye oz$�$������"���������������*h that could be considered as Finnic names in Novgorod oblast seem to originate from @�� ����� ���� ����� $�$� �{9*9)#1��� Ka.Valday hoaba and Khuba «� @�$�� �� huaba ­��� �I$

9.2. Evidence of formants

�� ������������������������������ ������"�������� �� � ������� ��������������������� ���������� �������� ��������������� �� ������`���<sha/-ksa/-ksha, -zha, -ga, -nda, -ra, -lya/-l’ and -D)�9�/-9)�9�. ��� ������������������������"����!�!�"� � �� � �����such as -0)����ó;'0)�/ä�­��� I�����<90����ó;9K��­��� �I��� ��"������ �� �����"������ �areas of Novgorod and Tver oblasts ���������� � �� ���������������������������� ���������$�?���� �!������������ � �� ��������� �! ���� �������������óK���0. There is only one occurrence of a generic that is certainly Finnic: ó9;�����%��.

?����������!� ������ ����� �� �� ��<���D)������;����������� � ������������ �����järvi ­��� I������ � ��������(/�'(<��������������� �����#'')'`������� �� ���� �������� ���� ���"������������ �ª ��_ ���� ����$�?���������� �������!� ����� !�� ��� �^��������shortened form järi or even such toponyms in Finland as Lake In|ari in Lapland and Lake Äht|äri ���� ������;������$�|� � �B��� ��������! ������������������ ������"�������� ��"�������ª ��_ ���� ����������������� �"��������� �B��� �^��������järi is a ��� ������ � ������������ �����Âjärvi and In|ari or Äht|äri �«�ÂÄtsäri) originate from ��� ��������������� $��� �������������D) occurs in the Upper Volga and Oka area �����C����� ��$

9.3. Evidence of ethnonyms

�� � �����"�������� �� � ������� ������������� ������ �� ������;����<=������������� � ��� �Chudes and an ethnic group called (D)�D��/!D)�D���(see Section 7). The most important area of &{%0�D��toponyms is located in Novgorod and Tver oblasts, in the �� ������������������!����������� ��� �����w�� �9 ����������� ������ ������ ������ ���� ��w���$�Mere-, Nere-, and Nar-ethnonyms are located in the Upper Luga and Upper Daugava, in Valday and in the Meryan areas of the chronicles in Central

Page 101: south-eastern contact area of finnic languages in the light of onomastics

;����<=�������"����"�������� ���� ��>�����������w���������� ����� ������������*`,

������������&&�$�?���� ������������������� � ����!��������!��!����� ��Nere|vskiy Konets and a street called Chudintsevaya ulitsa. �� � ���"�! ���� �������������&���� ����� ������� � ���¼� � ���� � ��� ����! �������� �����"��B��� � ����"���D)D��������� ���"��Chude ���*���� �� � ������������ �� � ����� ����� ��������-������������������"�! �� �� �� �� $�$������ �����­��� I����X �����������Â;')����and ^�������������½� � ��*jädra/ä (see Section 7.2 and Map 11).

The areal distribution of the ethnonyms Chude and Mere/Nere ����� ������� �!������"�! � �� �� ������������"��������� � �� �!��� �������� ����� ������Yaroslavl oblasts (Map 11). ��������������� �� ����� �� � ��������� ��� �"���$�����B��"����"�������<emlya and -omlya �������� ���� ���� ������'�$��� ����� ���regional administrative centres Chudskoy stan and Meretskiy stan � ����������� ����������!������"������ ��������"������ ��������=�����B������ �� ���!��������� ���� ��>�������"�!�����&~~(��&�CB�����''�$�ª����&{%0�D��toponyms and the onomastic simi-�����"������������ ����������;����<=����������������������������������� ���!����� ! ���� ����������� � ������ ����"$��� � ��� ���!������"������ ���� � �� ���!��� ������� �9����������"����>�������<��_���B��������������� ��������� �! ������� ������� �basis of the ancient Meryan Land. The areal distribution of &{%0�D��toponyms and its ����� ���!������"����� ���������� �� ��������� ������ ���!������"������������ ���"�Finnic hydronyms (Map 3) and the boundary of medieval Votes, Ingrians and Vepses ��� ��������&�$

%_%� ��D�,����'���,�

The vocabulary behind substrate names in Novgorod oblast seems in most cases to be ���� �����>�������;����<=������������� �������;�������� ��!�� �� ������`B����������-dra and ����D).33 In addition the name of the Lake Kaftino~Kaftano oz. (ANO39V4-5, on the boundary of Novgorod and Tver oblasts) ����� �� ���� �������� ���� ��Msta ! ������ ���"�!������� �� � ��� ����������� � ����������� �������� ���^�_"����������kavto ~ kafto and Moksha kafta «�9;9�Âkakta �9��`,(��­��I$����� ����������������� ��the Lake Udal’ oz. ��>�,`ª'�� ��$���������«�udal- ­! ����B�!���I��X�?>�*'*C)*',&�$��� ���� ������������ �� ��������"���� ���� �B������! ���������� ���! ����������� ���� ���� ���$����������"�������� ���������� ���� � ��������������� �������� ���as of the big one In|jukha (TVO188B2) and its smaller tributary Veshka �>�&CCª,���cf. Mordvin �¼D�­!��I�����veška ­�����I$���� � �� ����������� �����musta (in Msta-�"����"���������������������� ���������� �����"����;�����$�|� � �B��� �������"� ������ �! ���� ����� �� � � ������������ �������� ����� ����� �� ���������=�� ��Volga territory. At least the toponyms seem to support this, because Finnic tribes �����"���� ������� �w� ��@�"�_������� �����������������������!��������� � �� ������!� ������� ��"����"�������Mst- ���� ��������������� �����`�$

33 In this case Volgaic languages mean Mordvin and Meryan-Muroma, the latter as defined by top-onyms.

Page 102: south-eastern contact area of finnic languages in the light of onomastics

254� ������ �

9.5. Hydronyms of Pskov region

�� ������! � ���������������^������B��$ $��� �� ��������9����B�� �������� �!�����of macrotoponyms to have been populated by Slavs since a very early date. A medie-��������������������;����<=������� ��� � ��������������^����������w�� �?�� ��� ���in the light of toponyms almost impossible. The proportion of Balts in the Pskov �� ���� ������ � �� ������ �! �� �����������$�9 ������ ��� ����� � �� � ������ � �����to the Balto-Slavic era. Some hydronyms of Tver oblast, such as Oka [Lovat basin] and Ok|cha, may possibly be derived from Proto-Balto-Slavic ó�I���� NW Proto-?���<^���� ���*h2akwah2 ­�� �I��9 ����@�����B�� �������������������$����� ����� ���!�� B�� ����������� ������ ���� ������������� ��� ��������� ������ ���!������"����ª�����������"��$�| ����� ��������� �!������"����������� �������������� ��! � ���� ���� ���Z������)Z� �������w����)> ����"������������������������9�������"�!�����1997: 4, Fig. 1 according to Sedov).

The great number of Slavic toponyms of the Pskov region support the old hypoth- ����������� ���"��������_�������� � �� ��!"����"���������� � ���� ���� $�$������������&~`+��� ����&~�+�$�������� ������� ���������� �w����ª����������� ��������! ����-� �� ������������!������� ��� �������� B���������!�������� ������������� �"� ���"�stage already in the 5th century as far as the Mologa region (Yushkova 2006: 145). ?�� ��������"������ �"� ����� �� ��������������� �� ��� �� �� ���� ������������ ���"B������� ������� ���������� "����� �����������! �! ������� �w����ª����������� $�According to Yushkova (2006: 149), the first small Slavic groups came to the Lake =����"�� ����� � ��� �� ���� ���������� �� �� ���`++"(`+��Z$�9� ����!�"� �� �w����ª����������� ���������< �����B��$ $�ª�����)������);����<=�����$��� �9������ ����������� ! � �� � �������� �� �� ����� !������� �� � ���� ��� ^���"� ����� <������� ������������ ��"� ���,++"'++��Z� �������� ���� ��� �����< ��� ���^��������� ����������������Chudes into the Finnic speaking area.

A smaller Finnic population has lived in different times in the area of modern Novgorod and Tver oblasts. �� ������������� ��������������� �������!���� $�?����� �������������@�� ���������?�������� ��� �������� ������� �&(���� ����"��� �����,�B�!���supposedly the economical attraction of Novgorod brought a Finnic population from Ingria and Karelia already in earlier times (see the Birchbark Documents in Section 2.2). It seems on the basis of archaeological evidence that the so-called �D���people �½> ������� ������ ���������� ����� ��"������ �>�������� ����������&~~~��`~)�*�$�?����������!� ������w����������������� � �������� ���� ��Z�������������>����"����$��� �ethnonymic hydronyms Libya and Livitsa$�?����"���� B�;��������������� � ������� �aboriginal Novgorodian Chudes of the chronicles.

9.6. Oka–Upper-Volgaic influence

;�����"B�?��� � �������������� �����������������"���������'B� B�(B�&&�����&*�����������Oka–Upper-Volgaic influence clearly reaching Novgorod and territory of Lake Ilmen. ?����������!� �������� � ����� ���������� ������!"������������� ������"��������� �

Page 103: south-eastern contact area of finnic languages in the light of onomastics

������!����������� �Z"������������ ������&*�� ��������9������ ��*+++��~+����������&~~~��``���"�!�����&~~(��&�&�$

%����� >���� ��� �*++~�� ~`�� ���� ������ � �� �� � ������� ��� �� � �������� �¤��Ù¢-dialect to be a Meryan substrate influence. This dialectal area is especially strong in ú�������������>���������!����������������� �� ������������������"����������� ����-�������������w�� �?�� ��������! ���������� ��¤��Ù¢-�� ����� ��$������ � �� ���!�� B����� ���������� ��^��� ������� ��� � ��������������"��������������"����$����� <���� ��pendants mentioned above) close to the Meryans.

������������������������� ���������������� ��� � �����!\ ��$��� ������� ���������article is to attract a younger generation of scholars to the study of the Finno-Ugrians of the ancient Novgorodian Land. More thorough research of the stems and specif-��������"����"���������� � ����������� ������ �� ����������� ����� ������������������� �$�?����"�! �����������������"�����������"������ ��$������ �� �����"����� ������ ��� ���� � ��� �� ����"����;����<=����������������"����������$�?�������������! ������!� ����� ��� ��� ���� �����" ������� ������"��$������� ��������� �� ���������������! �������_ ������������ �B�������������! � ��� ������������������� ������"������ ��by the relatively late Karelian and Ingrian migrants from the more early names origi-nating from the Novgorodian Chudian language. The question of “West Chudes” and �^�������� �����������! ������ ������������������"� �� ��������������$

Map 12. Ilm ?������� Chude and Mere-/Nere- ��������ra- and -khra-���dra- formants and Yakhr-/Yedr-lakes. The core area has been defined by three (3) of five (5) factors influencing �����?�������?������������������'�������x��������$#����$$%

LaatokkaSvir

Sukhona

Daugava

Dnieper

Volga

Vjatka

Kama

Volkhov

Sheksna

Unzha

Vetluga

Pietari

Vologda

Ryazan

Kazan

Penza

Nizhniy-Novgorod

Mari-El

Udmurtia

St. Petersburg

Oka and Upper-Volgaic influence

Ilm-hydronyms -ra-formants Chud(e)-toponyms Mer(e)- / Ner(e)- toponyms

-khra /-dra-formants and Yakhr- / Yedr-lakes

core area of influence

Dyakovo Culture

Volga

Oka

Oka

Moscow

NovgorodMsta

Mologa

Kljaz’ma

Page 104: south-eastern contact area of finnic languages in the light of onomastics

256� ������ �

}�����D

Hydronyms of Leningrad oblast from the map Obzorno-Geograficheskaja &��������@� �Z@����?��!�����?\

Avloga V5S, Cheremenskoye oz. Z4S, Cherma Z1S, Choga I8N, Chud|lya K3N, Galmach|ikha I1S, Khabol|ovo oz. D2S, Khepo|yarvi oz.� #`�B� Il’mas I8N, Izhora (~ Inkere) D5S, Kem|ka��'�B�Kikhtol|ka�^*�B�Kobo|na I3N, Kopan|skoye oz. D2S, Kost|uya K3N, Kus|ega I5N, Kusi|nka K4N, Lembol|ovskoye oz. V5S, Lemovzha��,�B�Lipovskoye oz. D2S, Lyamzha I7N, Lyussa Z2S, Lyuta Z2S, Ludo|nka I3S, Luti|nka �'�B�Lynna I5N, Mar’i|nka K4N, Mga D6S, Nazi|ya I3N, Neva D5S, Nudo|ksa K6N, Obnova��,�B�Okhta V5S, Olesh|nya K4N, Olo|m|na K4N, Oredezh�^'�B�Pinega I6N, Pit’ I7N, Pyal’itsa� Bol. I8N, Puz|oya I8N, Radil|ovo K3S, Ragoz|inka�#`�B�Rap|lya L6N, Saba��,�B�Samro oz$��*�B�Sapa I6N, Sestra�#'�B�Sit|nya I3S, Syas’ I5N, Sol|ka ^*�B�Suyda� '�B�Suksa I6N, Suma D2S, Shchalo oz. K5N, Shizh|nya I6N, Shomu|ksha I6N, Shug|ozero I7N, Tosna D5S, Tikhvin|ka K7N, Tig|oda L4N, Tumo|ka I7N, Ukhta ^,�B�Vegotskoye oz. I4N, Vel’ya L4N, Verd|uga Z3S, Vyalye oz.��'�B�Vl|oya K4N, Voytol|ovka D6S, Voya��,�B� Volgom|ka I5N, Volo|yarvi oz. V5S, Volo|zh|ba K6N, Yanya Z2S, Yashchera��'�B�Yegl|inka�^`�$

Hydronyms of Novgorod oblast from the map ANO

Andolovka &*#&B� Chagoda 13A5, Chagoda 19B5, Chagodoshcha 6-7A8, Chagodskoye oz. 34B2, Chechora 28V2, Cherenka 18B1, Cherenka 17A4, Cherenskoye oz. 17A4, Chichilovka 46B1, Chuchemlya 27V5, Chuchemlya oz. 27V5, Chudovka 24V2, Chudskoye oz. 50B2, Il’men’ oz. 34B2, Il’men’ 19V5, Ingor’ 14B4, Izhina 30B4, Kadvisha 27V5, Kaftino 39V5, Kalenoye oz. 48A3, Kaleshev 30V2, Kaleshevka 29V5, Karkomlya 40B3, Kastenka 12B1, Kashirka 24A3, Kat’ 30B3, Keza 41V5, Kezadra 41V3, Kemka 39V4, Kerest’ 14V2, Khachin 54V2, Khadritsa 26V4, Khuba 23V6, Khubka 23V5, Kiba 32A2, Kirva 30B2, Kirishkoye oz. 14A2, Kit’ma 29V5, Kobozha 28A3, Kobozha 30A2, Kocha�`'#&B�Koyegoshcha 38A3, Kolba 35V5, Kolodezhskoye oz. 34A2, Kolomenka 31V1, Kolomenka 48A3, Koloshka 32V2, Komel’ 25B3, Koregoshch oz. 54V1, Korkomlya 30A3, Korpovka 34V2, Korpovka 45V5, Kostygovka 46V1, Kostyzhenskoye oz. 30B2, Kotyl’ 30B2, Kova 47V5, Kreksha 34V2, Kudra 47B3, Lamerskoye oz. 36B3, Lib’ya 47B4, Limandrovka 39A5, Lipyarvi oz. 18B3, Mda 25A3, Mdo oz. 26A2, Mezga 30A4, Melegusha 17A4, Meneksha 14V2, Merevskoye oz. 20B1, Merlozhinskaya 55A5, Mologa 30B3, Mologzha 25V5, Molonitsa 41B5, Msta 34A2, Mstizhskoye oz. 46V2, Mshaga 32B3, Neverka 46B3, Nevery oz. 46B3, Nezdrinskoye oz.� *`#,B� Nemega oz. 48B2, Neretskoye oz. 37V4, Nertsa 37A3, Niga oz. 27B6, Nil’skoye oz. 34A3, Nudynya 14A3, Nurdysha 33B5, Oka 55B3, Okzovka�&`#`B�Oksochka 24V3, Omash 29B5, Omsha oz. 17V5, Omsha oz. 27V5, Omsha 17V5, Oredezh 20B1, Oskuya 14B2, Oskuyskoye oz. 14B3, Pyardomlya 17A6, Ponyr’ 18B1, Priksha 26A2, Rabezha

Page 105: south-eastern contact area of finnic languages in the light of onomastics

;����<=�������"����"�������� ���� ��>�����������w���������� ����� ������������*`(

47V5, Ravan’ 13B5, Ragusha 17B5, Radoga 29B4, Radol’ 40A1, Radol’skoye oz. 40B2, Radokha 14B2, Raduga� ,&#,B� Raduga 37A3, Radulya oz. 26A2, Raplya 16A2, Rdeyskoye oz. 50B2, Redekha 40B1, Redya 34V3, Redrovo oz. 28B3, Retno oz. 21A4, Retomlya 17V5, Rotno oz. 17V5, Rotnoye oz. 26V2, Ryaplya 16B1, Ryasno oz. 54V3, Saba�*+#*B�Sabro oz.�`'#&B�Sabrovka�`'#&B�Sapina 17B4, Saragozha 41B5, Seliger oz. 54V2, Seregizhna 23V5, Seremno oz. 54B3, Seremo oz. 54V2, Serezha 55A3, Sermenok oz. 54V2, Sig oz.�`'#*B�Sivel’ba 38A3, Siverik oz. 17V4, Siverka 23V5, Sizovka 52V2, Syas’ 17A4, Smerdomka 19V4, Sormal’ oz. 26A3, Soroga 54V3, Stabenka 53A3, Sudomlya 18B1, Suglinka 19A3, Suytsa� Bol. 12B1, Sun’ya 12B2, Surovskoye oz. 12B1, Suvatel’ 12A2, Shaboderka 40B1, Shabodro oz. 40B1, Shadomlya *C#*B�Shalimovka 26V2, Shambolovka 44V3, Shar’ya 14B3, Shedomets oz. 38B3, Shegrinka�*�#*B�Shelon’ 33B4, Sheregodra oz. 27B4, Sheshno oz. 38B2, Shigolka 19B4, Shildushka 25B4, Shuya 16V3, Shuyarvi-Shu, bol. 18B3, Shulakovka `&#`B� Shul’ga 50V3, Taborka 18A3, Tagran’ oz. 48A1, Tigoda oz.� &*#*B� Tigoda 14A2, Tikhomandritsa 40V3, Tsevlo oz. 49V2, Tsozhenka 55A4, Tuder� Bol. 51V4, Tuder� Mal. 50V3, Tuleblya 34V2, Tushemel’ka 19B3, Tushemel’skoye oz. 19B4, Uchenskiy 45B4, Uchonka 34V2, Udal’ oz. 39V4, Udina 27B5, Udomlya oz.�'+#,B�Unomerka 32A2, Ushenka 42V3, Ushkovo oz. 26A2, Uzminka oz. 18B2, Uzha oz. 26B3, Vagan oz. 16V3, Valdayka 38V2, Valdayskoye oz$�,(#`B�Veksha 33B3, Vergot’ 34V3, Veregzha 27B4, Verkasenka 34B3, Veronda 33A5, Veryazha 33A5, Vitsa�`+#*B�Virovno oz. 23A4, Viska 43V4, Vittsa 36A2, Vishera 22V2, Vishera� Bol.�&'#'B�Vishera� Mal. 23A6, Visherka� Bol. 23B5, Vyalets oz. 26B4, Vyaloye oz. 24V3, Vyazhitskoye oz. 21V5, Vozhanskoye oz. 19B4, Volga 53B4, Voldomitsa�,+#&B�Volzhanka 40V1, Volma 36A1, Volozha 34V4, Volozhba 17A5, Volkhov 22V2, Vorozhba�'&#'B�Yaimlya 36B2, Yashchera 6-7A1, Yavon’ 46V1, Yederka 48A3, Yedrovo oz. 48A2, Yeglinka 12B2, Yeglinka 37V4, Yeglino oz. 37V4, Yelimna 14B4, Yemetskoye oz. 27A5, Yemenets *C#*B�Yeresha 21B5, Yurinka�*�#,$

Page 106: south-eastern contact area of finnic languages in the light of onomastics

258� ������ �

Mos

cow

Ivan

ovo

Serp

ukho

v

Ryaz

anKa

luga

Ore

l

Tam

bov

Vlad

imir

Volg

a

Volg

a

Oka

Klya

zma

Oka

Zhiz

dra

Ugr

a

Prot

va

Upa

Pron

ya

Tsna

PraG

us’

Ush

na

Ner

l’Te

za

Oka

Vad

Klya

zma

Tula

Mur

om

Mok

sha

Niz

hniy

-Nov

goro

d

15-

18a118

a2-

24b2

24b2

-27

(27)

28-

29b

29b-

32b

32b3

-36b

3

36b3

-37(3

7b)

38-4

1a1

41a1

-43b

1

43b1

-45

a45

b-47

48-

53(5

3b)

54-5

657-5

9a

59b-

6263-

65a1

71b-

74

76b-

80a

80b-

82a

65 a2-

66b2

66b3

-71

a(7

4b3)

75-7

6a

82b-

87

88-

91

92-

9596

-98

a

98b-

102a

102b

-105

a10

5b-

108

109-

1

10a1

110a

2-11

1

112

-115

a211

5a3-

119b

1

119b

2-12

3a12

3a3-

125a

2

125a

3-

1

28b2

128b

3-13

0

131

146

147-

151b

1

151b

2-15

6a 156a

-160

a

160b

-16

1a 161b

-16

7b2

167b

3-17

0b1

170b

2-

173

174-

178

a1

178a

2-1

82a1

182b

2-1

84

185-

188

189-

192a

192b

-19

6

197-

199

200-

205a

205b

-20

7

208-

209

210-

2

13

218a

3-

222a

1

222a

2-

224

a

224b

226a

225

226b

227

228

(227

b3)

228-

229

230-2

33b2

233b

3

-237

a

237b

-

2

40a

244

243

241

a3

242

244b

3

249

250

252

251

253

b2

253b

325

4a1

254

a2

255

257

258

259

260

262b

2263

b1

267b

2

268b

2

270-

273

215

216

214

Page

num

berin

gof

GBO

Map 13. Location of hydronyms according to the page numbers of GBO.

Page 107: south-eastern contact area of finnic languages in the light of onomastics

;����<=�������"����"�������� ���� ��>�����������w���������� ����� ������������*`~

References

MapsAIO = �?� ���®^���^ ��v���?� ����Ö¥§§�§§§��*++(��Á�Ú�Ô¨�Á��Ì�Î�¸��Þßìí�¡¢Î�-

�¢���Ú¦¤�¢�ÉÖÎ�Ì¢�¸¢¶� ¢¦¤�¢�í΢¸ÏÎ�±¥�¢$AJO = �?� �³�� ?�^ ��6���?� ����Ö�§§�§§§��*++*����¦¤������¦¤�Î¥�ÌÎ�æ�±$AKO = �?� �¸� ��� ��6���?� ����Ö�§§�§§§��*++~����¦¤������¦¤�Î¥�ÌÎ�æ�±$AMO = �?� �²� ��^ ��6���?� ����Ö�§§�§§§��*++(����¦¤������¦¤�Î¥�ÌÎ�æ�±$ANO = �?� ���±�^����� ��v���?� ����Ö¥§§�§§§��*++���Á��Ì�Î�¸��Þßìí�Á��Ì�Î�¸¦¤�¢�

ÉÖÎ�Ì¢�¸¢¶� ¢¦¤�¢�í΢¸ÏÎ�±¥�¢$��@�¾��?� �¯X ���?����¸������Ö¥§§�§§§��*++���î��¤¥�í¢¥¢Î·ÓÎÌ��Þßìí�ÉÖÎ�Ì¢�-

¸¢¶�±$����¾��?� �¯v2�� ��6���?� ����Ö�§§�§§§��*++�����¦¤������¦¤�Î¥�ÌÎ�æ�±$ASO = �?� �­��?X� ��6���?� ����Ö�§§�§§§��*++C����¦¤������¦¤�Î¥�ÌÎ�æ�±$ATO = �?� �ì^X� ��6���?� ����Ö�§§�§§§��*++ ����¦¤������¦¤�Î¥�ÌÎ�æ�±$�=��¾��?� �������� ��v�¯X ���?������Ö¥§§�§§§��*++(��!¤�¥¢Î��·ÓÎÌ������¦¥¢Î-

¦¥���¥Î��¦Ï�Î¥����¦¦�¨¦¤�Ì��Þ¢¸¢Î�Ò��$�Þ¢¸¢Î��Ù��¢��Ì¢�¦¥���Ì¢�¸¢¶�����¤�Î-¥�ÌÎ�æ��$�Þßìí�ZìÎ���Ì¢�¸¢¶�±[$

AVLO = �?� �Ü?������ ��6���?� ����Ö��§§�§§§��*++C����¦¤������¦¤�Î¥�ÌÎ�æ�±$AVO = �?� ���Ü�?���� ��v���?� ����Ö¥§§�§§§��*++C��î��¤¥�í¢¥¢Î·ÓÎÌ��Þßìí�ÉÖÎ�-

Ì¢�¸¢¶�±$ªØ¥§§§�N�DI�)N��N9���Ö¥§§�§§§� 2000: Helsinki: Karttakeskus.#=#@�� ������� �� ¾� ��R���X?�� �� �?�^��X� ����^?X��X� �X��X2��� �� �������:���

��Ö�§§�§§§��&~~+��è¢���ÌÎ�¸��ßìßç�îîî�$#=#@�� @������ ¾� ¸�?� � �� �?�^��X� ����^?X��X� �X��X2��� �� �������:��� ��Ö�§§� §§§�

&~~+��è¢���ÌÎ�¸��ßìßç�îîî�$#=#@���� ���¾�´�X������?�^��X�����^?X��X��X��X2������������:�����Ö §§�§§§� 1990:

è¢���ÌÎ�¸��ßìßç�îîî�$LPNP = ´�2������X����:�<X ��v��������èX��������� ��^�±�^�������X��2�^�� ��

��Ö�§§�§§§��&~~+��è¢���ÌÎ�¸��¡ïì�ß×$��>�¾�¯X�����?�>6��?� ¦�Ü�?���� ��v���?� ����Ö¥§§�§§§��*++&����¦¤����¡ïì�ß×$TKKO = ì������:�<X ��v��������¸� ��� ��v���?� �� ��Ö¥§§�§§§�� &~~(����¦¤����

¡ïì�ß×$�@�@�¾�ì������:�<X ��v��������¯X ���?����¸��X?�v���Ö¥§§�§§§��&~~(����¦¤����¡ïì�

ß×$

Literature�� " ���¾�ÉÌ¢¢��B��$�É$�&~C+��ß�¸Î���Ë�±�·��¥¦¤�Ì��ÏÎ��¦��Ú¸¢��±����¥¢ÎÎ�¥�Î���

í¦¤��¦¤��� �� Á��Ì�Î�¸¦¤��� ¶¢Ë¢�Ù$� )� ¶�����:�<X ��X� �� ?���^� �<X ��X�� �X�>�7��<X ��6�� �������? ��R�������^. ��Ì�$�&'()&`*$

���������¾�É�Ù¤��¦¥B�ÉÎÙ±�&~~*��Á�·�£¸¢��±���¸�æ����<ÓÌ�Φ¤�Ë�¦Ó·¦¥Î�¥�Ë���¥�Ï�-��Ë��� �Î�¦���¦¤�Ì�� ¤Î�±� ��� Ë�¥¢Î���¢� Ì�¸Î���Ë� ¢¦¤��� æ�ÎË��¥��� ������� ��������, �������, ������. – Studia Slavica Finlandensia. Tomus IX. Helsinki. 1–50.

���������¾�É�Ù¤��¦¥B�ÉÎÙ±�&~~(���¢Î±�¦¤�±�ÏÎ�·�¢Ë�����æ��¢�Ë��Ì�¦��¨��¦¥��¥�Ï�-��Ë��$�)�Ü���� >�³2>��2����v�1997: 6. ��¦¤��$�**),`$

Ahlqvist, Arja 1998a: Merjalaiset – Suurten järvien kansaa. – Virittäjä 102: 1: 24–55.

Page 108: south-eastern contact area of finnic languages in the light of onomastics

260� ������ �

���������¾�É�Ù¤��¦¥B�ÉÎÙ±�&~~C!��îÓ·¦¥Î�¥��±��¢¤¦�¤��æ����<ÓÌ�Φ¤�Ì��ÏÎ��¦��Ú¸¢-��±���Ì���Î����Î�¦���¦¤�<ç�¦¥Î�˦¤�Ì��í����ÙÚ±$�)�Studia Slavica Finlandensia. Jyrki Papinniemi, Jouko Lindstedt, Pekka Pesonen (eds). Tomus XV. Helsinki.

��������B���\��&~~~��?�����}�}��� �� �\����� �����������@�"�Virittäjä 103:4: 624–637.���������¾�É�Ù¤��¦¥B�ÉÎÙ±�*++&��îÓ·¦¥Î�¥��±�¥�Ï���Ë�±��Î�¦���¦¤�Ì��í����ÚÙ±$�)�

É$�î$�ߢθ�G�ß$�î$�袷¢¸¢��� ���B�´<X����� ���<X ��6��X����:��.�­X^X���2�����¯� ��.� ­?�^v�X� �� :���>$� î$<í¢¥¢Î·ÓÎÌ�� �¶¸�¥¢�Ù¦¥��� î$<í¢¥¢Î·ÓÎ̦¤�Ì�� Ó��-�¢Î¦�¥¢¥�$�',�)'�($

���������¾�É�Ù¤��¦¥B�ÉÎÙ±�*++'��ë�¦�¢¸���æ����<ÓÌ�Φ¤�¨�¤Ó�Ù¥ÓÎÔ�����Î�¦���¦¤�¨�¶¢Ë�¢� �����¦���¢�¸���Ô��¥�Ï���Ë���$�)�¯�?��^��<X ��6�?�<�� ��^���2^������?���>����^��=��?������������$��Î�¦������É�Ë�¶��¦¤�¢� ¥¢��±$�~)&C$

��������B���\��*++������� ���w�� ������� �;��� ��;����<=������� ������� ������ ���������-�������� �� ��� ��������������<9��� �������������"$�)�The Slavicization of the Rus-sian North. – Juhani Nuorluoto (ed.). Slavica Helsingiensia 27. Helsinki: Department of Slavonic and Baltic Languages and Literatures at Helsinki University. 11–49.

�����B���� �*++'����� ���"������!����� ������ �������� ����������������$�"�?����|"�}��� �B�Petri Kallio & Jarmo Korhonen (eds), Etymologie, Entlehnungen und Entwicklungen. ¡D�N�&{)�8N�8¢)��9)(���9��%#D{N9��%(�Ô§. Geburtstag. Mémoires de la Société Néophi-lologique de Helsinki 63. Helsinki: Société Néophilologique. 5–34.

Aikio, Ante 2007: The Study of Saami substrate Toponyms in Finland. – Onomastica Ura-lica 4. Helsinki: Debrecen. 157–197.

Ainiala, Terhi & Saarelma, Minna & Sjöblom, Paula 2008: Nimistöntutkimuksen perusteet. Tietolipas 221. Helsinki: Suomalaisen Kirjallisuuden Seura.

Ariste, Paul 1962: Mõni sõna leivudest. – Etnograafia Muuseumi Aastaraamat 18. Tallinn. 266–275.

ª��� ��B� ���\�� &~~~�� Mordvalaiskielten rakenne ja kehitys. Suomalais-Ugrilaisen Seuran Toimituksia 232. Helsinki: Suomalais-Ugrilainen Seura.

ª�!�����¾�ÑÓ·Î��B�µ$�¡$�&~'(������ R�H�X��X�¸��X?� �����������.���^X ���� �[2-���X��������X�¯� ��������������� X^X�X. í¢¥Î�¶���¸¦¤��ß�¦Ó¸�Φ¥�¢���¢��¶¸�-¥¢�Ù¦¥���ç�΢��<Þ��¦¤�¨�îî�$

���� ���B�����������G�9������B������*++&��^� �� �� B������������������ ��������9����<?���<^���� ��B�9����<=����������9����<��"��� �������� ���������� ��� ���� $�)�Early con-tacts between Uralic and Indo-European: Linguistic and Archaeological considera-tions. Suomalais-Ugrilaisen Seuran Toimituksia 242. Helsinki: Suomalais-Ugrilainen Seura. 55–150.

Carpelan, Christian 2006: On Archaeological Aspects of Uralic, Finno-Ugric and Finnic Societies before AD 800. – Juhani Nuorluoto (ed.), The Slavicization of the Russian North. Slavica Helsingensia 27. Helsinki: Department of Slavonic and Baltic Lan-guages and Literatures at Helsinki University. 78–92

�� ��"�����¾�Û¢Î�±Ì��B�Á$�Á$�&~'&��µ�����¢�¤ÓÎÌ��Ô���¦�Ϥ�$�)�²�X���?>���� ?X-��^���v������RX�?�����­­­¯�6. 93–148.

�����B��$�|$�G��� �!���_<X �_��B��$�9$�&~`,��The Russian Primary Chronicle. Laurentian text. Cambridge, Mass.

Z���¾�µ��ÙB�¡��¸�Ë�Î�&CC+)C*��ì�?���^>6� ?�^����H�^����^X?����� �����v2>��. I–IV. Moskva.

^^X�¾�%�������}���� �*+++��Estnisches Etymologisches Wörterbuch� ??$�| �� ��"�@���$�;�������<=������ �# � ��������$

^��%�¾�Þ�¦Ë¢ÎB���¤¦�*++,��¶���?���<X ��6� ?�^������ �����v2>��� ?)?>$���¦¤����ɦ¥Î¢�Ù$ɦ¥$

Page 109: south-eastern contact area of finnic languages in the light of onomastics

;����<=�������"����"�������� ���� ��>�����������w���������� ����� ������������*�&

#��"������ ¾� ß�Σ����B� !$� �$� &~�(�� �¢Î±� �� ��Î�¨$� )� ���� R�H�X��X� ����6 �����������$�\�à¤�Î�ë��$

#ª��¾�îË���Ò¤�±B�ß$�í$�&~(������������v��� X6��� ��$���¦¤�����¶¸�¥¢�Ù¦¥���Á�Ó¤�$#�� �¾�ß�¥Ù¢B�]$�¡$�&~,+��¬X?X2�>6�^X��^�^� �<��6�ê^���X. ��¦¤��<è¢���ÌÎ�¸$#�Ã�����B������&~~(��Livvistä liiviin: Itämerensuomalaiset etnonyymit. Castrenianumin toi-

���� ����`&$�| ��������| ��������"���������"����������<=������� ��� ���$Häkkinen, Jaakko 2010: Jatkuvuusperustelut ja saamelaisen kielen leviäminen (osa 2). –

Muinaistutkija 2/2010. Helsinki: Suomen Arkeologinen Seura. 51–64.?������¾��¦�¤��B�¡$�ò$�&~C ��´2X���­X?��X�. ��¦¤����íÎ�æ�¶¸�¥$?���� �B� ^����� &~�&�� ���������<�������� �� �� � �<� \�� ������������������ �� ������$� )� Tieto-

lipas 20. Helsinki.Jaakkola, Jalmari 1935: Suomen varhaishistoria. – Suomen historia 2. Porvoo-Helsinki.De Jode, Cornelius & Jenkinson, Anthonius 1571: Theatrvm orbis terrarum, Russiæ, Mosco-

viæ et Tartariæ Descriptio. Amsterdam-London.@�����B�9 ����*++�������� �^���� ����������w�����������;�����$�)�%����������������� �$�B�The

Slavicization of the Russian North. Slavica Helsingesia 27. Helsinki: Department of Slavonic and Baltic Languages and Literatures at Helsinki University. 154–166.

Kallio, Petri 2007: Kantasuomen konsonanttihistoriaa. – Jussi Ylikoski ja Ante Aikio (eds), È\(�N,� �\!�N,� �\N!D{\(�N.� £�DW(9�Ì\#�� ÚDII�� È�((�##�{N��� (�D��D(\!%� ¥�. beaivve ¥§§Ô. Suomalais-Ugrilaisen Seuran Toimituksia 253. Helsinki: Suomalais-Ugrilainen Seura. 229–249.

Kirkinen, Heikki 1994: Karjalan historia, juurista Uuden kaupungin rauhaan. – Karjalan kansan historia. Porvoo: WSOY. 13–171.

@����� ��B�^ ���&~C+�������������� �� ��������������������� ����� ������$�)�Virittäjä 86: 4: 319–338.

@����� ��B� ^ ��� &~~+�� Perustietoa paikannimistä. Helsinki: Suomalaisen Kirjallisuuden Seura.

@@��¾�ª�!���B�Z$�>$�"�ª �\������$��$�"�9������B��$�>$�&~~(��Karjalan kielen murrekar-tasto. Helsinki: Venäjän tiedeakatemian Karjalan tiedekeskuksen kielen, kirjallisuu-den ja historian instituutti. Kotimaisten kielten tutkimuskeskus. Suomalais-Ugrilainen Seura.

KKS = Karjalan kielen sanakirja I–VI &~�C"*++`$�9 �����>�����������?)???�B����\��@���� ���?>)>?��� ���$�w ��������� ������; ���<=����� �Ç>?$�@�������� ���� �� ����������� �-kuksen julkaisuja 25. Helsinki: Suomalais-Ugrilainen Seura – Kotimaisten kielten tut-kimuskeskus.

@�������B����� ���*++������� ����� �������� �������������� ������ �����������_���������@�� -lia. – Juhani Nuorluoto (ed.), The Slavicization of the Russian North. Slavica Helsin-gesia 27. Helsinki: Department of Slavonic and Baltic Languages and Literatures at Helsinki University. 167–178.

@����� ���B�%�����*++���X� ������������ �@������ �_���� ��;�������<=�����������ª����<��������½�– Juhani Nuorluoto (ed.), The Slavicization of the Russian North. Slavica Hel-singiensia 27. Helsinki: Department of Slavonic and Baltic Languages and Literatures at Helsinki University. 179–196.

@����� ����� ¾� ç�Î�¥¤¢�� B� Ñ$� î$� *++&�� µ�¢ÏÎ�¸���ÒÔ� ��� ¦¢�¢Î¢$� ë� �� ��¢� Î���¢Ì��Ú¢�¢¶��Ì���¢¤����íÎ���ÙË¢�Ù¢$�)�µ$�É$��� ��¦¤�¨�G�É$�É$�î¢����� ���B�²����-=������ X�?� ��������v����è������^���> v<?X���R�� ��� ��6�7�>$�î��¤¥�í¢¥¢Î·ÓÎÌ��î¥�Î���¸�Ú¦¤�¨��¦¥�Î�¤�<�Î��¥¢¤¥ÓÎ�Ô¨����Î�¢���Ì� ¢¦¤�¨�ËÓ¶¢¨<¶�Ï��¢¸��¤$�*C),&$

Page 110: south-eastern contact area of finnic languages in the light of onomastics

262� ������ �

Kriiska, Aivar & Tvauri, Andres 2007: Viron esihistoria. Hannu Oittinen & Andres Tvauri (suom.). Helsinki: Suomalaisen Kirjallisuuden Seura.

@�"����¾�çÎÔ¦Ù¤�B�¡$�Ñ$�*++���!�¢�Î�¶��·��Ë�����Ú�$�)�%����������������� �$�B�The Sla-vicization of the Russian North. Slavica Helsingiesia 27. Helsinki. 222–233.

@�� ����� ¾� çÓ�¢à��B� ¡$� î$� *++&�� ç� ��ÏÎ�¦Ó� �� ÏÎ��¦��Ú¸¢���� ��¶����±�Zè�¸�Ì�[$� )�µ$�É$��� ��¦¤�¨�G�É$�É$�î¢����� ���$�²����=�� ��� X�?� ��������v����è������^���> v<?X���R�� ��� ��6�7�>. î��¤¥�í¢¥¢Î·ÓÎÌ��î¥�Î���¸�Ú¦¤�¨��¦¥�Î�¤���Î��¥¢¤¥ÓÎ�Ô¨����Î�¢���Ì� ¢¦¤�¨�ËÓ¶¢¨<¶�Ï��¢¸��¤$�(,)(�$

Laul, S. 1973: Zur Frage über die Hügelgräber in Südostestland. – Suomen Muinaismuisto-yhdistyksen Aikakauskirja 75. Helsinki. 95–102.

w���¾�9 � ������B�>������&~C ��Ù�DN%��ÊI����!K#�ÊI���390�!��. Lithuanian-English Diction-ary. Chigago: Lietuviškos Knygos Klubas.

Lehtiranta, Juhani 2001: Yhteissaamelainen sanasto. Suomalais-Ugrilaisen Seuran Toimi-tuksia 200. Helsinki: Suomalais-Ugrilainen Seura.

Lihatshov = Lihatšov, D. S. 1994: Nestorin kronikka� ²í��¢¦¥Ù �΢ˢ��Ô� �¢¥´$� ���\�<Leena Jaakkola (suom.). Porvoo–Helsinki–Juva: WSOY.

w���B�%�����*++���9��!� ������^�������"������ �?�� ��� ����������X���� ������� �����^���"����I$�)�%����������������� �$�B�The Slavicization of the Russian North. Slavica Helsin-giesia 27. Helsinki: Department of Slavonic and Baltic Languages and Literatures at Helsinki University. 246–258.

w"���������¾�è±ÏÓà¤��B��$��$�&~����ÉÎ�¢���Ì� ¢¦¤�¢�Ï�˱¥��¤��¦���±���¢¦��¨�¶��Ó�¡�¦¥� ��¨�!�Î�ÏÔ����¤��Ó�¢��·Î�¶�����±�¸Î¢��¢ÎÓ¦¦¤�Ì��Ì�¦Ó¸�Φ¥����>???)?Ç���$�$�)�¸�?�������X^�X6�¯� �. ��¦¤��$�&*()&,�$

w"���������¾�è±ÏÓà¤��B��$��$�&~�C��î���±�¢�¡�¦¥� ��¨�!�Î�ÏÔ���¤��Ó�¢��·Î�¶�����±�¸Î¢��¢ÎÓ¦¦¤�Ì��Ì�¦Ó¸�Φ¥��$�)�²�X���?>���� ?X��^���v������RX�?�����­­­¯�&`*$�è¢���ÌÎ�¸$

w"�����G�#��"�" ��¾�èÔ¥¤��B�¡$��$�G�ßÓ�±¢�B�!$�î$�&~~~��¸����6�7���?���<X ��6� ?�^���������v2>��. îÔ¤¥Ô�¤�Î��ç�Ë��¤��Ú��¢��¶¸�¥¢�Ù¦¥��$

���������"�¾��� ��¦¤�¨B�µ$�É$�&~C���Ü¥��¦�Ò����Ô¢���Ö¥��¤Ó�Ù¥ÓÎ�Ô¢�ÏÎ�Ò¢¦¦Ô���î¢�¢Î��¨��Ó¦���Ï¢Î��¸�¶�Î�Ú¸¢��±�¸Î¢��¢ÎÓ¦¦¤�¨���Î�¸��¦¥��$���¯� ��6�­X^X�. è¢���ÌÎ�¸$�,)*~$

���������"� ¾� �� ��¦¤�¨B� µ$� É$� &~~+�� ë� Î���� æ����±¶Ô ��Ì�� ��¦¢�¢��±� ·�¦¦¢¨����¡���������¡¢��¤�¨���¦��Ú¢����Ö¥��¦�Ò�ÓË��Z�Ó¦[��>???)Ç?���$�$�)�­�^�X�X���X�:��������^X�X��X.�´�>�������?X�>$�è¢���ÌÎ�¸$�&&+)&*+$

��#�¾��Ó����¢�B��$��$�G�ɶ�Î���B��$�¡$�G�ߢθB��$�¡$�&~~(��­?�^�������������^�[���^� �<����� ���?���H�v� �� X6�� �X��� ­^���$� î��¤¥<í¢¥¢Î·ÓÎÌ�� �¶¸�¥¢�Ù¦¥���î��¤¥�í¢¥¢Î·ÓÎ̦¤�Ì��Ó���¢Î¦�¥¢¥�$

��������¾���¤�Î��B�Á$�É$�&~~~��Þ���Ô���¦���±�¢����Ñ¢��Ë��¶¢Î¢��íÎ�·�¢ËÔ�Ï΢¢Ë-¦¥�¢���¦¥��¦�¦¥¢Ë�Î�¦¦¢�¢��±���¤Ó�Ù¥ÓÎ��±����¸à�æ¥�$���±�^>X�� ?X��^���v���� �X��X^X��^�6���RX�?�������^�?H�v���������?�v$��Ú¢�¦¤<ß��¶������¦¦�¨¦¤�±��¤�¸¢Ë�±� ��Ó¤� ÓÎ��Ù¦¤�¢� �¥¸¢�¢��¢� )� ì¸ËÓÎ¥¦¤�¨� ��¦¥�¥Ó¥� �¦¥�Î��B� ±¶Ô¤�� ����¥¢Î�¥ÓÎÔ�)�íÎ���¥¢�Ù¦¥���ì¸ËÓÎ¥¦¤�¨��¢¦ÏÓ·��¤��)���¦¦�¨¦¤�¨�ÌÓË���¥�Î-�Ô¨� ��Ó �Ô¨� æ��¸� )� ɸË���¦¥Î�Ò�±� Ì�Î�¸�� ß��¶���� )� �¦¥�Î�¤�<¤Ó�Ù¥ÓÎ�Ô¨�ËÓ¶¢¨<¶�Ï��¢¸��¤�Z�¸��¤�Î[$�`*)�'$

�������B��$��$�*++������������?� ����"������ ���������������� ��� �������� �&+��)&,���� �-���� ��� ����� ��������� ^��� �� � ���� X���� �� ����� �$� )� %������ ���������� � �$�B� The Slavicization of the Russian North. Slavica Helsingensia 27. Helsinki: Department of Slavonic and Baltic Languages and Literatures at Helsinki University. 259–281.

Page 111: south-eastern contact area of finnic languages in the light of onomastics

;����<=�������"����"�������� ���� ��>�����������w���������� ����� ������������*�,

Mallory, J. P. & Adams D. Q. (eds) 1997: Encyclopedia of Indo-European Culture. London: Fitzroy Dearborn Publishers.

���� " ��¾���¥�¢¢�B�É$�ç$�*++&B�*++'B�*++(��­�� ����v��������v�¯� �����­X^X���?)???$�!¤�¥¢Î��·ÓÎÌ���¶¸�¥¢�Ù¦¥���ìÎ��Ù¦¤�Ì��Ó���¢Î¦�¥¢¥�$

���� " ��¾���¥�¢¢�B�É$�ç$�*++���´�����?���v. ��¦¤������¦¦�¨¦¤�±��¤�¸¢Ë�±B��¥¸¢-�¢��¢��¦¥�Î�¤�<æ�����Ì� ¢¦¤�����Ó¤$�ZÁ�Ó¤[$

� ������B�# �����&`~ ��Atlas sive cosmographicæ...Russia cum confinijs. Amsterdam.MFM = Moisio, Arto 1992: Marilais-Suomalainen sanakirja – Marla-Finla muter. Turku:

Turun yliopiston suomalaisen ja yleisen kielitieteen julkaisuja.�����"����� ¾� ����¨����B�!$��$� *++&�� ç� �·�¦������£� ��Ú�¢¨� ¸�¥Ô� Ϧ¤��¦¤��� ¸���-

�Ô��¤ÓÎÌ����$�íÎ���ÙË¢�Ù¢$�)�µ$�É$��� ��¦¤�¨�G�É$�É$�î¢����� ���B�²����=�� ��� X�?� ��������v����è������^���> v<?X���R�� ��� ��6�7�>$�î��¤¥�í¢¥¢Î-·ÓÎÌ��î¥�Î���¸�Ú¦¤�¨��¦¥�Î�¤�<�Î��¥¢¤¥ÓÎ�Ô¨����Î�¢���Ì� ¢¦¤�¨�ËÓ¶¢¨<¶�Ï�-�¢¸��¤$�,`)'�$

�����B�|�����&~`���^ ����������\�����! �������� ���\�� ��� ������ ������������ ��$�Eesti rahva etnilisest ajaloost. Tallinn. 41–119.

������ ��¾��Ó����¢�B��$��$�*++*��ì�������v���� ^���v.�����?X�>�7��v2>��������-�����^���v$� í¢¥Î�¶���¸¦¤����¦¦�¨¦¤�±� �¤�¸¢Ë�±� ��Ó¤B� ¤�΢�Ù¦¤�¨� ��Ó �Ô¨�Ò¢�¥Î����¦¥�¥Ó¥�±¶Ô¤�B���¥¢Î�¥ÓÎÔ����¦¥�Î��$

�#��&~(+�¾�²X �>X��X����:�<X ��X�X����>. Ü���� >��X����:��,�­�������^� X��-�X v� �X�^>6$� Á�Ó ��¢� ¦·�Î��¤�� Ë�¦¤��¦¤�±� æ������� Ì¢�ÌÎ�æ� ¢¦¤�Ì�� �·�¢-¦¥���îîî��Ï�¸�ÎÓ¤���¸¦¥��Ë�Á$�Á$�Ñ�Î��¦¤�Ì�$���¦¤�����¶¸�¥¢�Ù¦¥���Z�Ô¦�[$

MW = Paasonen, H. 1990–99: Mordvinisches Wörterbuch$�w ��������� ������; ���<=����� �XXIII, 1–6. Zusammengestellt von Kaino Heikkilä. Helsinki: Suomalais-Ugrilainen Seura.

Mägiste, Julius 1950: Tšuudien kansallisuusnimen alkuperän ongelma ja suomen suudin, vir. suue ’kiila’. 4���)�NN';'�54: 74–79.

NA = Kotimaisten kielten tutkimuskeskuksen nimiarkisto. Helsinki.Nissilä, Viljo 1975: Suomen Karjalan nimistö. %� ������@��\����� ��@����������^����}���-

säätiön julkaisuja.Nuorluoto, Juhani 2006: Is there a Sound Change of “D���9Ð� ����������½�)� � %����������-

luoto (ed.), The Slavicization of the Russian North. Slavica Helsingensia 27. Helsinki: Department of Slavonic and Baltic Languages and Literatures at Helsinki University. 293–308.

���������B�%������*++(���� ���� ������ �!����"������ �#���� � ��«�¬�����«»¬�����������-����� ª����!���� Z���� ����� �� #��������� ^�� ��� ��� �� � �� ������ ��� ������ ����� � ���9���� ��½�– Topics on the ethnic, linguistic and cultural making of the Russian North. Slavica Helsingensia 32. Helsinki: Department of Slavonic and Baltic Languages and Literatures at the University Helsinki. 176–195.

������ �B���&~C~��%}����"�!��������� �������$�"�Virittäjä 93: 497–503.Ortelius, Abraham 1595: Additamentvm qvintum, Thatri orbis terrarvm, Evropam, sive cel-

ticam veterem. Antverpen.Pajula, Marja & Vanhanena, Iveta & Samcova, Jelena 1997: Latviešu-Somu, Somu-Latviešu

�|)0!5&�$���������� �� � �� �$�$����������� �$Patrushev, Valery 2000: The Early History of the Finno-Ugric Peoples of European Russia.

Oulu: Societas Historiae Fenno-Ugricae.9���}� �B� ������ w����� &~C �� Turunmaan saariston suomalainen lainanimistö. Suomalaisen

Kirjallisuuden Seuran Toimituksia 418. Helsinki: Suomalaisen Kirjallisuuden Seura.

Page 112: south-eastern contact area of finnic languages in the light of onomastics

264� ������ �

9�����¾�í�Ï��B�É$��$�&~'(��®2�� �����:��������� ��R�������� X6�­­­ . è¢���ÌÎ�¸$9�����¾�í�Ï��B�É$��$�&~C&��­?X�>�^�X�X������^ �RÖ�®2�� ������X����:�<X ��R���2^�-

��6�èX������� ��6,�� ��^ ��6���±�^����� ��6���?� X6. è¢���ÌÎ�¸$9��w�&~�`�¾���?��X� ������X��� ��R�?X��� X6�~)&*$���¦¤��$������ �B�9�����*++~���� �w����������ª�������������� ���� ������! �����9����������� ���

���� ��� � ��$�"�Finnisch-Ugrische Forschungen 60: 162–202.��_ �� ���� ¾� ��¶¢�æ¢�Ù¸¥B� �$� è$� &~('�� ç¢Î�Ë�¤�� ¸Ù±¤��¦¤�¨� ¤Ó�Ù¥ÓÎÔ$� )� ��v��^ ��v�

��?����. ��¦¤��$�"�!�����¾��±·����B�!$�É$�&~C&��%�����:�>X�����X��v���X^�X6�¯� ��·�·�� ^^$�è¢���-

ÌÎ�¸$�"�!����� ¾� �±·����B� !$� É$� &~~(�� Ý��������� ��X� �?X�X��� ^� � �^X� ��X^�X6� ¯� �.

î��¤¥<í¢¥¢Î·ÓÎÌ���¶¸�¥¢�Ù¦¥���î��¤¥�í¢¥¢Î·ÓÎ̦¤�Ì��Ó���¢Î¦�¥�$�}��}� �B������*++,��Nimet mieltä kiehtovat: etymologista nimistöntutkimusta. Suomalaisen

Kirjallisuuden Seuran Toimituksia 936. Helsinki: Suomalaisen Kirjallisuuden Seura.���������B�%��� �*++'��R! ���� ��������� ����!����� ���� ��� ��������������������;���-

lands. – Finnisch-Ugrische Forschungen 58: 162–234.Saarikivi, Janne 2006a: Introduction. – Substrata Uralica. Studies on Finno-Ugric Substrate

in Northern Russian Dialects. 7–50.���������B�%��� �*++�!������� �=��������!����� ������"�"����������� ����� ������9��!-

� ������� � ������ ��������"�����^���������������?�� ��� ������$�)�Onomastica Ura-lica 4. Debrecen. 1–64.

Saarikivi, Janne 2007: Finnic Personal Names on Novgorod Birch Bark Documents. – The Slavicization of the Russian North$�"�%����������������� �$�$���������| ����� ���� 32. Helsinki: Department of Slavonic and Baltic Languages and Literatures at Helsinki University. 196–246.

���������B� %��� � G� #�Ã�����B� ����� *++ �� ?�}� � ����������� �� �� �� �� ��������� �� ������$�)�%�������>����������B�������������B�|�����w�������� �B������#�Ã������� ���$�Muut-N%��� (%9N9Ö� ��);9�N%I���� Ø�W�!�� ÙD{N��D!� á§��%9N��W'��'!� I%!!��I��. Kieli 16. Hel-sinki: Helsingin yliopiston suomen kielen laitos. 111–146.

�������B�%� �&~~*������� ���?���<^���� �������!����"�������!����� ���������"$�)���� ��Pearson (ed.), ÚD)�WD&N��D��9!��!09��%)9WD�!�#�!K%�KD��&%#N%)D��!0�)D#�K�9!Ö��N%0�D��in honor of Edgar C. Polomé. Vol. *$�%���������� ?���<^���� �������� �B�����������Series 9: 265– 279.

Sammallahti, Pekka 1988: Historical phonology of Uralic languages. With special reference to Samoyed, Ugric and Permic. – Denis Sinor (ed.), »)�#�&�Ù�!K%�KD�¦�ÛD�&)�WN�9!��history and foreign influences$�w �� ��)�� �ú����)�@^! ������)�@���$��^$�%$�ª����$�478–554.

Sammallahti, Pekka 1989: È\(�4È%9(�� �\N!DK�);�.� È��(D#���4�%9(�#��!D!� ��!�I�);�. Ohce johka: Jorgaleaddji Oy.

Sammallahti, Pekka & Morottaja, Matti 1993: Säämi-Suomâ sänikirje. Inarinsaamelais-suo-malainen sanakirja$���� \������#��\ ����x��"$

Sammallahti, Pekka 1999: Saamen kielen ja saamelaisten alkuperästä. – Pohjan poluilla. Suomalaisten juuret nykytutkimuksen mukaan. – Paul Fogelberg (ed.). Bidrag till kännedom av Finlands natur och folk 153. Helsinki: Finska Vetenskaps-Societeten. Suomen Tiedeseura. 70–90.

� ����¾���B�¡$�¡$�&~�+��çÎ��� �$�)�­�^X ��v���RX�?���v�1. ��¦¤��$�'()�*$� ����¾���B�¡$�¡$�&~(~��Ü¥�� ¢¦¤�¨�¦�¦¥�����¦¢�¢��±�Á��Ì�Î�¸¦¤�¨�¶¢Ë���)�Ý�����

���>��� ?�^v�X$�è¢���ÌÎ�¸$ 74–80.

Page 113: south-eastern contact area of finnic languages in the light of onomastics

;����<=�������"����"�������� ���� ��>�����������w���������� ����� ������������*�`

� ����� ¾� ���B� �$� ¡$� &~C&�� î^X?���>X� �2�X?�v� ��X^����� ±�^������� �Ç)Ç>� ��$�$���¦¤��$

SMJ = ­?�^��������6 �����v2>���&)&+�&~~+)*++ ��\�à¤�Î<ë������Î�¨¦¤�¨���Ó ��<�¦¦�¢¸���¥¢�Ù¦¤�¨���¦¥�¥Ó¥$

���������¾�î�¤�����B��$�É$�&~�*��´<X�������� ���<X ��6���������X��� �����v2>��. ��¦¤��$

�����"�� ¾� îÏ�ÒÔ�B� É$� É$� &~+,�� ì¸���¢��Ô¢� �� ¸����Ô¢� ÎÓ¦¦¤�¢� ¤ÓÎÌ��Ô$� )� %��� �����X?X��v��� ��6��� ?�^v� ��6���RX�?����. ï�Ë�>B�&$�î��¤¥<í¢¥¢Î·ÓÎÌ$�&~�)*+*$

SP = Suomen paikannimikirja 2007: – Sirkka Paikkala (ed.). Jyväskylä: Karttakeskus, Koti-maisten kielten tutkimuskeskus.

SSA = Suomen sanojen alkuperä I–III. &~~*)*+++$�?���� �B�^�����G�@���� �B�=���<���\��(eds). Suomalaisen Kirjallisuuden Seuran Toimituksia 556. Kotimaisten kielten tutki-���� ����� ��\�������\���*$�| ��������@�������� ���� �� ����������� �����"������-laisen Kirjallisuuden Seura.

�������¾�×����B�É$�è$�*++&��ë�±¶Ô¤���¨�ÏÎ���¸�¢Ú��¦¥���¢¤�¥�ÎÔ��¥�Ï���Ë���¸Î¢�-�¢¨����Ì�Î�¸¦¤�¨�¶¢Ë��$���ì�������v������?X���v�?X� ������^����� ��6�2X�?�. ¡¢��¤�¨�Á��Ì�Î�¸$�*,)*�$

�����������¾�î$�É$�&~`+��ë�ÏÎ��¦��Ú¸¢��¢����΢ˢ������¶��¤��¢��±�í¦¤���$�)�¸��-��X� ���°X���v�®®²¸�ÇÇÇ>$���¦¤��)è¢���ÌÎ�¸$�&C)*~$

����� ����¾�ï¤� ¢�¤�B�ë$�¡$�&~C ��²X�v� ��6�v2>�. ç�¢���ÉÁ�ì¤Î�¨�¦¤�¨�îî�$�Á�Ó-¤����¸Óˤ�$

����� ����¾�ï¤� ¢�¤�B�ë$�¡$�*++(��® ?X��^���v�����X�v� �����v2>��. ç�¦¥Î�Ë�$�� �"�����¾�ï΢¥Ù±¤��B�í$�Á$�&~`,��Ü� �<�� ?�^v� ��X��?X�X��. ��¦¤��$�� �"�����¾�ï΢¥Ù±¤��B�í$�Á$�&~����Ý��������>,���?>��� ?�^v�X������X��X���Ü�?�X.

��¦¤��)è¢���ÌÎ�¸$���� ��B�^$��$�&~,,��^�}����������� ���������\�����$�)�Virittäjä 37: 9.������B����� ��*++(������������������� �½��� �� � �����|�����"����w����ª����������������

����^������������ �`��)&+���� ����� �$�)�Topics on the ethnic, linguistic and cultural making of the Russian North. Slavica Helsingensia 32. Helsinki: Department of Sla-vonic and Baltic Languages and Literatures at Helsinki University. 247–285.

=^X�¾�� � \B�@����"�� �$��&~C�)~&��Uralisches Etymologisches Wörterbuch. Budapest.Uino, Pirjo 1997: Ancient Karelia. Archaeological Studies. Suomen muinaismuistoyhdistyk-

sen Aikakauskirja 104. Helsinki.=���B�9��\��*++����� �ª��������������� �^���"�� �� ����;������9��������������� �� ��������

�� �>���������� �������� ������������ ���$�– Juhani Nuorluoto (ed.), The Slaviciza-tion of the Russian North. Slavica Helsingensia 27. Helsinki: Department of Slavonic and Baltic Languages and Literatures at Helsinki University. 355–373.

Vaahtera, Jouni 2009: ¶^�?[=�v� � X����?� �>R�:��X��^��X����>R��� ��R���^���R�Ü�?���� ��6���?� �. Slavica Helsingensia 37. Helsinki: Department of Slavonic and Baltic Languages and Literatures at Helsinki University.

>����" �� ¾� ¡�¦��Ù¢�B� ¡$� è$� *++&�� �¢¥���Ë� ¢¦¤�¢� ¤��Ù¤�Î�����¢� �Î��¨¦¤��� Ì�¸Î�-��Ë�����íÎ���ÙË¢�Ù¢$�)�ì�������v������?X���v�?X� ������^����� ��6�2X�?�. ¡¢��¤�� Á��Ì�Î�¸�� ����¦¥¢Î¦¥��� �·Î�¶�����±� ��¦¦�¨¦¤�¨� Þ¢¸¢Î�Ò��$� Á��Ì�-Î�¸¦¤�¨�Ì�¦Ó¸�Φ¥�¢��Ô¨�Ó���¢Î¦�¥¢¥��Ë¢����Î�¦������Ó¸Î�Ì�$��)&,$

>����" ��¾�¡�¦��Ù¢�B�¡$�è$�*++ ����R��<X ��v��������v���^����� ��6�2X�?�. ¡¢��¤��Á��Ì�Î�¸��Á��Ì�Î�¸¦¤�¨��¢Ú΢Ì�����Ù�Ô¨���¦¥�¥Ó¥�ë·�¢¦¥�¢��Ô��Á�Ó¤$

> � ������"�¾�¡¢¦¢���¦¤�¨B�î$�Ñ$�&~('��´���� ����.���X^�X�� ��X���X��,����^�°����:���?��. ��¦¤��$

Page 114: south-eastern contact area of finnic languages in the light of onomastics

266� ������ �

X�#�¾�>��� �B�����&~�&)�~��Wörterbuch der Russischen gewässernamen I–V. Berlin.����_�"���¾�ò���¶�±¤B�É$�É$�*++'����X^�X��^����� ��6����?X�. ��¦¤�����¶Ô¤��¦��-

�±�¦¤�¨�¤Ó�Ù¥ÓÎÔ$ú ���������¾�!Ë�æ�Ë���B�]$�*++&��ë¦�·¢���¦¥��æ�ÎË�Î�����±��¢�¢��Ì��¤�ËÏ�¢¤¦��

Ï�˱¥��¤���¦¢�¢Î��¨�Ñ¢��ÎÓ¦¦�����£Ú��¨�í¦¤�����Ó���Î���¢Ë�Ú¢�¢¶��Ë��¢¤¢$�)�µ$�É$��� ��¦¤�¨�G�É$�É$�î¢����� ���B�²����=�� ��� X�?� ��������v����è������^���> v<?X���R�� ��� ��6�7�>$�î��¤¥�í¢¥¢Î·ÓÎÌ��î¥�Î���¸�Ú¦¤�¨��¦¥�Î�¤�<�Î��¥¢¤¥ÓÎ�Ô¨����Î�¢���Ì� ¢¦¤�¨�ËÓ¶¢¨<¶�Ï��¢¸��¤$�*`)*($

ú�������B� �$� �$� *++��� �����<X �� ��� ������� ! ��� � ���� � ������� !"� ������ �C��� � ����"�BC – 8th Century AD). Juhani Nuorluoto (ed.), The slavicization of the Russian North. Slavica Helsingiensia 27. Helsinki: Department of Slavonic and Baltic Languages and Literatures at Helsinki University. 140–153.

9����������� ��«�����$������ �������$���¬

Page 115: south-eastern contact area of finnic languages in the light of onomastics

�%>(%0#%3%�)0'�1������� �!��"

�D�DE�

��G���A�����DHD����DJ!�A����A�" �F���G����3�+-(0�'-'=-./0�31�

!��3.53&�5"

tdelh�bdrvfiai�ugdhl�?fg

H����IJ��������D������KL��K��MLN��L�#�O

�����P��L����P�#�O�H������L�PP�P��O�PEKO�P�QH����R����S����#�

� . LE - + # - 0 . % + )F8�33%@2,%(01�-5*#1�60290'()'3)5'%>%3���569)00-73�1�6+-($%+/5�%.,�6�-(53%@�2(%�01)5,�&(%3���56�-(53%@�2(%�@01�7)(-).6&(-+3-�%(&%+01)5,�&(%3���56)(-).&(-+3-7�%(&+#�

�0')'/-()00�)'(�+)-'05'%>%3���5�-(�6�2(%�#�&(-+3-7�%(&+#O8�33%@2,%(01�$3)(%&%+63)0-.5+��$+>(%�.%�(-,�%3�-3'()./3%7�%0@0����>�()50/3).-'%>�03#-�)($-%.%,�E-01�-&)33#-6)')1B-3)(5&3)�@9%.-->%1)*)'-./3#$'%>%3���E-01�$)'(�92'%+�8%(�)3'%+6)+'%(*)1.LE)@-'6E'%�-(5301�7��2(%�01�75*#1�5+.5.�0/9.�*1%(%&0'+-33#���9#.�.%1).�*%+)3#+>5'�)(-).)$F(%0'%+01%@1%0'(%�01%�6�2(%�01%�6&/51%+0@1%�60-+-(3%�%*-(3%�1()-�0-+-(3%7>-(�8-(���(-+355�%(&+)60%,.)03%+#+%&)�)+'%()69#.)()00-.-3)*3)E�'-./3%*)>)&3--0%+(-�-33%7'-((�'%@(��>(%B�+)3�5�%(&+#�

TF�P������

TFTF��UV���(�!�W��

�&)33%70')'/->(-&>(�3��)-'05>%>#'1))3).�*)'%>%3�����-(�6�2(%@�#�&(-+3-7�%(&+#O8�33%@2,%(01�$>.-�-363)0-.5+��$3-1%,&)(-,�%3

4�)$1%3-3��6����

Page 116: south-eastern contact area of finnic languages in the light of onomastics

S

�%>(%0#%3%�)0'�1������� �!��"

<-3'()./3%7�%00����03%+3%7�)00�+'%>%3�����'%7'-((�'%(��0%$()3�.050%+(-�-36>(-&�-0'+%+)+��$%0+%-3�L--0.)+53)����-./L�00.-&%+)3�55+.5-'05%>(-&-.-3�-,()3�<()00-.-3�53%0�'-.-7�-(5301%,%6�2(%�01%,%�

� &(-+3-�%(&%+01%,%5*#1%+��')'/5%'1(#+)-'05�+-&-3�-�6+1%'%(%�1()'1%$)()1'-(�*2L'05�*2E)-@

�)5 '-((�'%(�56 '%>%3���E-01�- �0'%E3�1�6�-'%&#�00.-&%+)3�56 &(-+3�->.)0'#'%>%3����(-,�%3)6-,%�*+-0'3#7>%.-'%>�05��'3�E-01�70%0')+6�0'%(�%,()8�5+%>(%0)��03%+3)5E)0'/0')'/�0%0'%�'�*&+2$()*&-.%+6+1%'%@(#$>%0.-&%+)'-./3%)3).�*�(2L'05�-(53%@�2(%�01)5��%(&%+01)5'%>%3���5��#+%&#�00.-&%+)3�58%(�2.�(2L'05+�)1.LE-3����3).�*�)'-(�).)�(-*2./@')'#()9%'#�..L0'(�(2L'051)(')���K��6>%�-�-33#��+32'(�'-10')��3).�*�-(53%@�2(%�01%7 '%>%3���� >(%+%&�'05 3) %03%+- )'(�92'%+

� 8%(�)3'%+0.%B3#$3)*+)3�7�:)0'/)'(�92'%+>(-&0')+.5-'0%9%7'%>%,()@8�E-01�+#+-(-33#-,-%,()8�E-01�-'-(��3#6&(2,�-)'(�92'�+3#-�.-�-3'#%'3%05'0513)�9%.--()0>(%0'()3-33#�+'%>%3����F�'%0.%+)0%*3)E-3�5���+-($3�7�6�3�B3�7�6��).#7�6�9%./�%7���3��)3�-2&-.5-'05')1B-�'3%3��2���Z�_b6!��Z�_b��-(56�-(5301�7�61%'%(#7��(%1%%'()B-3+'%>%3����<-3'@()./3#$�E)0'�0-+-(3#$%9.)0'-7�%00�����00.-&%+)3���%(&%+01%7'%>%@3����63)(5&20%03%+3#��)'(�92'�+3#���.-�-3')��6()00�)'(�+)L'05&-@'-(��3)3'#0%*3)E-3�5���%*-(%���(-1)���0>%./*2-�#-+()9%'-�'3%3��#���&�������*+-0'3#>%(2001��.-@

'%>�05�6)')1B->%&)33#�'%>%3����61%'%()5>%()0>(%0'()3-3�L1%((-.�@(2-'0)($-%.%,�E-01���&)33#��T�59�3�36�JJH6[c]de[c�]afiq�am6�JJS61)(@')AU���-(5301%7'%>%3����>(�35'%%'3%0�'/3)*+)3�56*)8�10�(%+)33#-+ 9)00-73-%*-( -(%��.-�--+%6)')1B-3)+%&%()*&-.-9)00-73%+�.5*/�#� �%.,�O++-($3-��0(-&3-�'-E-3���.5*/�#��2(%�01���0E�')L'05'%@>%3��#6%'�-E-33#-+%1(-0'3%0'5$,��2(%��+3�*%+/5$�1���.5*/�#� -@%9$%&��%%'�-'�'/6E'%3)%E-(E-33%7'-((�'%(��+0'(-E)L'05�'%>%3��#61%@'%(#-3-5+.5L'05�-(5301����.��2(%�01���6>%�'%�2&.5)3).�*)�#+#9()@.�.��/0)�#-'�>�E3#-3)*+)3�5��(%+-&-3�-E-'1%7,()3�<#�-B&2�-(-7��2(%�%7*)'(2&3�'-./3%+0�.2

0$%&0'+)'%>%3�����'�$3)(%&%+T0�F�59�3�36�JJH6[^f6(�0�C�>%�)0�-(2U��($-%.%,�E-01�$0%+>)&-3�73)0%%'+-'0'+2L��$'-((�'%(�5$')1B-&%+%./@3%�3%,%6$%'5%93)(2B�+)L'05�()*.�E�5� )>(��-(6%&�3�*'�>%+>%&+-0%1++�&-.%�)&�61%'%(%�2+1.)00�8�1)<�������59�3�3)>(�0+%-33%�-(VWXX6��(%1%()0>(%0'()3-31)1+9)00-73-(� -(./6>(�'%1)�.5*/�#6')1�+�2@(%�01%7%9.�T`dvdbfm6���S6egg6xhu�CU��>�()50/6+E)0'3%0'�63)()*.�E�5

����=�� �

��)*2�--'0561%((-1'3--9#.%9#,%+%(�'/%5*#1)$69#'%+)+��$3)%9%*3)E-33#$+.-'%>�05$�-(5301�$��2(%�01�$*-�.5$6%&3)1%&.51()'1%0'�+0')'/->(�35'#%9%*3)E-3�5���&!���/&�h�6�������/�&�h��

Page 117: south-eastern contact area of finnic languages in the light of onomastics

H

�%>(%0#%3%�)0'�1������� �!��"

+ 21()�-3�5$6�����-%3'/-+>(-&>%.),)-'6E'%,()3�<)�-B&2�-(-7��2(%@�%7>(%$%&�.)>%�.5*/�-6+&%./(-1�+%&/��)()T]afiq�am6�JJS6iiiU��+-($%+/5��%.,�+&)33%��00.-&%+)3��%'3-0-3#�+-(01)5��(%0.)+0@

1)5%9.�6)')1B-E)0'/�%0'(%�01%7%9.�1*)>)&2%'+%&%()*&-.)�-'.2,���3B����&(%3���5�%.%,%&01%7%9.�*)>)&3--+-($%+/-+�),�+1.LE)-'053)��<-.�@1%�6$%'5E)0'/+%&3#$%9�-1'%+&)33%7'-((�'%(��%'3%0�'0519)00-73)��2@$%3#��3-,��I'%'(-,�%36%&3)1%6>(-&0')+.5-'0%9%7-&�3%->(%0'()30'+%6%9()*2-�%-%*-()���%B-6�29-301����-.#���1.LE-33)5+�00.-&%+)3�-'%>%3���59)00-73)�1�>%E-(>32')3)��

�* 0.%+)(5������%.�<1%7N��&(%3���59)00-73)�1�QT���U6)'.)0%+�5*)30@1%7T���U��%01%+01%7T���U%9.�6)')1B-�*%9�-,-%,()8�E-01%71)('# �B-,%(%&01%7%9.�T� �U��%>%3���5+-($%+�7�%.,�+*5')�*)'.)0%+�(%0@.)+01%7T���U6�%0'(%�01%7TY|kU6�+-(01%7TY[kU��%.%,%&01%7T���U%9.��'%>%3���59)00-73)�+�(�O�*N�.%+)(5,�&(%3��%+L,%@+%0'%E3%,%�(�.)@&%B/5F9)00-73(-1��+�(/QT����U��()9%'-9#.��0>%./*%+)3#')1B-0.%@+)(/'%>%3�����-3%*-()T-(5,�36-(5,�3)6�)3�$�3U6'%>%,()8�E-01)51)(@')�-0>29.�1��)(-.�5T����U61)('#��������>%�%'.)02��3-,-�%9�-@,-%,()8�E-01)51)(')�($)3,-./01%7%9.�TkYkU�:)0'/�38%(�)<��9#.)>%@E-(>32')�*�00.-&%+)3�7�����)'+--+)T����6���C6���SU���&(%3���5�%.@$%+)+*5')�*)'.)0) %+,%(%&01%7%9.�T� �U6+-($%+/-+3->()O�*)'.)0)��%.-301%7%9.�T���U��0%B).-3�L6>%��(%'-%'()B-3�5�)'-(�).)�0>%./*%+)33#-+()9%'-

�0'%E3�1�()*3%(%&3#��%&3%70'%(%3#6-0'/'-((�'%(��6'%>%3���51%'%(#$0%9()3)0)�#�'�)'-./3#�%9()*%���3��%'3%05'05�(�%E/-�9)00-73�+�@(�6'%>%3���51%'%(#$*)8�10�(%+)3)+0>-<�)./3#$0.%+)(5$T��������U�� '%B-+(-�5&.5(5&)(-,�%3%+>(��.%0/&%+%./0'+%+)'/053)*+)3�5��61%'%@(#->(-&0')+.-3#'%./1%3)%8�<�)./3#$1)(')$6'%,&)1)13)(%&3#-+)(�)3'#�'�$'%>%3��%+>%1)3-�*+-0'3#���'%70�'2)<��+>%.-*(-3�5�00.-&%+)'-.5>%>)&)L'.��/3)*+)3�53)�9%.--1(2>3#$%9�-1'%+��9%0'(%73-$+)'1->%.-@+#$'%>%3���E-01�$�)'-(�).%+>�0).6+E)0'3%0'�6�����)'+--+6%'�-E)+@��76E'%&.5+%0>%.3-3�5�'%,%>(%9-.)'(-92-'05*3)E�'-./3%-1%.�E-0'+%0%9�()'-.-7'%>%3����6$%'5&)B->(�+#>%.3-3���'%,%20.%+�5()9%')()0'5@3-'053)&%.,�-,%&#T�)'+--+6���S6[aiU�I'�%90'%5'-./0'+)6%&3)1%63->(-@>5'0'+2L'>%.2E-3�L&%0'%+-(3%,%(-*2./')')+�00.-&%+)3��6<-./1%'%(%,%0%0'%�'++#5+.-3��)(-).)()0>(%0'()3-3�5�-(53%@�2(%�01�$�&(-+3-�%(@&%+01�$,�&(%3��%+�

TFXF��%�����)�� "��"�)��!���%� ���

��&(%3���5+-($%+�7�%.,��9)00-73)�1���--'()*3%(%&3%->(%�0@$%B&-3�-6>%01%./12�')'-((�'%(�55+.5-'05E)0'/L()*+-'+.-33%70�0'-�#+%&3#$'()30>%('3#$�),�0'().-7��B-+&(-+3�-+(-�-3)�1)9#.)�-0'%�

���������� � ������ �@��������=���� ���������=���� ����

Page 118: south-eastern contact area of finnic languages in the light of onomastics

G

�%>(%0#%3%�)0'�1������� �!��"

0%>(�1%03%+-3�5()*.�E3#$2()./01�$��3&%-+(%>-701�$�'3�E-01�$,(2>>��)1%3%�-(3%6E'%*&-0/+#5+.5-'05(5&�3&%-+(%>-701�$'%>%3���E-01�$>.)0@'%+ O13��%'3%0�'056>%+0-7+�&��%0'�60)�%3)*+)3�-@��TI���6D6[egU6+%0$%&5�--60%,.)03%%&3%7�*+-(0�761>()9).'�@0.)+�j35â�+%&)��&).--O18%(�-0-+-(%@*)>)&3%,%�3&%-+(%>-701%,%>()5*#1)j4

e35k34

eT���)..�%620'@

3)5�38%(�)<�5U6>(%'%�3&%-+(�j4385k84

3T`dllfbc6Yjdgo6�JJH6aiaU��%%'+-'@

0'+�53)*+)3�L"��+0'(-E)L'05+�+-(01%7%9.�6,&-63)>(��-(6&%+%./3%1(2>@3#7>(�'%1(��23/5+9)00-73-�%+)'�3%0�'3)*+)3�-"��T���6 [a]d[gfU��')(#79).'%@0.)+5301�7>.)0'�%B-'9#'/>(-&0')+.-3')1B-3)*+)3�5��(-1�*�� �*�-+��%.-301%7%9.�T���6\e6\cU���@-�j

�G�Q�(-1)��.�'�6.'��GQ86<�@

0.)+�j?3Q3T`dllfbc6Yjdgo6�JJH6aiadaigU��'%>%3����(-,�%3)+#&-.5-'05�0%90'+-33%9).'�701�7>.)0'6>(-&0')+@

.-33#73)*+)3�5��(-1l*��.'��6.�'�GQ8�(-1)���������.�'��=8mW>3�,()@+�7�T]Y�6^[a6^ai�Wdogab6�JD�6eadegU��.)+5301�$>.)0'%++#&-.5-'053-@01%./1%�&(-+3-7��7�*3�$>(-&0')+.-36+�&��%6,�&(%3��)��<-3'()./3%,%� +-($3-,%�(�%E/56%9()*%+)33#��%'0.)+5301�$)3'(%>%3��%+�.�%71%3�@�%+3)b,nZ�_�jb,���T�)0�./-+6���A6[eid[ac��,--+)6�JGJ6adgU63)>(�@�-(����,n�6��,n6(���,n�o�(��,n�T���6[[[6[ge6i[U� )0.-&�-01�8%+>(%0.-B�+)-'056+%*�%B3%6+3)*+)3��>(%'-1)L�-7>% '-(@

(�'%(���-(>2$%+01%,%(@3)�%01%+01%7%9.�(-1�%���!+)(�%���"T���6]eU�01�8�jQ6>6C3�(-1)�T�%(&--+6�JJ�6][U60(�3)*+)3�->(�'%1)�%.,�%�b���+�-0>29.�1-�)(�7I.T��6����6e^\U��0')./3#->.)0'#'%>%3����(-,�%3)>(-&0')+.-3#6>%+0-7+�&��%0'�6

3)*+)3�5��8�33%@2,%(01%,%>(%�0$%B&-3�5�

TFYF�Z"�W� ��[� � "���%� ����)�� �����!�%* ��G���"�)� �[

�(2001�$.-'%>�05$3)'-((�'%(���(�%E/5�+-($%+�7�%.,�2>%�532'#8�33%@2,%(01�->.-�-3)���&6�����6�������6����6��n���T0��F�59�3�36�JJH6[c]6[]g6e[c��&(�U6)')1B->.-�5,�&��!�N3H=7W="61%'%(%-� �� ��$)@E-+����)0�-(%'3%05'19).'�701��T]hrdq�fm6�JJC6[f^�Wdogab6�JD�6\dieU��*>-(-E�0.-33#$+.-'%>�05$8�33%@2,%(01�$>.-�-3&%0-,%&35�3-,%

+(-�-3�0%$()3�.�0/�)(�7<#!�E-(-��0#"��%(&+)6'%,&)1)1�-(56�2(%�)� �-�-()9#.�>%.3%0'/L)00���.�(%+)3#0.)+53)��� �B-3)%03%+-'%>%@3���E-01�$&)33#$92&2'>(�+-&-3#&%1)*)'-./0'+)'%,%6E'%�'�>.-�-3)[email protected].�0/8�33%@2,%(01���6%E-�6+>(%E-�62B->�0).��3%,�-�00.-&%+)'-.�T0��FWdogab6�JD�K�JDS��%>%+6�JHC��)'+--+6�JJS6�JJG6���S��./1+�0'6�JJH6����)6����9�Zdrvfiai6���JU��-((�'%(�5()00-.-3�53)*+)33#$>.-�-321)*)3)+.-'%>�05$&%0')'%E3%

%>(-&-.-33%��($-%.%,�E-01�-�00.-&%+)3�560%0+%-70'%(%3#6+#5+�.�%'.�@E)L��-05&(2,%'&(2,)�0'%(�1%@12./'2(3#-*%3#60%+>)&)L��-0.-'%>�03#@��&)33#��T0��F�59�3�36�JJH6[c]dei^U��'�-'��6E'%3)(5&20>-(-E�0.-3@

����=�� �

Page 119: south-eastern contact area of finnic languages in the light of onomastics

J

�%>(%0#%3%�)0'�1������� �!��"

3#��+#�-�'3%0)��+.-'%>�05$2>%��3)-'05')1B-����O�$%'5'-((�'%(�5()00-.-3�5�'%,%>.-�-3�%9%*3)E-3)()0>.#+E)'%6>%'%>%3���E-01%�2%'()@B-3�L�'3%3��)�%B3%>(-&>%.),)'/6E'%E2&/9#.)()00-.-3)1*)>)&2%'�-(�6)��-33%3)'-((�'%(��0%+(-�-33#$�+-(01%7� %+,%(%&01%7%9.�6+�-3�3,@()&01%7%9.�+%1(-0'3%0'5$��$+�3)6)')1B-3)+%0'%E3%�9-(-,2:2&01%,%%*-()+�01%+01%7%9.�TZdrvfiai6����U��2�-0'+%+).)61(%�-'%,%6�')13)*#@+)-�)5�������&�����61%'%(2L0%0')+�'-.�.-'%>�0-7+#&-.5.�+%0%92L,(2>>2��:'%1)0)-'05�'3%3��),�&��6'%-,%(2001)58%(�)8%3-'�E-01�'%E3%0%@

%'+-'0'+2-'�*+-0'3%�2>%�0'%(�E-01���0'%E3�1)�9).'�701%�2�'3%3��2N3H=7W=��'�-E-33#7+#�-9).'�701�7,�&(%3���E-01�7>.)0'')1B-0+�&-'-./@0'+2-'%'%�6E'%E2'/*)>)&3--.�3���%01+)K�2.)B�.%3-1%,&)&(-+3-9).@'�701%-3)0-.-3�-��%�3-3�L�����92')06+%0'%E3)5,%.5&/>(%B�+).)+J��K����,,�3���+'(-2,%./3�1-�-B&2�%01+%76�).2,%7��-(>2$%+#�3)+%&%()*@&-.-�1���%01+#T�hgweqdo6�JSD6[^[6xhu�A�U��)1B-%>(-&-.5-''-((�'%(�L()00-.-3�5,%.5&�����)0�-(TWdogab6�JDA6 ]^U��N�%+-0'�+(-�-33#$.-'Q,�&��+E�0.->.-�-33-3)*#+)-'056%&3)1%

+ �'%7.-'%>�0�-0'/2>%��3)3�-%+%73->(%'�+,%.5&���%*�%B3%6+>-(-@E-3/�'3%0%+N�%+-0'�+(-�-33#$.-'Q,%.5&/+%�.)>%&��-3-��,��!�p,��"� 9#.)2>%�532')1)1>(%B�+)L�)5+3->%0(-&0'+-33%79.�*%0'�%'9).'�7@01�$>.-�-3FN���8-'%+�B-E)0'�0�&�'/(20/6EL&/�+0�5*#<�F�-(56�2@(%�)6+0/6�%(&+)6*)+%.%E/01)5EL&/6>-(�/6>-E-()65�/6p,��D6����6 ����b,��6����6����,��6.�9/��5$%+�B-6�*�����EL&/>(�0�&5'/1�%(L�5@(501%�2QT���U�I'3%3��p,��!��,��"+&)33%�0.2E)-�%B-'+%0$%&�'/13)*+)3�L1(2>3%,%>(�'%1)�1�Ol,��6)3-12()./01��2,()�C� )'-((�'%@(��63-1%,&)*)0-.-33%7,%.5&/L+()7%3-�).2,�6�-(>2$%+)��%01+#6�*+-@0'3#�&(2,�-,�&(%3��#3)l,�bFl,��!���6l,����!�o�l,��&���6l,��0�6l,�����6 l,�p���T���6[f]6[ga6\\6ci6]\U�l,���%B-'9#'/')1B-0%%'+-'@0'+�-�3)*+)3�L",��6 1%'%(%-��-32-'1(2>3#7>(�'%1�)>)&3%7+�3#+�)'+����+5*/�-B&21).2B01%7l,�/�.)'#�01%7",��0E�').%E-+�&3%7����)0�-(TWdogab6�JD�6eiU��E�0.-3)(%&%+6+#>.)E�+)L��$&)3/�20�6+.-'%>�0�2>%��3)L'059).@

'�701�->.-�-3)����6����,��6����6!������%0.-&3--6>(-&>%.%B�'-./@3%6>%.2E�.%0+%-3)��-3%+)3�->%(�����6>(%'-1)L�-7+0-+-(3%7�%./�-6

��(%�-'%,%61)13)��20')3%+.-3%63)'-((�'%(�5$()00-.-3�5�-�-(#621)*)33#$+.-'%>�05$� 2'%E3-33#$>%)($-%.%,�E-01��&)33#�6>(%0.-B�+)-'05%'&-./3#7>.)0''%>%3����6+ %0@3%+-1%'%(%,%.-B�'3-1�75*#16%'3%05��7051>-(�01%7,(2>>-TZdrvfiai6���JU�

D�2(0�+%�+#&-.-3#3)*+)3�5>.-�-361%'%(#-6>%3)�-�2�3-3�L65+.5.�0/9).'�701����C����-0'/')1B-2>%��3)3�-%9�'3%0->%&3)*+)3�-��,��� ����!+-3,(#"6()00-.-33%�>%@9-(-,)�23)5�

���������� � ������ �@��������=���� ���������=���� ����

Page 120: south-eastern contact area of finnic languages in the light of onomastics

��

�%>(%0#%3%�)0'�1������� �!��"

�.�>%.�'%+01%7(������� -�01.LE-3%6E'%1�'%7,(2>>-��--'%'3%�-3�-�*)8�10�(%+)33%-++-($%+/5$�)>)&3%7+�3#3)*+)3�-(-1����&�h�T���6eigU6+%03%+-1%'%(%,%�%B-'.-B)'/�'3%3���

TF\F�L�"����� �������

�����)'+--+T����U6�����2..%3-3T����U����))(�1�+�T_ddbhvhmh6���HwU2B-3-%&3%1()'3%>�0).�%�-'%&)$�*2E-3�50290'()'3%7'%>%3�����%00����0+5*�0�'��3-%9$%&��%>%&E-(132'/>(�%(�'-'3%-*3)E-3�-(-.-+)3'3#$�-'%&%+6'�1�+3)�-�0.2E)-%03%+3#-+%>(%0#61%'%(#-0'%5'>-(-&�00.-&%@+)'-.-�68%(�2.�(2L'050.-&2L���%9()*%�F1)1�-3)*+)3�5�%B3%%'3-0'�1 �%(&%+01%7'%>%3����6)1)1�-O1�-(5301%7� )%03%+-1)1�$1(�'-(�-++#&-.5L'050%%'+-'0'+2L��-5*#1���)1%+%�$)(-)./3%-()0>(%0'()3-3�-��%(&%+01)5'%>%3���5+�'%�%'3%�-3��>(-&0')+.5-'059%.-->(%0'%76>%@01%./12(-E/�&-'%&%3#3-02�-0'+2L�-�5*#1-60�-(5301��B-'%>%3���@E-01��3)0.-&�-�&-.%%90'%�'0.%B3--��(��-(%�'%�20.2B)'+1%(3-%'.�@E)L��-05&(2,%'&(2,)(-*2./')'#�00.-&%+)3�7&+2$*)0.2B-33#$2E-3#$O�����)'+--+)T�JJS��JJGU����./1+�0'T�JJH�����)�����9U������)'+--+0E�')-'6E'%�00.-&%+)'-./0290'()')&%.B-30%0(-&%'%E�'/@

053)�*2E-3���%(8%.%,�E-01�$*)1%3%�-(3%0'-761%'%(#-�%B3%0E�')'/)9@0%.L'3#���&%0')'%E3%(-,2.5(3#����-,%'%E1�*(-3�56>(�)3).�*-029@0'()'3%7'%>%3����3-%9$%&��%>(-B&-+0-,%>(%0.-&�'/+0'(-E)-�%0'/)'(�@92'%+ !'%>%%03%+"0.%B3#$3)*+)3�76)')1B-+#0%1%(-,2.5(3#$8%(�)3'%+� &-'-(��3)3'%+T�)'+--+6����6gidg^U������2..%3-360>-<�).�*�(2L�)5053)�*2E-3��,�&(%3�����+�(�6�0@

>%./*2-'+1)E-0'+-%&3%,%�*�-'%&%+�*2E-3�50290'()'3%7'%>%3����')13)*#+)-�#7)(-)./3%@'�>%.%,�E-01�7�-'%&��0+5*�0�'�������2..%3-3T����6 [\iU2&-.5-'%0%9%-+3��)3�-0'(21'2(3#�%0%9-33%0'5�'%>%3��%+6$%'53-(-&1%�-'%&0+%&�'051)3).�*28%(�)3'%+��)1��%9()*%�6+#5+.-3�-(-,2.5(3#$�%&-.-7'%>%3��%%9()*%+)3�5� '%@

>%3���E-01%73%��3)<��3-%9$%&��%0E�')'/+)B3#��+&)33%7()9%'-�I'%+%*�%B3%6+E)0'3%0'�6*)0E-'>(��-3-3�50-�)3'�E-01%7'�>%.%,��'%>%3�@�%+T_ddbhvhmh6���HwU��)16%&3���*0>%0%9%+20')3%+.-3�5�'��%.%,��3)0-�)3'�1%@'�>%.%,�E-01%7%03%+-5+.5-'050%>%0')+.-3�-(-,2.5(3#$)'(�@92'%+0>(%'�+%>%.%B3#��*3)E-3�5��63)>(��-(�9%./�%7�O��).#7�6�+-(@$3�7� O�3�B3�7�6�E-(3#7�O�9-.#7�T�)'+--+6����6\^�Zdrvfiai6���J6[a]d[g\U��+'%(&)33%,%�00.-&%+)3�53)E).()9%'2%&3%+(-�-33%0&+2$0'%(%3F0 %>@

(-&-.-3�5<-3'(%+)(-).%+�.�3,+�0'�E-01%,%0%>%0')+.-3�5�I'%'�00.-&%+)@'-./01�7�-'%&+%*�%B-3'%,&)61%,&)�*2E)-�#-3)*+)3�5()00�)'(�+)L'05+ 0%@%'3-0-3��0,�&(%3��)��6+%*3�1����+9.�*1%(%&0'+-33#$5*#1)$0%>(-&-./@3#$'-((�'%(�7��&)33%7()9%'-'%>%3���5�-(5301�$*-�-./620')3%+.-33#$

����=�� �

Page 121: south-eastern contact area of finnic languages in the light of onomastics

��

�%>(%0#%3%�)0'�1������� �!��"

>%)($-%.%,�E-01��&)33#��.-'%>�03#�'-10')�60()+3�+)-'050�)(�701%76�%(&%+01%760))�01%7A�>(�9).'�701%@8�301%7'%>%3���-7��-B�5*#1%+%-0()+3-3�-�%B-'3%0�'/�.-10�1%.%,�E-01�7$)()1'-(� )@

>(��-(63)'-((�'%(��6%9%*3)E-33%7+.-'%>�05$1)1�-(5301)56+0'(-E)L'05'%>%3��#0)'(�92')��l.�b�����b6�1%'%(#-3-�%,2'9#'/0+5*)3#3�0%&@3���*9.�B)7��$5*#1%+��&3)1%�'�)'(�92'#�%B3%%'3-0'�18�33%@2,%(0@1��>2'-�>(�+.-E-3�58)1'%+&(2,�$(%&0'+-33#$5*#1%+F0(�jG4C3�$)3'�ι�ι�58C6�)30�ååN8C6+-3,�GC�>(%'%2().�jG5C�ι�&%(%,)�Tz_6 iaU�j?85L3�1%��?=L�>(%'%1�6>(%'%>-(��j?=L5T�#'1�36�2.5-+6�JJJ6 \U�&%>(%'%>-(��j?=5L��-@*20.%+3%6�0>%./*%+)3�->%&%93#$)'(�92'%+>(�&)-'�00.-&%+)3�L9ó./�2L3)2E32L&%0'%+-(3%0'/��()+3-3�-�%B3%>(%+%&�'/')1B->%%'3%�-3�L10'(21'2(3#��.-�-3@

')��'%>%3��%+O+�'%�0.2E)-(-E/�&-'>(-B&-+0-,%%9)3).�*-8%(�)3'%+63)>(��-(8%(�)3')b,�����b.��6*)8�10�(%+)33%,%'%./1%3)�-(5301%7'-((�@'%(��!0��3�B-"��()+3-3�-�%B-'9#'/�8%3-'�E-01��61%,&)()00�)'(�+)@L'058%(�#�0'%(�E-01�%&3%,%�'%,%B-0.%+)6+0'(-E)L�-,%05+()*3#$5*#@1)$6O3)>(��-(60.%+)0%*3)E-3�-��3�B3�7�F>(%'%0))��j?�H��6�)(�üHb6�%(&�3H6�H�b6+�-(5301%7'%>%3����j?6HZ6_b�>()2().�j�ιH3bTz_6 ciU��>%�%�/L0()+3�'-./3%,%)3).�*)'%>%3�����%B3%0&-.)'/3-1%'%(#-+#+%&#>%>(%@9.-�)��0'%(�E-01%78%3-'�1��*2E)-�#$5*#1%+�

TF]F�� "�%���(*W�����)%� �

��33%@2,%(01%-3)0.-&�-�3'-(-02L�-,%3)0(-,�%3)%'()B-3%+<-.%�(5&-()9%'�I'%�%3%,()8��N�-(5301�75*#1Q�N�00.-&%+)3�5>%�-(5301%�25*#@12Q�����1)E-31%T�JGA����HU60')'/������%>%+)T�JHCU6���./1+�0'T�JJH����CU6�����)'+--+)T�JJS��JJG����SU���'�$�3-1%'%(#$&(2,�$()9%')$0')+�.�0/&%0')'%E3%0-(/-*3#-+%>(%@

0#��)16.�3,+�0'�����)'+--+�)($-%.%,�����-%3'/-+O1)B&#70%0+%-70'%(%3#O>#').�0/%>(-&-.�'/,()3�<#�-(5301%,%)(-).)T0��F�)'+--+6���S6eee�]afiq�am6�JJS6eaU6)�����1)E-31%>(-&>(�35.%>#'(-1%30'(21<���-@(5301%,%5*#1)�I')>%>#'1)0'%.132.)0/0'(2&3%0'5��>%(5&2>(�E�3O� + '%�E�0.->%'%�26E'%2E-3#7�0>%./*%+).'%>%3��#�&�).-1'3#-0.%+)6+0'(-E)L��-05'%./1%3)'-((�'%(��)(-).)63->#')50/0()+3�+)'/�$0'%>%@3���-7�.-10�1%70%>(-&-./3#$'-((�'%(�7�� 1)E-0'+->(��-()N>(%9.-�@3%7Q(-1%30'(21<�������1)E-31%T���H6]fU>(�+-&-�3)*+)3�-1%0'(%�01%7(-1��!� ���0+5*�0�'��>(��-(%�0.-&2-'>(-B&-+0-,%%'�-'�'/6E'%3)%03%+3%7'-((�'%(��()00-.-3�5�-(53O+ �(%0.)+01%7%9.��+9)00-73-�.5*/�#O3-+0'(-E)-'053�%&3%,%,�&(%3��)3)�!�b6'%,&)1)1+9)00-73-

A(-+3�-0))�#!>()0))�#">(%B�+).��-B&2�3-B01����-.#�%*-()��6)')1B-+9)00-73-(��+�(/T�2..%3-36����6[g^difaU�

���������� � ������ �@��������=���� ���������=���� ����

Page 122: south-eastern contact area of finnic languages in the light of onomastics

��

�%>(%0#%3%�)0'�1������� �!��"

�%(&%+01%7(��%1�)%'�-E-3,�&(%3���!�����&/T���6e^\U��'%B-+(-�5+�(%0.)+01%7%9.��*+-0'3)(� �!����T���6][U6)+9)00-73-�.5*/�#O(-1��!��,�6�!��!���!�p.�T���6efe6 eff6ee[U�+�%0'(%�01%7%9.�%'�-E-@3#,�&(%3��#�!���!��!��T���6[g^�giU��%>%0')+.-3�-�'�$&)33#$+-&-'1*)1.LE-3�L%'%�6E'%�0'%(�E-01�7j3+3)E).-0.%+)�%,+0'(-E)'/05+ �-(5301%��.�9%.--()33-�5*#1-69#'%+)+�-�3)�-(5301%7'-((�'%(��6>% '�>20))�01%,%j?660(�>(%'%2().�j=�<C3b�8�33%@+%.B�j3<C3b�1%(��'/���%(&��!��b6�-(53�j?67WZ6_b6>(%'%0))��j?�<C���>(%&)'/���%&%93#�B-%9()@*%�)'(�92'j3H3b>(-&0')+.-33)�-(5301%7'-((�'%(��++�&-j?6HZ6_b!0��3�B-��p,�"��%(&%+01�75*#16>%+0-7+�&��%0'�69#.()0>(%0'()3-30-+-(3--�-@(5301%,%!0��1)('2S3)0��G"�>(%0'�().05%'3�*%+�7�1�+>.%'/&%�3&%9#6>%�'%�23)>()��+)-'05+#+%&%'%�6E'%3)*+)3�-�!� �>(��.%601%(--6�*1)1%,%@'%5*#1)69.�*1%,%1�%(&%+01%�26)3-�*�-(5301%,%5*#1)��)00�%'(��&(2,%7>(��-(>(%9.-�3%7(-1%30'(21<�������1)E-31% O

&�).-1'3%-0.%+%����!���/6�*+-0'3%-3),).�<1�$*-�.5$�%0'(%�01%7%9.�+ *3)E-3���&(-+3-,).�<1�75*#1�T�1)E-31%6���H6]\d]]U��E-3#70>()+-&.�@+%0+5*#+)-'�'%0.%+%0�)(�q��H<8�5*#1�T���6\iU�>(%'%8�33%@>-(��j�äH<äTz_6 caU�-70'+�'-./3%63)21)*)33%7'-((�'%(���-(5>(%B�+).)63%61)192@&-'&%1)*)3%+0.-&2L�-�()*&-.-6*&-0/B�.���)(�7<#��)1��%9()*%�6()0@0�)'(�+)-�#7(2001�7&�).-1'�*�3-+%*�%B3%29-&�'-./3%0+5*)'/0�-(530@1��5*#1%�6>%01%./12%3+()+3%70'->-3��%B-'+%0$%&�'/1 �)(�701%�2��9)>(�+-&-33#$>(��-()&%1)*#+)L'6E'%1()73-+)B3#��&.5(-�-3�5

()00�)'(�+)-�#$>(%9.-�5+.5L'050'(%,�72E-'8%3-'�E-01�$*)1%3%�-(3%0@'-7��)0�')93%-�-B'-((�'%(�)./3%-0%>%0')+.-3�-5*#1%+%,%�)'-(�).)��)3--9#.)+#&+�32'),�>%'-*)%9.�*1%�(%&0'+-�-(5301%,%��)(�701%,%

5*#1%+����)0�-(0E�').�'20+5*/&%0'%+-(3%7TWdogab6�JDA6 [\U6���)+�.)&+)B&#>%&+-(,1(�'�1--,%'%E12*(-3�5TZdmhld6�JDH��JDGU6���).��)0E�@').6E'%0%>%(%73)�)(�701�75*#1'%>%3��#�-(5301�$'-((�'%(�7%9�50@3�'/3-+%*�%B3%T|dlhgd6�JC�U������)'+--+()*&-.5.�)(�701%@�-(53012L,�>%'-*2T�JJS����SU6)���./1+�0'T�JJHU+#0'2>�.)01(�'�1%7-,%�3-3�53) >(��-(-'%>%3��%+08%(�)3')��b 16b�!,����b���Z,�_�I'�>(%'�+%(-E�563)3)�+*,.5&6+%�3%,%�0+5*)3#0'-�6E'%3-1%'%(#-

�)(�701�-,�&(%3��#9#.%>(�35'%0E�')'/�-(5301����I'%1)0)-'0563)>(�@�-(63)*+)3�701%�>%3-3'%��!,Zj_��!0(��)(�8�8>6äng�� >�(-1)�T���6��6]gU"6+0'(-E)L��$05+�%0'(%�01%7%9.��3�*%+/5$�1�F$!,���6$!,��.T���6eee6ee\U6$!,����[�e6$!,���6$!,���6$!,��6l.�h!,���T���6[\i6[fa6c[6[i[6[\[6[g[U� )*+)33#-,�&(%3��#��-L'�)(�701�-6)3-�-(5301�-1%(3�63) E'%6*)�-'��621)*#+).�����%>%+T�JHC6ecde^U��*)��'2�'%7'%E1�*(-3�5�#�%B-�>(�+-0'�0.-&2L��-)(,2�-3'#��� � <-3'()./3%��-(5301%�(-,�%3-+ �(%0.)+01%7%9.�3-%'�-E-3%3�%&3%,%3)*+)3�501%�>%3-3'%� �!,Zj_����� ).�E�-�)(�701%,%0290'()')3)'-((�'%(���%0'(%�01%7%9.�>%&'+-(B&)@

����=�� �

Page 123: south-eastern contact area of finnic languages in the light of onomastics

�D

�%>(%0#%3%�)0'�1������� �!��"

-'05'-�6E'%*&-0/&%0-,%&35�3-,%&359#'2-'B,%301�75*#16+%03%+-1%'%(%@,%+*3)E�'-./3%7�-(-.-B�'�)(�701)5.-10�1)STYrl�mhoq6����6eie6eia6ecaU�D��3%,�-.-'%>�0�0+�&-'-./0'+2L'%'%�6E'%-�-+1%3<-0(-&3-+-1%+/5�)@(�7<#6�.�E-(-��0#6>(%B�+).�+3�*%+/5$�1�T�59�3�36�JJH6e[cU�C� )@(%&3#-.-,-3&#60%9()33#-3)9-(-,)$(��3B�60+�&-'-./0'+2L'%'%�6E'%+ >(%�.%�*&-0/>(%B�+).�E-(-��0#TYrl�mhoq6����6ei]dec[6ecgdec\U�A��E-@+�&3)0%%'3%0��%0'/'%>%3�����%0'(%�01%7%9.��3�*%+�7�1�0�)(�701%7'%>%3���-7!0��1)('2�"���'%�2�%B3%&%9)+�'/6E'%���)0�-(6$%'5%3� 0E�@').�)(�701�7��-(5301�75*#1�9.�*1%(%&0'+-33#��63)0%0')+.-33%7��

S�-E/�&-'%920.%+3%�5*#1-�*,%'%+�'-.-7+).53%7%92+�OB,%3%+6B�+2��$>%9-(-,)�(� �3B���()��)'�1)�02�-0'+-33)5E)0'/.-10�1�B,%301%,%5*#1)+*5'#�*(2001%,%6%&3)1%>%E'�>%.%+�3)0.%+*)��0'+%+)3)�*�)(�701%,%5*#1)������,�9#.+#>2�-30.%+)(/B,%3@01%,%5*#1)�����(%�%+)��%03%+-B,%301%,%6>%+0-7+�&��%0'�6.-B�'%'&-./3#7&�).-1'�)(�701%,%5*#1)63)1%'%(%�1%,&)@'%,%+%(�.%3)0-.-3�-6B�+�--1*)>)&2%'0%+(-�-33#$,%(3#$�)(�7<-+�

���������� � ������ �@��������=���� ���������=���� ����

������[��%>%3���56%9�)5&.5�%0'(%�01%7%9.)0'�63�*%+�7�1��)(-).)()00-.-3�5�)(�7<-+

�)(�701�-,�&(%3��#

Page 124: south-eastern contact area of finnic languages in the light of onomastics

�C

�%>(%0#%3%�)0'�1������� �!��"

�'3�E-01%71)('-+0-B->%�-0'�.&(-+3�$�)(�7<-+3)'-((�'%(�L�-B&2(-@1)���%0'(%�%7��5'1%7TWdogab6�JDSU�.5(-�-3�5()00�)'(�+)-�%,%+%>(%0)%E-3/+)B3%9#.%9#>(%�*+-0'�

9%.--0�0'-�3%-0()+3-3�-1%0'(%�01�$�3�B3-%101�$'%>%3��%+0�)(�701�@����3%,�-�)(�701�-,�&(%3��#63)*#+)L��-1(2>3#-(-1�6��-L'0%%'+-'@0'+�5��-33%+3�*%+/5$�1��+�%0'(%�01%7%9.�60(�F���0�&�F3��&���0�b,�!�IH"���0�+3�B3-�'-E-3���1�T���6eaiU�$����!�I6%8�"�!�)(�"��!�����!���+�%0'(%�01%7%9.�T���6]]U6��!���+�+)3%+01%7%9.�T���6[^iU������!�I"������+�%0'(%�01%7%9.����/!�I"���/+�%0'(%�01%7%9.�T���6 [ffUG��(�+%&5�'%'(5&6�#3-2'+-(B&)-�6E'%&)33#-'%>%3��#+%0$%&5'1�)(�701%�25*#126O%3��%,2'9#'/')13)*#+)-�#��>-(-3-0-33#@��3)*+)3�5��61%'%(#-3%+%>%0-.-3<#>(�3-0.�0'-((�'%(�7>(-B3-,%>(%B�@+)3�53)�)(�701%7*-�.-��%0'(%�01%-3)*+)3�-��/�%B-'��-'/�(2001%->(%@�0$%B&-3�-O3)>(��-(6%' �/�&�1�7��.� �/�>%,%0'�TI���6�6eicU��'%B-+(-�53)*+)3�-(���/6>(%'-1)L�-7>%�)(�701%7*-�.-63)5*#1-�)(�7<-+*+2@E�'1)1%���ÿ�!:G�?üW"T��6cgUO921+�N-(-+533)5+%&)Q�.�N(%+53)5+%&)QT���6A6e\]U6E'%0+�&-'-./0'+2-'%3-(2001%�>(%�0$%B&-3��,�&(%3��)��0@3%+)3�-�3%��3)<��+&)33%�0.2E)-�%,.%>%0.2B�'/3).�E�-+%1(-0'3%0'5$(-1�%9��(3%,%.-03%,%�)00�+)6>(�,%&3%,%&.5*),%'%+1�&(%+�.50()+3-@3�5O>%&%93#-,�&(%3��#�*+-0'3#+��3.53&��F:GGq65=!921+�N-(-+53@3)5(-1)Q"6&)+�)53)*+)3�->%0-.-3�L:GGq336)')1B-:GGqä>?=!921+�N-(-@+533%-%*-(%Q"� �H5qä>?=!921+�N(%+53%-%*-(%Q"T�[6ci6e[6ifU��>�()50/3),�>%'-*2%9.�*1%�(%&0'+-�-(5301%,%��)(�701%,%5*#1%+6

�����)'+--+%'3%0�',�&(%3���L(��0'/5+9)00-73-�),�!LB3)5E)0'/�(@$)3,-./01%7%9.�"1�-(5301%7�0()+3�+)-'--0�)(�701%7T�)'+--+6���S6[c^U��-�0)�#��00.-&%+)'-./>(�E�0.5-'(5&0.%+�)(�701%,%5*#1)1�-(5301��� 3->(�3��)-'+%+3��)3�-E�0'%�-(5301�-3)*+)3�5��1)E-0'+-+%*()B-3�7>(%'�+'%E1�*(-3�5�����)'+--+)�%B3%>(�+-0'�0.-&2L�--��%@>-(+#$63) %9%*3)E-33%7'-((�'%(��%'�-E-3+)(�)3'3)*+)3�51(2>3%7�)(�701%7(-1���0�,�O,�&(%3����0�!�,�61%'%(#7�%B3%0E�')'/>-(-3-0-33#��)@(�701��'%>%3��%���%@+'%(#$63->%&).-12>(%'-1)-'(�%�0�!>(�'%1�2$%@3#"63)*+)3�-1%'%(%7�%B-'0%&-(B)'/�0>%./*2-�#7+2&�2('01%��(5&-&(2@,�$5*#1%+�'3%3��*���)(�-<�T0��63)>(��-(F�%(&--+6�JJ�6]id]cU�!��&(%@8%(�)3'b0�+<-3'()./3#$�0-+-(3#$%9.)0'5$�%00��%E-3/>(%&21'�+-3"��@'(-'/�$6(�%���!�,�!��-(53�jQ8�8�0%03)��0��1)('2��"3)0')(#$1)(')$Tplade6�abbhq���S�C,�U%9%*3)E-3)1)1:87CL8rN3�j%�!��,���%*�%B3%6�'%'+)@(�)3'>(%�0$%&�'%'�)(�Qü7���0%03)��'-�0)�#�0')3%+�'05%E-+�&3#�6E'%2 &)33%,%,�&(%3��)-0'/��)(�701�76��-(5301�7+)(�)3'#��@E-'+-('#$6+ 3-@

����=�� �

H�IO�-0>29.�1)�)(�7I.�G�0#.1�3)3-1%'%(#-�*>-(-E�0.-33#$3)*+)3�7+0'(-E)L'05�2���./1+�0'T����6ecgdec\U�

Page 125: south-eastern contact area of finnic languages in the light of onomastics

�A

�%>(%0#%3%�)0'�1������� �!��"

1%'%(%�%'&).-3��%'(��0'/561+%0'%12%'%*��%B-6'-E-'(�$����63)*+)3�-1%'%(%7>(%�0$%&�'%'�)(�=5L�>(%.�+��0(�3)*+)3�-(�$���3)�-('.2,-�� '%@�2B-)($-%.%,�E-01�-&)33#-0+�&-'-./0'+2L'%'%�6E'%3)E).%>-(�%&)%0+%@-3�5�2001%,%�-+-()0.)+5301��3)0-.-3�-�0%>(%+%B&).%0/12./'2(3#�+.�5@3�-�1)10N1%0'(%�01%7Q�%.,�6')1�0�)(�701%7+-('.2,%@+5'01%7�0'%(�1%@12./'2(3%7'-((�'%(��61%'%(%-()0>(%0'()35.%0/+>.%'/&%+%&%()*&-.)�-($3-7�),��<-3'()./3%7�2$%3#6+1.LE)59)00-73�0'/�T�59�3�36�JJH6[ced[ciU�:'%B-1)0)-'050%90'+-33%�-(5301�$3)*+)3�79)00-73)�0'/�6'%63)3)�

+*,.5&6>%1()73-7�-(-��-3)&+2$-->(�'%1%+��-L'�-(5301%->(%�0$%B&-@3�-F��p,�N �B355(-1)Q����p,�N�-($355(-1)Q��%03%+-�'�$3)*+)3�7.-B)'0.%+)5*#1)69#'%+)+�-,%3-1%,&)3)�-(5301%7*-�.-Fj?6HZ6_�3�B3�7�TZdrvfiai6���J6[geU�j?8>Z8_�+-($3�7���'%>%3�����(%0.)+01%76�.)&�@��(01%7 ��%0'(%�01%7 %9.� +0'(-E)-'05�3%B-0'+% 3)*+)3�7 0 )'(�92'%�?8>Z8_b63)>(��-(6���1�T���6e[fU6�������T���6 gU6��������!�j������"6����!�6���1�!��!�j���1�"6��� �0��T���6[gi6[]g6[\c6[\aUO0,-%,()@8�E-01%7'%E1�*(-3�5�'�%9�-1'#&-70'+�'-./3%5+.5L'05+-($3�����.-&2-'%'�-'�'/6E'%0.%+%j?8>8��--'0+5*/3-0�)(�701��6)0�%(&%+0@

1��5*#1%�F0(��)(�ü<O3HJ6�%(&� ?8�b�+-($3�7���'(�92'j?6HZ6_�3�B3�7�6+0'(-E)L��7053)�-(5301�$'-((�'%(�5$6&)B-8%3-'�E-01�&).-1%'�)(�üHb�>(%'%2().�jι�H3�3�B3�7�Tz_6 iaUO�'%0+�&-'-./0'+2-'%'%�6E'%�-(530@1�7��)(�701�75*#1�3-5+.5L'05+>%.3%7�-(-9.�*1%(%&0'+-33#�����>%@'-'�E-01��%B3%&%>20'�'/6E'%�-(53�j?6HZ6_61)1�>(%'%0))��j?�H��6+%0$%&�'18�33%@+%.B�j3H3611%'%(%�26%&3)1%6�)(�üHb+%*+-0'�3-+%*�%B3%�

XF�L�%�M!*%�! ��� ��%��!�

XFTF�L�% ��[�(�����!�% ���"�)��!�

�&)33%�()*&-.->(-&.),)L'05�'��%.%,�E-01�-(-1%30'(21<���-(5301�$,�&(%3��%+61%'%(#-0%0(-&%'%E-3#+21)*)33#$.-'%>�05���-(5301�$*-�.5$F3)'-((�'%(���(-&3-7�.5*/�#�1(2>3#$%*-(3#3-�3-7�(%0.)+01%7%9.)0'���%0'(%�01�-,�&(%3��#>(�35'#3)��+%+3��)3�-'%./1%+'-$0.2E)5$6-0.�2 3�$-0'/0%%'+-'0'+�5+%03%+3%�!5(%0.)+01%�")(-).-()00-.-3�5�-(53��(�+.-1)-�#-1)3).�*23)*+)3�5�'��%.%,�*�(2L'0560%&3%70'%(%3#63) %0@

3%+-'%>%,()8�E-01�$&)33#$60&(2,%70'%(%3#O3)%03%+-%E-+�&3%70+5*�'%>%3���E-01�$1%�>%3-3'%+0&(-+3��6E)�-+0-,%O>(%'%8�33%@>-(�01��

J�%*�%B3%6+�)(�701%�5*#1-9#.%0.%+% j=Hb �+-($3�7�6 0(� *)�-32 jü�s� = +3)E).-0.%+)F3)>(��-(6>(%'%8�33%@>-(��jü5C=��)(�=5C8�%&�3�Tz_6 ^eU���)(�701%7'%>%3����%'�-E-@3#')1�-3)*+)3�561)1$���0�!9)00��-('.2,�"�$��ÿ�6921+�N�-($355+%&)Q!�"T��6����6]fU61%'%(#-�%,2' %'()B)'/()33LL.-10�12��3).%,�E3%- j=HZ8_+0'(-E)-'05�+�-(53%@�2(%�01%7'%>%3����TZdrvfiai6���J6[gfd[g[U�

���������� � ������ �@��������=���� ���������=���� ����

Page 126: south-eastern contact area of finnic languages in the light of onomastics

�S

�%>(%0#%3%�)0'�1������� �!��"

>.)0'%�>()5*#1)��)12>%��3).%0/+#�-!0�����"6+�3'-(-02L�-�3)0(-,�%3-02�-0'+2L''%>%3��#3-�-(5301%,%>(%�0$%B&-3�56>%�'%�20.-&2-'%9%*3)@E�'/>(�3<�>#%'9%()�)'-(�).)���-(5301���#%'3%0��3)*+)3�5+0.-&2L@��$0.2E)5$F�"-0.�<-3'()(-).)&)33%,%'�>)3)*+)3�73)$%&�'053)'-((�'%@(��61%'%()5>%.-'%>�05�5+.5-'05�-(5301%7��"-0.�3)*+)3�53-(-&1%+0'(-@E)L'053)21)*)33%7'-((�'%(���D"-0.�)'(�92'#�8%(�)3'#'%>%3��%+3-./*50%%'3-0'�0&(2,���8�33%@2,%(01���5*#1)��!>(�9).'�701%@8�301���6�)@(�701��6�%(&%+01��6>(%'%0))�01��6>-(�01��"��2E-'%�+0-,%+#�-01)*)33%,%()00�%'(��61)1�-%0%9-33%0'��-(5301%@

,%5*#1)>(%0.-B�+)L'05>%&)33#�'%>%3������%�'��&)33#�'(2&3%%>(-&-.�'/6��-.�0/.�+�-(5301%�5*#1-$)()1'-(@

3#-&.5>(%'%8�33%@>-(�01%,%>()5*#1)0�9�.53'#��������)88(�1)'#���6')11)1*+21%+)50290'�'2<�5(2001%,%5*#1)3-+0-,&)>%*+%.5-'�'%+#5+�'/��&3)1%-0.�3)*+)3�53)#�b!�>(%'%8�33%@>-(��jWt66<="0%%'3%0��#0>(�9).'�70@1%@8�301���'%>%3��)��3)DG6<=b!8�3� CG6<=�E-(-�2$)�"6'%�%B3%*)1.L@E�'/6E'%+�-(5301%�5*#1-61)1�+>(�9).'�701%@8�301�$6�0'%(�E-01�7j�t>-(-�-.+C6)3-+H!0(��%(&�Ht6<6�)(�H6<O662&��Ht8�<bQG�E-(-�2$)�"����%+-(0�������1)E-31%T�JGA6cidafU6+�-(5301%�5*#1-��-.�0/0.-&2L@

��-,.)03#-F3686=666G6������6��6���'%B-+(-�561)1%'�-E).%0/+#�-!0����A"6�0>%./*%+)33#-�����1)E-31%%03%+)3�5(-1%30'(21<��3-%9$%&��%+%0@>(�3��)'/1(�'�E-01���-(5301)5.-10�1)9%./�-7E)0'/L9#.)+%00')3%+.-@3)��>%�)'-(�).)�60%9()33#�3)'-((�'%(���%0'(%�01%7%9.�6E'%3->%*+%@.5-'%>(-&-.�'/6��-L'.�()00�)'(�+)-�#-'%>%3��#�&�).-1'�*�#0%90'+-3@3%�-(5301%->(%�0$%B&-3�-��%�'%7B->(�E�3-+#*#+)-'0%�3-3�5�)'-(�).0'-((�'%(���%.%,%&01%7%9.�6�&)B-%9��(3#-&)33#-60%9()33#-�����1)@E-31%+()7%3-�,.�E)!�(%0.)+01)5%9.�"63-./*59-*%,.5&3%�0>%./*%+)'/+1)@E-0'+-N�-(5301�$Q�)(1-(%+6'� 1��,.�E3)$%&�'053),()3�<-�0'%(�E-01%,%()00-.-3�5�-(��3%+,%(%&01%@'+-(01%7E2&�TZdrvfiai6����U��0+5*�0>%[email protected]&3��%90'%5'-./0'+%�+)B3#)($-%.%,�E-01�-0+�&-'-./0'+)60%,.)03%1%'%@(#�2,.�E01�-*%%�%(83#-21()�-3�5!XVKVXXX++�"3-0%+>)&)L'03)0'%5��@���-(5301���T�59�3�36�JJH6[\fd[\[U� )�9%.--*3)E��)56>%3)�-�2�3-3�L6�33%+)<�560+5*)33)500�0'-�%7

,.)03#$�-(5301%,%5*#1)6*)1.LE)-'05+'%�6E'%+3)E).-0.%+)�0'%(�E-01�78�33%@+%.B�j3�s�?66)+0-(-&�3-0.%+)j3�s�6!>%'�>20))�01%,%5*#1)60(�>(%'%0))��?�6�"����>(%E-�6�&-)./3%0'(%,�78%3-'�E-01�7)3).�*+�'%�0.2@

�������1)E-31%0+5*#+).�-(53�jC6<308�3�C3<<=�&29�T�1)E-31%6�JGA6caU��0.2E)-')1%7(-1%30'(21<��>(%9.-�3%70')3%+�'05()0>(%0'()3-33)5+�(%0.)+01%7%9.�'%>%3���50)'@(�92'%�#��b63)%03%+-1%'%(%,%�%B3%(-1%30'(2�(%+)'/�-(53�jCG<A!�8�3�C3<<=�&29�"�>(%'%2().�jCG<3�

���%*3�13%+-3�->(%'-'�E-01%,%?3)(2001%7>%E+-0%�3�'-./3%6>%01%./12+(2001%�5*#1->(%'-'�E-01�7?3-5+.5-'05*)1%3%�-(3#���'%B-+(-�5+)(�)3'%+21)*)33#$0.%+3)3b�.�

����=�� �

Page 127: south-eastern contact area of finnic languages in the light of onomastics

�H

�%>(%0#%3%�)0'�1������� �!��"

E)->(%+-0'�%E-3/'(2&3%6>%01%./12(-E/�%B-'�&'�')1B-%j?��j�6E'%�%B3%9#.%9#>%&1(->�'/+)(�)3')�� bQ3H� ��bQ6H�&-(-+35�� � jQH����3)E-01.)&#+)-'0529-B&-3�-6E'%�-(5301�-,.)03#-6*)�01.LE-3�-�+%*�%B3%,%>-(-$%&)jü�s�j=60%$()3�.�0/+0+%-78�33%@>-(�01%7>()5*#1%+%78%(�->%'�>2>(�9).'�701%@8�301�$5*#1%+� -20'%7E�+%0'/,.)03%,%+'%(%,%0.%,)!6 ��8��G60(�'.��!���'.�!��T���6e[fU6'.����T���6[^eU">(�%&�3)1%@+%�)'(�92'�+3%��.-�-3'-21)*#+)-'3)(-&2<�(%+)33#7$)()1'-(,.)03%,%@>(%'%'�>)!�� 6�"6E'%>(-&>%.),).������1)E-31%T�JGA6afU��-(%5'3%6%'()@B-33)5+3)*+)3�5$3-20'%7E�+%0'/,.)03%,%0+5*)3)0'-�6E'%+(2001%�5*#1-&.53-,%3-3)�.%0/'%E3%,%*+21%+%,%)3).%,)��-*20.%+3%6+3)�-�()0>%(5B-3����--'050.��1%��).%'%>%3���E-01%@

,%�)'-(�).)�3)&-B3#$�'��%.%,�E-01�$&)33#$&.5'%,%6E'%9#3)7'�&%0@'%+-(3#-8%3-'�E-01�-0%%'+-'0'+�5�-B&25*#1%�%03%+3#$�-(5301�$*-@�-./�&(2,���8�33%@2,%(01���5*#1)����&3)1%3)%03%+-'%>%3���E-01�$8)1'%++%9.)0'�,.)03#$0%>(-&-.-33%7%0'%(%B3%0'/L+%*�%B3%>(-&>%.)@,)'/0.-&2L��-*+21%+#-0%%'+-'0'+�5���� ( % ' % 8 � 3 3 % @ > - ( ��j��� 8 � 3 3 % @ + % . B�j3� � - ( 5 3�j?6!� j?�"

+ 3 ) E ) . - 0 . % + ) � j6!�j�" + 0 - ( - & � 3 - 0 . % + )�-(53�j?6HZ6_�3�*���%(&�3H663H3�>(%'%8�33%@>-(��j��H3Tz_6^iaUF�b

��0������0�����0�����p0��6���0�6���0��6��0�6���0�T���6efg6[]a6[]^6eae6egf6ec]6e[gU6���!��6��0��6���0�6��&T���6[fg6af6ec6ieU6����6����!,�6���h06���0�6�����T���6 \6\c6c\6ci6[^^6i[U��-(53�j?67WZ6_b�1%(��'/���%(&�j37W3�>(%'%8�33%@>-(��j��<C3F�!b

����T���6][U6�!��,���!�,�6�!��!�6�!�p.�T���6efe6eff6ee[U6�!�6�!��!��T���6[g^�giU��-(53�j?6HNZ6_�9-.#7��8�33%@+%.B�jk3H53Ts^�6 ^cUF��,�!�6��,b

��6��,�0�T���6[eg6ege6e[[U��-(53�j56HZ6_�(#9)� � >(%'%8�33%@>-(��j53H3Tz_6 i\UF����0�����b

0�6��0�T���6e[f 6e[\U6���0�6��hT���6c\6iaU6��.��6��p,�T���6ia6[e[U��� � ( % ' % 8 � 3 3 % @ > - ( ��j 8 � � - ( 5 3� j 8�-(53�jQ8�8�0%03)���%(&�Q=�8�>(%'%8�@>-(��jQ8�Tz_6^^iUF%���,��

%���,�6%���!��6%���.��6%������%�����6%�������%������6%������6%�����b��&T���6e[^6[]^6eea6eef6eei6ef[6eigU6%�����6%���,��6%������6%���,�T���6[g6ac6[[f6[f6c[U6%������6%���!,�6%������6%��h!,���T���6[if6 f6\i6[geU�

6b+3)E).-0.%+)3-'-((�'%(�5$6%'3-0-33#$+.-'%>�05$1�-(5301��63-+0'(-E)-'056')1E'%(-E/�&-'%*)1%3%�-(3%�5+.-3����%�'%�23)�.2E�--%9�503-3�-*)1.LE)-'05+'%�6E'%3)E)./3#7?>(-&0')+.5.0%9%7%0%9-33%0'/0290'()'3%,%5*#1)�

���0'/�3%,%&(2,�$3)(�<)'-./3#$0.%+�'%>%3��%+0+)(/�(%+)3�-�3����663)>(��-(u3Hb��u6Hb�(#9)�6:3>b���:6>b�$%(%��7��&(��&3���*%9�503-3�7�'%,%5+.-3�5�%B-'0E�')'/050(-&3-(2001%-)1)3/-�

���������� � ������ �@��������=���� ���������=���� ����

Page 128: south-eastern contact area of finnic languages in the light of onomastics

�G

�%>(%0#%3%�)0'�1������� �!��"

D� � ( % ' % 8 � 3 3 % @ > - ( ��j=� � - ( 5 3�j=�-(53�j5=�A�1)�-3/���%(&�58?T__Y6�6ig\U�>(%'%8�33%@>-(��j5=?=

Tz_6 ciUF�� ���0�6�� �!��/��� �!�6�������T���6[gi6gg6]\U6�� 1�T���6g[U6�� ���T���6ea����6\fU6�� ���T���6afU��-(53�jL=<A�E-(3#7��>(%'%8�33%@>-(��jL==<A�(B)+E�3)�Tz_6^^iUF

(���!,�6(���.�6(�����-6(���,�6(���!�� T���6 []a6 ef]6 eii6 e[[6 e[aU6(����T���6[[gU�C� � ( % ' % 8 � 3 3 % @ > - ( ��j6� � - ( 5 3�j6�-(53� jq6�A �(-1)��>(%'%8�33%@>-(�� jq653� ��jqG53Tz_6 ^igU !�(20�

jb/,���b,�"F���,�6 ��!�,���!��,���!�,�6 ���,�6 ��1�,����1b,�6 �!�,�6 ���,�� ��!,�6 l,��,�6 l!,�6 v��!,��v�!�,��v�b!,�6v��,� T���6 [cf6 efe6 [fa6 []c6 ee[6 ef\6 ee^6 []\6 ef^U6�h��,�6(�!,�6 (�!,�6 l�,�T���6c[6 \i6 c\6 e^U6�!�,�6 �.�,�6 ��,�T���6[\e6ei6[g[U��-(53�jQ6q�%0�3)��%./$)���>(%'%8�33%@>-(��jQ6q=Tz_6 ^iUF%/��T���6

eaiU6%/,�T���6geU6%�16%/,�!�T���6[af6caU�A� � ( % ' % 8 � 3 3 % @ > - ( ��jG� � - ( 5 3�jG�! � 0 1 . L E - 3 � - "j6�-(53�jG� CA�+%.%16>-(-�--1��>(%'%8�@2,�jG5C=�>2'/6&%(%,)�Tz_6 iaUF

l.���6l.�.��6l����T���6e[c6e[]6e[^U6l.��!��6l.��b#�1�6l.�b��!(,1�"6l.���!�����"T���6aa6af6ef6[feU6l.�h!,���T���6[g[U6jl.�� �1TYrl�mhoq6����6ei\U��-(53�jLGH3�').#7���%(&�L6H3�>(%'%8�33%@>-(��jLGH3Tz_6^c\UF��b

�����&/6(�����6(����T���6e^\6[i^6efeU6(�����T���6[[eU���-(53�j<6H6b�>-(-$%&�'/0%&3%,%�-0')3)&(2,%-���(*�<6Ht8<L6�%1��

<6Ht�r<L��&'�6�),)'/6&+�,)'/05��>(%'%8�33%@>-(��j<GH=b�>(%$%&�'/���%�Tz_6 ^caUF �,� !�(%0.�6�+-(�"6 ��� !��(�6�%.%,�"6 ��0� !�(%0.�"6 �!,�!�%.%,�"6 ����!�%01�"�S� � ( % ' % 8 � 3 3 % @ > - ( ��j�� � - ( 5 3�j=����-(53�j=H8!j�H�"�+-($���%(&�?8Hb�>(%'%8�33%@>-(��j�H=Tz_6^iaUF

$�����6$��!���$���!��$�����6$��!��6$�����!�6$���6$����!��6$�b�����T���6gf6[]i6ee\6ea]6]a6]^6eeeU6$���T���6 \U6$�����T���6\cU�H�� � ( % ' % 8 � 3 3 % @ > - ( ��jä� � - ( 5 3�jä�-(53�jq�5�9%.%'%�!+'%>%3����'!,b"�>(%'%8�33%@>-(��jq�5Tz_6

^ciUF'!,��6'!,��.�T���6[g6]U6'!,�T���6[[eU��-(53�jq�>3�jq�>�%*-(%�!+'%>%3����'.�b"�8�33%@+%.B�jq5>�

>()�3&%-+(�j=8G� >bTZdrvfiai6����UF'.��!6'.��!��6'.��!���'.����T���6ef\6e[]6e[fU6'.� ���������6'.���!T���6\[6]gU6'.��6'.��!��6'.b�!��6'.����T���6ef[6[e]6[^\6[^eU���33%@2,%(01�7>(%'%'�>(20�&'%E3%%>(-&-.�'/'(2&3%F�'%�%B-'9#'/

jq36jq�.�j��-�3-�-3--6+>(�+-&-33#$+#�->(��-()$�-(5301�-,.)03#-+3)E).-0.%+)+%0$%&5'1jq�

����=�� �

Page 129: south-eastern contact area of finnic languages in the light of onomastics

�J

�%>(%0#%3%�)0'�1������� �!��"

XFXF��"%�U*"�� � �� %�$�W� ����"�%!��

�-((�'%(�L�-(5301%,%5*#1)�%B3%>%>#')'/05%>(-&-.�'/3)%03%+-()0@>(%0'()3-3�5'%>%,()8�E-01�+#+-(-33#$,�&(%3���E-01�$'-(��3%+� )�-@(5301�$*-�.5$6%E-(E-33#$+#�-6+0'(-E)L'050.-&2L��-%03%+#6+%0$%&5@��-1.)3&�)8'3#�'-(��3)�!+0-%3�9-*�01.LE-3�5>%&&)L'05'%>%,()8�@E-01%7>(%+-(1-"����-(53�j?85L3�>(%'%1)�-B&2&+2�59%.--1(2>3#��+%&%-�)���T0��F

�)'+--+6���S6[^g��2..%3-36����6e]fde]e��./1+�0'6�JJH6eaU�0(�1%��?=L�>(%'%1)�T�8)3)0/-+6�JJS6[][U�>(%'%>-(��j?=L5bT�#'1�36�2.5-+6�JJJ6 \U����-(53�jG� C3�>-(-�--16+%.%1�T0��F�2..%3-36����6ef\de[c�nalhgovh6

���S6[[]d[efU�0(�>(%'%8�@2,�jG5C=�'(%>)6&%(%,)��$)3'�jååN8CTz_6 iaU�D��-(53�jq3�>A!jq�> � jq�>"�%*-(%�T�)'+--+6���S6[ca�Yrl�mhoq6 ���S6 [cU�C��-(53�j<6H6b�!�),�0'()./3)5"(-1)60%-&�35L�)5&+)+%&%-�)��0(�>(%@

'%8�@2,�j<GH=b�>(%$%&�'/���%�Tz_6 caU��(*�<6Ht8<L6�%1��<6Htwr<L���&'�6�),)'/6&+�,)'/05�T`�6�6[egaU��-1�3) �bF �,�!�(%0.�6�+-(�"O(-1)6>(%'-1)L�)5%'�%.,�1(��0')E-(-*+%&%()*&-.�-B&2%*-()���-*)&()� )@+%.%1� ���!��(�6�%.%,�"O(-1)60%-&�35L�)5�5'12�9)00-73�-+-(3%7+�3#� ��0�!�(%0.�"O(-1)60%-&�35L�)5�%.,2�M$%'/09)00-73%�%*� -(%� �!,� !�%.%,�"O (-1)6 0%-&�35L�)5�2$%32 ��%.��2� ����!�%01�" O(-1)60%-&�35L�)5(-1��.5*/�)6293)��%.,)��(�+-&-33#-+#�-,-%,()8�E-01�-'-(��3#%9()*2L'>5'/)(-).%+F�" (%@

0'%+01%@1%0'(%�01%7�D6�"�2(%�01�76D"&/51%+01�7�0'%(�1%@12./'2(3#7�C6C" 0-@+-(3#7%*-(3#71()76A"0-+-(3)5>-(�8-(�5!0��1)('2�"�� �2(%�01%�)(-).-%'�-E)L'05'%>%3���E-01�-+)(�)3'#l.�b��.�b6)+0-+-(3%�%*-(3%�1()- O%03%+)lx�b�+�2(%�01%�)(-).-+)(�)3'%�'-(��3)�����A5+.5-'05h����� <-.%�()0>(%0'()3-3�-()00�%'(-33#$)'(�92'%+0%%'+-'0'+2-'%E-(E-33%@�2�����)'+--+#��-(5301%�2)(-).2T�)'+--+6���S6eee61)(')AU��5'#7�*3)*+)33#$)(-).%+()0>%.),)-'05+()7%3-�3-B01%,%%*-()�(-1

�3-,)��+�(/��%03%+)$3)*+)3�7*&-0/+0'(-E)L'05&%+%./3%(-&1�-+)(�)3'#!&,�b6���b���0b6.�b�.�b"6%&3)1%3-0%�3-33%6E'%�'�)'(�92'#6��-L@��-*3)E-3�5�%*-(%�!&,�b"6�>(%'%1)�!���b���0b"��>-(-�--1�!.�b�.�b"6

�D�-3'()./3#7�0'%(�E-01�7�-(5301�7)(-).��C/51%+01)512./'2()O12./'2()()33-,%B-.-*3%,%+-1)6<-3'(1%'%(%73)$%&�.05,&-@'%+ ()7@%3-0%+(-�-33%7�%01+#602�-0'+%+).)>(��-(3%0G��,�&%3���>%���,�3���!0��1)('2A"��) 3-70.-&%+).)')13)*#+)-�)5>%*&3-&/51%+01)512./'2()602�-0'+%+)+�)5+>.%'/&%H�� ,�3���T�(-'/51%+6�JSS6[c^d[ca�zdqbeoram6����6[c^d[cgU�

�A��&��%6>%&+.�53�-�(2001%,%5*#1)�+2&)(3%7>%*�<��+3)E).-0.%+)>-(-�-.+yFj�����y�����.)03#�+'%(%,%0.%,)9#.=6-0.�02&�'/>%0%%'+-'0'+2L���'%>%3��)���3.53&����)(-.��!A=85L=r75=6A==5L="��%01%./12+(2001%�5*#1-����5+.5-'050.%+%�B-301%,%(%&)6>-(+%3)E)./3#7j=>-(-�-.+3�

���������� � ������ �@��������=���� ���������=���� ����

Page 130: south-eastern contact area of finnic languages in the light of onomastics

��

�%>(%0#%3%�)0'�1������� �!��"

0%%'3%0��#0()00�%'(-33#��+#�-)'(�92')��,�&(%3��%+%03%+3%,%�-(53@01%,%)(-).)��%�3-3�L�����2..%3-3T����6e]fde]iU6,�&(%3��#3)����b����0b6+0'(-E)L��-05+9)00-73-�+�(���3-B01%,%%*-()60%%'3%05'0503)@*+)3�5��3)����b++-($%+/5$�%.,���>(%E-�6'%>%3��#3)',�b�����2..%@3-30E�')-'0))�01���6>(-'-(>-+����+(-*2./')'-(2001%7)&)>')<��>-(-@$%&jk�N!(20�,"T�)�B-6eccdecaU��)*2�--'056�'%+%*�%B3%63%3-9-00>%(@3%6>%01%./12',�b+()7%3-�+�(���3-,�+()+3%7�-(-�%B-'9#'/0%%'+-'@0'+�-��-(5301%�2jq�>��jq�>!&.��b"�:'%1)0)-'05%'�-E-33#$+9)00-73-�3-,�,�&(%3��%+".���-��".b

�!,�6)')1B-1)(-./01�$,�&(%3��%+3)�.�b!1)(-.�AG64Cb"6'%%3�0+5*)3#0>-(-�-71)��6>%�'%�2�$%>(-&-.-33%0.-&2-'1+).�8�<�(%+)'/1)10%%'+-'@

����=�� �

������e���&(%3��#6%9()*%+)33#-%'�-(5301�$,-%,()8�E-01�$'-(��3%+

L�% ��� �� %�$�W� ����"�%!����P�%G�[�P�� �������

����9�h����>(%'%1�

�.�b9�Z_.�b9��x�b�+%.%1�

&.�b9�&,�b9�b.��9�b,���%*-(%�

��b�>-(-$%&3#7�

�%0'%+01%@1%0'(%�01)5�-(5�2(%�01)5'-((�'%(�5/51%+01)5'-((�'%(�5�-+-(3)5�-(5�-+-(3)5>-(�8-(�5

Page 131: south-eastern contact area of finnic languages in the light of onomastics

��

�%>(%0#%3%�)0'�1������� �!��"

0'+�5�-(53%@�2(%�01��l.�b6�.�b��%�3-3�L�����2..%3-36'%>%3��#3)l.�b+�9%3-B/-+%0$%&5'1%&3%�2�*+-($3-+%.B01�$5*#1%+603%0�'-.5@��1%'%(%,%'%>%3���5()0>(%0'()3�.)0/3)0-+-(T�2..%3-36����6e[cU� )@1%3-<6+()7%3-0-+-(3%7>-(�8-(���-(5301��,�&(%3��)�3) �b>(-&>%@.%B�'-./3%�%B-'0%%'+-'0'+%+)'/3)*+)3�- ��1��!�j �1���"6��-32@L�--%&32�*(-19)00-73)�-.%,%�%(5� )%03%+)3��+#�-01)*)33%,%+%*�%B3%>(-&>%.),)'/6E'%2�-(5301%,%

5*#1)��-.05.�9%3-1�70-+-(3#7>-(�8-(�73#7&�).-1'6.�9%9.�*1%(%&0'+-3@3#75*#1��%+051%�0.2E)-621)*)33#-)'(�92'#'(2&3%0%%'3-0'�0>(�9).@'�701%@8�301����.�0))�01��5*#1)��63->(�9-,)510>-12.5<��+%'3%�-@3���0E-*32+�-7.-10�1��

XFYF��%* ���%� *�%����"%�U*"�� ��C�G��(���[

�����)'+--+0E�').3-%9$%&��#�+1.LE)'/+�00.-&%+)3�-60%&3%70'%@(%3#6'%>%%03%+#0%*3)E-3�5���+-($3�7���3�B3�7�6)0&(2,%70'%(%3#O'%>%%03%+#6+1%'%(#$%'()B-3#�'3%3��#T�)'+--+6����6a^dg[6\^U��0%%'@+-'0'+��0�'���#()00�%'(-.�+0'(-E)L��-053)�-(5301�$'-((�'%(�5$!1)(@') D")'(�92'#61%'%(#->%&&)L'05(-1%30'(21<��0%>%(%73)'%>%3���E-01�-&)33#-Fj=H8�.�j�H�+-($3�7�6j?6HZ6_�S�3�B3�7�6j78>Z8_6<8>Z8_b��-(5!30@1�7"6�-(53�3��H6)')1B-j?mZ_��).#7�T0��FZdrvfiai6���J6[gfd[g\U��'%9()33#-3)��)'(�92'#3-./*53)*+)'/9-00>%(3#����(-B&-+0-,%3-@

50-3+%>(%060+5*)33#70%'3%0�'-./3%7$(%3%.%,�-7�$+$%B&-3�5+'%>%3�@��LF5+.5L'05.�%3�+0+%-7%03%+-0.%+)���-(5301%,%5*#1)+>%*&3-70')@&���.�1)1%,%@'%&(2,%,%69%.--&(-+3-,%5*#1)O3)>(��-(6+-($3-+%.B01%@,%6!�">()�-(5301%,%��0'/�(5&9%.--E)0'3#$'(2&3%0'-760+5*)33#$08%3-@'�E-01%7��3%70>-<�8�1%7+#9()33#$)'(�92'%+��%@>-(+#$60.%+)0%*3)E-3�5���+-($3�7���3�B3�7�)1'�+3%�0>%./*2@

L'051)1+,�&(%3��)$6')1�+��1(%'%>%3��)$�>(��'%�>%0.-&3�-6+0()+3-@3�� 0 ,�&(%3��)��6 3-02' �38%(�)<�L % 9%.-- >%*&3�$ 5*#1%+#$ �')>)$T0��F �)'+--+6����6\[U��&)33%��00.-&%+)3���'2'(2&3%0'/+%*�%B3%>(-@%&%.-'/6>(�3��)5+%+3��)3�-'%./1%0290'()'3#-,�&(%3��#��%@+'%(#$6+'%>%3�����-(5301�$*-�-./9#+)-'0.%B3%()*+-0'�3)*+)@

3�58�33%@2,%(01%,%>(%�0$%B&-3�53)�&�b�j?m��).#7�TZdrvfiai6���J6[gcd[g^U�'%>%3��#60%&-(B)��-(2001�71%(-3/&�b��%�'%�2+&)33%7

�S�0'(-E)L�--05+'%>%3���� A6HZ6_b>(�(2001%7)&)>')<���%B-'+#0'2>)'/+()*.�E3#$8%(�)$6+'%�E�0.-j3H36j3H66j?3H36j6H66j?6H6T���))$'-()F�*>-(->�01�%'�H�������JU��#%0')3%+�.�0/3)8%(�-j?6H66'�1��3#$+)(�)3'%++,�&(%3�����*2E)-�%7'-((�'%(��3- *)@8�10�(%+)3%��(%'-'�E-01�7?+(2001%�5*#1-3-5+.5-'05*)1%3%�-(3#�6'�-�&)33#7*+21�%B-'+%0$%&�'/1>()5*#12��0.�9#�'%'*+219#.0+5*)3>%>(%�0$%B&-3�L0&�).-1')��(2001%,%5*#1)6'%+0'(-E).�0/9#�&(2,�-+)(�)3'#�

�H�%'&-./3#$0.2E)5$�'%'1%�>%3-3'�%B-'��-'/*3)E-3�-�>%.2%0'(%+��

���������� � ������ �@��������=���� ���������=���� ����

Page 132: south-eastern contact area of finnic languages in the light of onomastics

�%>(%0#%3%�)0'�1������� �!��"

��

0')'/-�0>%./*%+)3#')1�-3)*+)3�561%'%(#-.�9%+1.LE)L'8�33%@2,%(01�78%(�)3'6.�9%%'3%05'051%9�-1')�6&.51%'%(#$>(�*3)1N�).#7Q5+.5-'05%E-+�&3#�%03%+)3�-�3%��3)<����@'(-'/�$6>(�)3).�*-'%>%3����0-+-(3#$(-,�%3%+'(2&3%0'�+%*3�1)@

L'+0+5*�0'-�6E'%�-(53�j=HZ8_�+-($3�7��j?6HZ6_�3�B3�7�.-,1%0�-��+)@L'050>(%'%0))��j��H�� ��+-($3�7�!+()33�$>(�9).'�701%@8�301�$8%(�)$>(%@'%0))������="�j?� � H�� ��3�B3�7�T]arqhbdiqd6����6[f6[^eU�I'�0.%+)6)')1B-*+21%+%-0$%&0'+%>(�9�@8�3�q>?=6�-(53�jq�>3�jq�>6>(%'%0))��jq�� � ?>�� �>(�8�33%@+%.B�jq5>3�jq5>�%*-(%�TZdrvfiai6����U21)*#+)L'3)'%6E'%+8%@3-'�E-01%�%'3%�-3���-(5301�75*#19#.�%'E)0'�0$%B00))�01����#9()33#-3)��)'(�92'#%9()*2L'�-0'/)(-).%+F�"(%0'%+01%@1%0'(%�@

01%76�"�2(%�01�76D"&/51%+01%712./'2(#6C"0-+-(3#7%*-(3#7)(-).6A"0-@+-(3)5>-(�8-(�56S")(-).3%+,%(%&01%7E2&���0.�0()+3�'/�'21)('�320>(�@+-&-33%7+#�-&�0'(�92<�-7,-%,()8�E-01�$'-(��3%+6'%0')3%+�'05%E-+�&@3#�6E'%0%%'+-'0'+2L��-)(-).#6*)�01.LE-3�-�>%0.-&3-,%6$%(%�%0%+�-@�)L'05&(2,0&(2,%�!0��1)('#��D"�

����=�� �

������i��-(5301�-)'(�92'#0.%B3#$3)*+)3�7

���b9���Z�_�b �+-($3�7��Z_b �3�B3�7�*���Z�_b ��-(5363%0����Z�_b ��-(53�&�b ��).#7�

�%0'%+01%@1%0'(%�01)5�-(5�2(%�01)5'-((�'%(�5/51%+01)5'-((�'%(�5�-+-(3)5�-(5�-+-(3)5>-(�8-(�5:2&01)5'-((�'%(�5

L�% ����"�)�� ���

Page 133: south-eastern contact area of finnic languages in the light of onomastics

�D

�%>(%0#%3%�)0'�1������� �!��"

�'3%0�'-./3%�-0'%,%)(-).)%'�-'��0.-&2L�--��%+0-7+�&��%0'�6+ 5*#1-&(-+3�$B�'-.-7 %+,%(%&01%7��+-(01%7*-�-./!E2&��"9#.%0.%+%jqW>�.�jqW>3�%*-(%���')1%�2>(-&>%.%B-3�L+-&-''%'8)1'6E'%>()1'�@E-01�+0-,�&(%3��#08�3)./LbW>��bW>5+.5L'053)21)*)33%7'-((�'%(��3)*+)3�5��%*-(F3)�).&)-63)>(��-(6�'%%*-()�������6����!��666������!b���6�v� ��6 v���,���T� �6c[6i]6e^6cf6egU6#�0����T���6 cU�)3@3#71%�>%3-3'>(-&0')+.-3�+'%>%%03%+)$60(�3)*+)3�5+).&)701�$%*-(���T���6^f�� �6c\U�����-�T���6ieU6)')1B-%*-(3#7,�&(%3������-�++-($%+/5$�)>)&3%7+�3#T�)�B-6e[\U��-�0)�#�3)>()��+)-'05+#+%&% '%�6E'%0(-&�3%+,%(%&01%7E2&�9#.),(2>>)6+5*#1-1%'%(%7��-@.%0/0.%+% jqW>3 �%*-(%�� jq�>3�G��&(2,%70'%(%3#63-1)5,(2>>)E2&�6B�+�)53)3%+,%(%&01%@'+-(01%7'-((�'%(��6�0>%./*%+).)61)1��-(560.%+)j=HZ8_�+-($3�7��j?6HZ6_�3�B3�7�6)')1B-�'3%3��j78>Z8_�j<8>Z8_TZdrvfiai6����U���&��%6E)0'/3%+,%(%&01%7E2&�+5*#1%+%�%'3%�-3��5+.5.)0/9.�*@1%(%&0'+-33%7�-(53)��

XF\F�D�)��!�W� ����$�%!�"�

�()�1)$&)33%,%�00.-&%+)3�53)��9#.��*2E-3#8%(�)3'#b ��b*��b ���b*��6b,���b.��61%'%(#->(�35'%0E�')'/�-(5301���6)')1B-��(%1%()0>(%0'()3-33#78%(�)3'b����b�0�6+0'(-E)L��705+%03%+3%�3)�-(530@1�$��%(&%+01�$*-�.5$��'3%0�'-./3%1%�>%3-3')b �%9#E3%0E�')-'056E'%%3+%0$%&�'1jQ6H

�&-(-+35�T0��F�./1+�0'6�JJH6eg�����96i[dii��)'+--+6����6efade[[��1)@E-31%6�JGA6caU�+-3,�S3HG�>(%'%8�@2,�jQåHkåTz_6 c\U����))(�1�+�+%*+%@&�' &)33#7 1%�>%3-3' 1 >(%'%8�3� jQ66H= �>%.%+�3)6 0'%(%3)� � �&-(-+35�T_ddbhvhmh6���S6ieU6$%'5�'%'>(%'%8�301�71%(-3/>()1'�E-01�3-+0'(-E)-'05+&(2,�$8�33%@2,%(01�$5*#1)$��3)�-7'%E1�*(-3�563-0'%�'�01.LE)'/'%,%6E'%3)�-(5301%7'-((�@

'%(���%,2'+0'(-E)'/05&(-+3�-�3&%-+(%>-701�-*)��0'+%+)3�56>%�'%�2()0@0�)'(�+)-�#71%�>%3-3'�%B-'9#'/0+5*)30,(-E������.�'�Q=HìL�.'��Q=HL�>(%'%�3&%-+(��Q8H4

zb�1(->%0'/621(->.-3�-6,%(%&�Tzfvfbic6�JAJ6g]]� dllfbc6

Yjdgo6�JJH6e[fU�.�>(%'%�3&%-+(�jQZ4_3Hb�jQZ4_�Hb>%(-1%30'(21<�����)1)

Tpe?v6�JCJU��%>%+%&28%3-'�E-01�$0+5*-7+0.2E)-')1%7'()1'%+1�'(2&3%01)*)'/E'%@.�9%%>(-&-.-33%-6'�1�3-�*+-0'3%61%,&)��*1)1%,%�3&%-+(%>-7@01%,%5*#1)0.%+%9#.%*)��0'+%+)3%��>(%E-�6-,%3).�E�-+9).'�701�$5*#1)$

�G�%1)./3#->(%5+.-3�5>-(-$%&)8�@2,�jN�(20��!W"�%,2'%9�5035'/05+.�53�-�(2001%,%5*#1)T�2..%3-36����6a^60%00#.1%73)�����%1%.%+2��1)E-31%6�JGA6iediiU��%0+�&-@'-./0'+2�����%1%.%+%76�'%')00���.5'�+3#7>-(-$%&60>%()&�E-01�%'�-E)-�#7+0(-&3-@+-1%+#$.-'%>�05$60>%0%9-3>(%�0$%&�'/1)1+�01%33%(2001�$0.%+)$6')1�+*)��0'+%+)3�@5$�'%>%3��)$>-(-&,.)03#��>-(-&3-,%(5&)�/T�%1%.%+)6�JS�6gcdg^U�

���������� � ������ �@��������=���� ���������=���� ����

Page 134: south-eastern contact area of finnic languages in the light of onomastics

�C

�%>(%0#%3%�)0'�1������� �!��"

>%*+%.5-'>%.),)'/6E'%*)��0'+%+)3�-�%,.%>(%�*%7'�2B-3)2(%+3-0-+-(%@*)>)&3%,%>(%'%�3&%-+(%>-701%,%5*#1)��0.�B-0.%+%&-70'+�'-./3%��-.%*3)E-3�-�21(->.-33%->%0-.-3�-�6'%�%B3%09%./�%7&%.-7+-(%5'3%0'�>(-&@>%.%B�'/6E'%*)��0'+%+)3�-%'3%0�'051%+(-�-3�+%*3�13%+-3�5N,%(%&-<@1%712./'2(#Q!%1%.%G��,�&%3���"T�(-'/51%+6�JSS6[c^�zdqbeoram6����6[c^U��%>%3���E-01�71%�>%3-3'b ���b �+#*#+)-''(2&3%0'�3-'%./1%0�'�@

�%.%,�E-01%70'%(%3#63%�0'%E1�*(-3�5+#&-.-3�5-,%+0%0')+-'%>%3��%+��)16�����)'+--++1.LE�.+0+%�1)('#(5&%71%3��%+3)b ���b �T�)'+--+6���S6[ag61)(')�U6+1%'%(#$�.-�-3'b �b�b b%'3%0�'05601%(--61)'(�92'�+@3%7%03%+-6)1%�>%3-3'b�b��--''%B-*3)E-3�-6E'%�>(�9).'�701%@8�301�78%(�)3'bH3���bH�J� �B-&.5%71%3��%+6+1.LE-33#$+�00.-&%+)3�-�����)'@+--+)6>(�+%&5'05>(�9).'�701%@8�301�-0%%'+-'0'+�56��-L��-05+0%90'+-3@3%8�301%7)3'(%>%3�����'%>%3�����

��/ ��O0(�>(�9�@8�3�23=Q3H3!)3'(%>%3��"�%&3%��-33#-3)0-.-3@3#->231'#23=Q3H3+��3.53&��!n�gaaivcb�6Xvddlhiai6nfivd�fvh6|derd�fvh6|dbmhd"T�YU�

��� �r��O0(�>(�9�@8�3�23<Q3H3!)3'(%>%3��"T�hoohl�6�JHA6[[]U�3)@0-.-33#->231'#03)*+)3�-�23<Q3H3+��3.53&���8�301%7�)(-.��!^ebd6Z�ho�l�6Wdlvad��bmh"T�Y��hoohl�6�JHA6[c^U�

(� ��O0(��3%,%E�0.-33#-+8�301%7'%>%3����%71%3��#;6<Q3H3T�[6ca6g\6\a6]g6[ea6[ac6[a]U�

(� ��6(�� ���O0(�>(�9�@8�3�;3>Q6=!)3'(%>%3��"T�hoohl�6�JHA6ea^U�3)*+)3�-3)0-.-33%,%>231');3>Q6H3+��3.53&��!zcr��fvh"T�YU�

#�*��O0(�>(�9�@8�3�D6>6QQ3!)3'(%>%3��"T�hoohl�6�JHA6ef\U�3)*+)@3�-3)0-.-33%,%>231')D6>6QQ3H3!_dmfilhiid6|hqaa"T�[6ge��hoohl�6�JHA6ef\U��(%�-'%,%6>%�-3/�-7�-(-%&3%�*2>%�532'#$�����)'+--+#�3)*+)@

3�7�%B3%+%*+-0'�1�)(�701%�25*#12F{� ����)(��<O3H�+-($3�7��:'%1)0)-'058%(�)3')b,���b.��6'%���./1+�0'�603-1%'%(#��%,%+%(@

1)��6�����)'+--+0E�')L'-,%�-(5301��T�./1+�0'6����6ccadccg����C6[[��)'+--+6���C6e]U��%@+�&��%�26�'%'8%(�)3'>(%�*%�-.%'9%.--&(-+3-,%� 9%@.--��(%1%()0>(%0'()3-33%,%b����b�0�6>%&'+-(B&-3�-�E-�26+E)0'3%0'�60.2B)'+)(�)3'#3)*+)3�5(-1� ��0�� ����� �.��� �.��T���6ef[U��%3-'�E-01%-()*+�'�-+&)33%�0.2E)-�%,.%>(%�0$%&�'/0.-&2L���%9()*%�Fjb����b.���b.��� )%03%+)3��)(-).)()0>(%0'()3-3�58%(�)3'b����b�0�0.-&2-'0E�')'/6>%�-3/�-7�-(-6�%(&%+01%@�-(5301��6E'%0%,.)@02-'05 � 0 �*+-0'3%0'/L +�%(&%+01%� 5*#1- 0288�10) 0 1%�>%3-3'%� b5LbTpdbqaio6�JJJ6[fad[fgU� -%9$%&��%%'�-'�'/6E'%)(-).#>(�+-&-33#$+#�-8%(�)3'%+0%+>)&)@

L'0)(-).)��3)�9%.--()0>(%0'()3-33#$)'(�92'%+!0��1)('#D�C"6%&3)1%

�JI'%%'�-E).)����./1+�0'T�JJH6egde\U�

����=�� �

Page 135: south-eastern contact area of finnic languages in the light of onomastics

�A

�%>(%0#%3%�)0'�1������� �!��"

')1B-61)1%'%9()33#-&.5&)33%,%�00.-&%+)3�5,-%,()8�E-01�-'-(��3#6)3).�*�(2-�#-8%(�)3'#3-+0'(-E)L'053)�).&)-��L9%>#'3#�>(-&0')+.5-'05��(%1%-()0>(%0'()3-3�-8%(�)3')b���+ ,�&@

(%3�����+�(�6�5'�63)�-.%�%*-(-�3)+%0'%E3%�>%9-(-B/-�3-B01%,%%*-()+>.%'/&%�3-,�!0��1)('2C"��()7%3-�+�(�0%%'+-'0'+2L��-,�&(%3�@�#�%B3%()*&-.�'/3)&+-,(2>>#�

�� )*+)3�53)F=8HGLb>(%�0$%&5'%'&(-+3�$>(�9).'�701%@8�301�$)3'(%>%3��%+62>%�532@'#$+'%�E�0.-�+3%+,%(%&01�$9-(-0'53#$,()�%')$T_ddbhvhmh6���Hd6eeedeeiU�

���������� � ������ �@��������=���� ���������=���� ����

�� )*+)3�56+0%0')+1%'%(#$+$%&�'�.-�-3'!0288�10�"b��F����p����A=HtWt6N=�A=HtWtrGL6�� �������� 3O3>WrGm6 ������6 �!������FG7WrGL6%��b�������:8CHtrGLr6q36#&!�����D7rGLT����6a6\a6a^6g6a6 aU� -1%'%(#-�* �'�$3)*+)3�7��-L'0%%'+-'0'+�5+��3.53&��FF=8HGLrH3<Q=��!%*�+=))>)+-0�"6FGWWGLrqá?>=!bWWb�j7W"!%*�+�3)(�"�:8CHtGL+%0$%&�'6+�&��%618%(�-j:8C>GL

������c��-(5301�-&-'-(��3)3'#�8%(�)3'#

�%0'%+01%@1%0'(%�01)5�-(5�2(%�01)5'-((�'%(�5/51%+01)5'-((�'%(�5�-+-(3)5�-(5�-+-(3)5>-(�8-(�5

b.��9�b,��b ��9�b �9�b*��9�b*�

b���9�b�0�

L�% ����"�)�$�%!�"�

P�%G����C ��["�)�$�%!�"

Page 136: south-eastern contact area of finnic languages in the light of onomastics

�S

�%>(%0#%3%�)0'�1������� �!��"

����=�� �

!8�3�Q8C>3�%.-3/�"6D7GL�%B-'��-'/)3).%,+3)*+)3��(-1�D876b+ �)>.)3@&��63)*+)3�LA=HtWtGL+��3.53&��0%%'+-'0'+2L'A=HqG7q>?=!%*�+�2$�).)$@'�"�A=HqGL!&�+M+)"��%(�)3'bGL+8�301%7'%>%3����&%+%./3%>(%&21'�+-3!0(�M4?87rGLT�[6^[6ag6c[U6F3C5rGLT�)�B-6cf6\c6[f]6[e^U�&(�"6>%�'%�2+>%.3-%E-+�&3%6E'%&)33#7>.)0''%>%3����E)0'�E3%5+.5-'05>(�9).'�70@1%@8�301����3-1%'%(#$0.2E)5$6+�&��%6%30+5*)300))�01��5*#1%��.�3-�*+-0'3#��5*#1%+#���0'%E3�1)��F3)>(��-(6%'�-E-33#-+�)>.)3&��'%>%%03%+#FGWWGLb�D876b3-5+.5L'050%90'+-33%0))�01���6)+%0$%&5'1 3-@1%-�29%.--&(-+3-�25*#12T_z6egi6c^iU��� )*+)3�56&.51%'%(#$��-L'050%%'+-'0'+�5++-($%+/5$�%.,��3�*%@

+/5$�1�3)�-(5301%@�2(%�01�$'-((�'%(�5$F$��r����$�r���T����6]6[[U�$��r���T���6\cU6$��r!��T���6ee\U�$����r����$����r�T����6g\U� $��b��T���6gf6]]U6$���r�1T���6iaU6$����r.��T���6ef\U����r���!��$+�"����r0�T���6[e[U�%���r���T����6]U�%���r0��T���6ee[U6%���r1T���6a[U�%�!r���T����6]U�%�!r�T���6ef^U�(����r���T����6aiU�(����r���T���6 eafU6(���r� T���6 ^[U�v��r�0�T����6 ifU�v���r��/6v��r0�T���6ece6[ifU�v���r���T����6iU�v���r.��6v��rQ�6v��r0T���6efi6e[[6[e\U6v��r*�T���6ieU�

������^��-(53%@�2(%�01�7)(-).()00-.-3�5!*)�01.LE-3�-�,(2>>0-+-(3%,%>-(�8-(�73%,%�+%0'%E3%,%E2&01%,%5*#1)"

�-(5301�-,�&(%3��#

�-(5301)5)($-%.%,�E-01)5'-((�'%(�5!�-%3/-+�JJS"

Page 137: south-eastern contact area of finnic languages in the light of onomastics

�H

�%>(%0#%3%�)0'�1������� �!��"

�.-&2-'%'�-'�'/6E'%�3#->(%5+.-3�58%(�)3')b��b+8�301%7�0))�0@1%7'%>%3����3-%'()B-3#��&�30'+-33#��01.LE-3�-��%B3%0E�')'/3)@*+)3�-1(2>3%7(-1� AG6r5L=6>(%�0$%B&-3�-1%'%(%,%&%1%3<)3-+#503-3%!� 8�3�?G6�>%'%16'-E-3�-��"��)1��%9()*%�6�%B3%>(-&>%.),)'/6E'%&.5,�&(%3��%+3)b��&-70'+%+).%'%B->()+�.%6+0%%'+-'0'+��01%'%(#��*�-@35-'05%03%+)+>(�9).'�701%@8�301%�01.%3-3��!L�F�5L6ifg�bGLOuai�bGr5Lr87"T�2..%3-36����6e[\dee[U��'%B-+(-�56+�&��%613)*+)3�5�6&.51%'%(#$%'�-E-3#0%%'+-'0'+�5++-($%+/5$�%.,���(�%E/-6��--'3->%0(-&0'+-33%-%'3%�-3�-+-($3-+%.B01%@%101�78%(�)3'b����b�0���'3%0�'-./3%>%0.-&3-,%>(�+-0'�1)12L@.�9%>%&(%932L�38%(�)<�L'(2&3%��'%E1�*(-3�5�0'%(��5*#1)3)>()��+)-'05,�>%'-*)%'%�6E'%>(%�0$%&�.>-(-$%&j����6%&3)1%+ '%>%3����)(-).8%(�)3')b��b0+0()+3-3��0b���b�0()0>(%0'()3-3��(-6E'%0+�&-'-./0'+2-'601%(--6%9%9()'3%�>(%<-00-Fj��j0�����0�

YF�L�%��� ��� ��%��!�

YFTF��� *�%����"%�U*"�� ��C�G��(���[

.5+#5+.-3�5)(-).)�%(&%+01%7'%>%3����++-($%+/5$�%.,���(�%E/-�#+#9().��-0'/3)�9%.-->%1)*)'-./3#$)'(�92'%+!%03%+"F���b��%(&�?�Htb6?Ht�+-($3�7�T`�6C6eaf\�__Y6D6c]fU�M�b��%(&�3H663H3�3�B3�7�T`�6�6ee�__Y6�6aaU�$!b��%(&�=��6=��9%./�%7�T`�6�6cai�__Y6�6[faU���1b6��0�b��%(&�?��b6?��536?=�53��).#76�).%�T`�6C6eai\�__Y6D6cg\U��0b6�nb6 ��0b��(*� 3�66�%1�� 35�3 �9-.#760+-'.#7�T`�6�6 gaU�|��b�|��b�E-(3#7�����(*���<��6�%1���<���(B)+E�3)�T`�6�6ei^U��0%+%12>3%0'��'�)'(�92'#%9()*2L'&%0')'%E3%<-./3#7)(-).!0��1)('2S"� )�9%.--*3)E��#��*%3)���'%,%)(-).)5+.5L'050.-&2L��-F�"'-((�@

'%(�5�-B&2�1%7��2(%76+<-.%�0%+>)&)L�)50�0'%(�E-01�0.%B�+���05)(-).%�()0>(%0'()3-3�5�%(&%+01%,%5*#1)��"'-((�'%(�5�-B&2�5*)3/L6�%01+%7��).2,%760%+>)&)L�)5+9%./�-7E)0'�0%E-(E-33#��%*-38-./&@'%�LB3#�)(-).%�()0>(%0'()3-3�5&/51%+01%712./'2(#T�59�3�36�JJH6[^f6t�0�C�U�D"E)0'�E3%�+-(01)5%9.�6')1B-+$%&5�)5+)(-).&/51%+01%712./'2(#T�(-'/51%+6�JSS6[ee6t�0�D��zdqbeoram6����6]f6xhu�D�U��(��-E)'-./3%6E'%+0-�-0'/3)*+)33#$)'(�92'%++0'(-E)L'053)'-((�@

'%(��%'(��2()+>.%'/&%.�3���%01+)K�).2,)��*)>)&2�0-+-(%@*)>)&2%' �'%7'-((�'%(��+0'(-E)L'05)'(�92'#6+%03%+-1%'%(#$�%,2'.-B)'/�%(@&%+01�-0.%+)?8Htb�+-($3�7�6=�b�9%./�%7��?8�Z5_b��).#7��� �+-(01%7%9.�

�� �3)0%+(-�-33#$63�3)�0'%(�E-01�$�%(&%+01�$'-((�'%(�5$3-+0'(-E)L'05)'(�92'#6%9()*%+)33#-%'0%+(-�-33%,%�%(&�>3G�6�E-(3#7�T�����3B-+)'%+6�JGHU� )%03%+-&)3@3#$'%>%3�����%B3%0&-.)'/+#+%&%'%�6E'%+�'%�*3)E-3���0>%./*%+).)0/%03%+)j�8<b�

���������� � ������ �@��������=���� ���������=���� ����

Page 138: south-eastern contact area of finnic languages in the light of onomastics

�G

�%>(%0#%3%�)0'�1������� �!��"

,�&(%3��#0)'(�92'%����b%'3%05'05+%03%+3%�1+%&%-�)�6+-($3��+0+%-7+%&3%70�0'-�-F3)>(��-(6&+-(-1�����,�T���6[^i�[^aU!�jA8HtqG�3N�-($355(-1)Q�"�%*�����,�T�)�B-6[afU� -&).-1%%'�+-(�%'�-E-3%3)*+)3�-%&3%,%�* >(�'%1%+�%.,�$!p.�T���6[\]U!�jI�qG�3N�%./�)5(-1)Q� �%1��=��9%./@�%7�T`�6�6caiU�jqG�3�jq6�3�(-1)��"69%.--�-.1�7>(�'%11%'%(%73%0�'3)*+)3�-��0��N�).)5(-1)QT���6[\]U��%(&�?8�53��).#7�T__Y6D6cg\U��0%%'+-'0'+��01)('%7S�%B3%0&-.)'/+#+%&%'%�6E'%>)()3�bO��<b

!�9-.#7�O�E-(3#7�"3-5+.5.)0/E)0'/L5*#1)*)>)&3%7E)0'�)(-).)���'%�3-'>(%'�+%(-E�56>%01%./1261>(��-(26�*+-0'3#-+>-(�01�$5*#1)$1%��q8W�ι�W�2&��C��Wt�ι�9-.#7���-L')90%.L'3%()*3%->(%�0$%B&-3�-��%*�%B3%6+*)@>)&3#$&�).-1')$�%(&%+01%,%5*#1)&.5%9%*3)E-3�50+-'.#$+%&�0>%./*%+)@.%0/0.%+%j?3HW360(��(*�?3HW66�%1�� ?3HW3�0+-'.#76>(%*()E3#7�T`�6C6e^[\�I��6[f[�ny6eaU�jk3H5��9-.#7�Ts^�6 ^cd^^^U��0(�')1B-�*+-0'3#-+�+-(01%7%9.�(-1������/��6�����-�T���6ic�e[U6+�5*)301%7%9.�O%*����h�����%(&�jA3HWr8�58N�+-'.%-%*-(%QT���6[fgU6(����h!�������T���6\g����6[ifU�

����=�� �

������a��%(&%+01�-)'(�92'#

�!b�9%./�%7��1b9��0�b9��0�b��).#7���b�+-($3�7���Z�}_b�3�B3�7��0b9���0b�9-.#7����b�E-(3#7�

L�% ����"�)�� ���

%������%���!�%M��� ��G� ��%��!��

Page 139: south-eastern contact area of finnic languages in the light of onomastics

�J

�%>(%0#%3%�)0'�1������� �!��"

YFXF��(�%�����"�%!��"�

�-0/�)�3'-(-03%)(-)./3%-()0>(%0'()3-3�-&-'-(��3)3')6+%0$%&5�-,%1�%(&�8�586�5�%*-(%�T`�6�6ig]U61%'%(#7E)�-+0-,%%'()B)-'05+'%>%@3����+8%(�)$b����6b��.�T���U!0��1)('2H"�I'%'&-'-(��3)3'61)1�(-E3%78%(�)3'H8q6Hq�(-1)�!0��1)('2G�()*&�D�D"69#'2-'+3->%0(-&0'+-33%79.�@*%0'�%'0%+(-�-33%7'-((�'%(��()0>(%0'()3-3�5�%(&%+01%,%5*#1)6E'%+#@*#+)-'(5&+%>(%0%+%8%3-'�E-01%�()*+�'��3)*+)33#$.-10-��+(-�-3�+$%B@&-3�5�$+2>%'(-9.-3�-�

���������� � ������ �@��������=���� ���������=���� ����

-'-(��3)3'b�����b��.��j��5��%*-(%�+3)*+)3�5$%*-(+0'(-E)-'05,.)+@3#�%9()*%�+9)00-73-�1��-B&2>(�'%1)�����)��()6)')1B-+9)00-73-�%1����)1��%9()*%�69%./�)5E)0'/,�&(%3��%+0�'��&-'-(��3)3'%�()0@>%.%B-3)1*)>)&2%'0%+(-�-33%7'-((�'%(��()0>(%0'()3-3�5�%(&%+01%,%5*#@1)��'%B-+(-�53)'-((�'%(���+-(01%7%9.�63-&).-1%%' ,� �#�3�7�%.%E%16�*+-0'3)(-1)03)*+)3�-�����.�T���6giU61%'%(%-+8%3-'�E-01%�%'3%�-3��

������g�-'-(��3)3'#6+%0$%&5��-1�%(&���5��%*-(%�

~������%*-(%�

0%+(-�-33)5�%(&%+01)5'-((�'%(�5

Page 140: south-eastern contact area of finnic languages in the light of onomastics

D�

�%>(%0#%3%�)0'�1������� �!��"

.-,1%+%*+%&�'0518%(�-ju=H8r8�58N�-(-*%+%-%*-(%Q��+-($%+/5$(-1�-0'/9%./�%-9%.%'%0(2001��3)*+)3�-�#y�!�6)03��0+5*)3%�).-3/1%-%*-(%61%'%(%-+>-(�%&>(�0+%-3�5(-1-3)*+)3�5�%,.%��-3%+)'/05u=H8�8�58�I'%3)*+)3�-�%B-'9#'/0+5*)3%0'%>%3���-7'%7B-�'3�E-01%7,(2>>#6E'%�>(�+-&-33#-+#�-,�&(%3��#%1(-0'3%0'-7�+-(�F����,�6���0����$!p.�� -%9$%&��%*)�-'�'/6E'%+0%+(-�-33%��%(&%+01%�5*#1-0.%+%8�58!�(*�"6

�5!�%1��"�%,.%%9(-0'�&)332L8%(�2+(-*2./')'-2'()'#>-(+%3)E)./3%@,%jq>-(-&,.)03#�>-(-&3-,%(5&)>(�>(�0%-&�3-3��0288�10)b58�b5ä�&(2@,���0.%+)��68�586�5�jq>��0+5*�0�'��>%1)*)'-./3#�*+-0'3#-3)'-(@(�'%(���5*)301%7%9.�%*-(3#-,�&(%3��#��r��6%�0r��r���6(��r��r���T���6i^6 [6g^U�6+%*�%B3%6���rT�)�B-6gcU�ju8?q>���(*�58?�1)�-3/�!�'�3)*+)3�5%'�-E-3#3)'%7B-'-((�'%(��6,&-+0'(-E)-'05�'%>%3���53)b8�58"� ),()3�<-�%01%+01%7��5*)301%7%9.�-0'/%*�v�,r���T���6[f^����6gU�v�,��T���6[e^U��%1(-0'3%0'5$�%01+#%'�-E-3-�-%&�3,�&(%3��O(� ��r0r�3!+>)&)-'+%*��0'(�301%-"T���6i\U61%'%(#7�%B-'9#'/0+5*)30 1%�>%3-3'%�jq>��%*�%B3%6>-(-E�0.-33#-3)*+)3�5%9()*%+)3#%'>(%'%8�3@3%@+%.B�jq>560%%'3%05�-,%05020-E-33%78%(�%7q>6q8>TZdrvfiai6����U��0%9-33%.L9%>#'3#��3)�>(-&0')+.5L'05%'�-E-33#-+�5*)301%7%9.�

3)*+)3�5%*-(��,���6 �����6��,���!�jI��rN3>t �"�%�0����T���6[g6e^6[a6[^U��(-&>%.%B�'-./3%+#E.-35-�#7+3�$8%(�)3'jb����!b53�"�%*-(%��%B-'5+.5'/05�%(&%+01��0%%'+-'0'+�-�0.%+2j5G>�%*-(%�T�./1+�0'6����)6egU61%'%(%-()00�)'(�+)-'053)��1)1�-�-(01%-6)*3)E�'6>-(�01%-TZdrvfiai6���JU�I'%60%&3%70'%(%3#6+>%.3-21.)&#+)-'05+0�0'-�2�*+-0'3#$8%3-'�@E-01�$0%%'+-'0'+�760(�>-(��G��%(&�3Tpdbqaio6����6a[��JJJ6 cU��&(2,%70'%(%3#6)'(�92'#��b���b$%(%�%+>�0#+)L'05+0�0'-�2>-(�01�$5*#1%++8%3-'�E-01%��0-�)3'�E-01%�%'3%�-3�5$60(�2&��u3<�(-1)�)�)���53<�>%'%1�6<G�*-�.5�Ts__6[\^6e]]U�

YFYF���W�����"�%!��"�

�-E3#-&-'-(��3)3'#b��/!�(*�"6b�&/!�%1��"9#.�6>%@+�&��%�26()0>(%@0'()3-3#+%0'%E3--6E-�&-'-(��3)3'b~����!0��1)('#H6G"��'&-./3#-,�&(%@3��#6'%.12-�#-1)13)*+)3�501%�>%3-3'%�b��/6+0'(-E)L'05+%03%+3%�+ �)@.2B01%7%9.�6,&-&%0')'%E3%��(%1%()0>(%0'()3-3#&(-+3-�%(&%+01�-)'(�@92'#!0��1)('2S"� )�'%7'-((�'%(��%'�-E-3#63)>(��-(6')1�-'%>%3��#3) b��/61)1� �r��/r�36��r��/r��6%���r��/r��6%���r��/T���6ic�ce6c[6ai6eaU��&3)1%%03%+#�'�$3)*+)3�7��-L'3-�%(&%+01%->(%�0$%B&-3�-��3��%,2'9#'/0+5*)3#0(20���6*���6*���b�&.5,�(%3��)� �r��/r��)3).%,��+0'(-E)L'053)'-((�'%(���)'+��F� r���� r������@-�j3Ob�+%&)�Tpdlfja6���A6if\die]U� )*+)3�-0�%.-301%7(-1���r����)0�-(%'3%0�.19).'�7@01��!�AãWG?3+��'+-"TWdogab6�JD�6eiUO>%&%93#�%9()*%�9).'�701�-�0'%1��%B-'��-'/�3)*+)3�-��r��/r��!�jAãWGrH8q"�

����=�� �

Page 141: south-eastern contact area of finnic languages in the light of onomastics

D�

�%>(%0#%3%�)0'�1������� �!��"

�0-�'�&)33#-+-&2'1+%>(%02%9�'��%.%,���%(&%+01%,%H8q6Hq��%>(-&@>%.%B-3�L���))(�1�+�T�*.�E3%7>-(->�01�U6�'%0.%+%�%B-'9#'/0+5*)3%0&(-+3��8�@2,�jH5�&%.�3)6(-1)�����-$'�()3')')1B-%'�-E)-'0%%'+-'@0'+�->(%'%0))��jHε �5����%(&�H8q�&%.�3)�T]arqhbdiqd6����6a\U������).1�36+ 0+%L%E-(-&/60E�')-'6E'%H8q6Hq5+.5-'059).'%@0.)+5301��*)��0'+%+)3�-�60(�>(%'%0.)+�jH8� q��'-E/!+'%�E�0.-%+%&-"��.�'�H 8qGTI���6XXX6 fcU� �>%@'%16'-E-3�-�T�).1�36�JJ�6[\d[]U��.%+%61%'%(%-�%,.%9#'/�0'%E3�1%�*)@��0'+%+)3�56-0'/')1B-+.)'#�01%�5*#1-60(�.'��H8q3�&%.�3)��H8qr3�3�B@3�7�Tzd�eld6Wdirdiai6_dg?fmd6�JJHU�

���������� � ������ �@��������=���� ���������=���� ����

�%B3%>(-&>%.),)'/6E'%>(%&21'�+3#73)'-((�'%(���(�%E/58%(�)3'b��b+%�3%,�$0.2E)5$+%0$%&�'1>-(+%3)E)./3%�2b��/6b�&/� %&.5>%&1(->@.-3�5�'%,%>(-&>%.%B-3�5)(-).()00�)'(�+)-�%7'%>%3����5+.5-'05+0-B-3->%1)*)'-./3#���3601%(--60+�&-'-./0'+2-'+>%./*29).'�701%,%�.�0.)@+5301%,%>(%�0$%B&-3�58%(�)3')61%'%(#7�%,9#'/*)��0'+%+)3�* �'�$5*#@1%+1)13)�%(&%+01%76')1�3)�-(5301%7'-((�'%(��!0��1)('2J"��-�0)�#�6+-(%5'3%60.%+%H8q6Hq+�%(&%+01%�5*#1->%5+�.%0/&%0')'%E3%>%*&3%�

������\�-'-(��3)3'#b��/6b�&/�(-1)�

b��/b,�&(%3��#b�&/b,�&(%3��#

0%+(-�-33)5�%(&%+01)5'-((�'%(�5

Page 142: south-eastern contact area of finnic languages in the light of onomastics

D�

�%>(%0#%3%�)0'�1������� �!��"

�%03-�05+%>(%0)�%&(2,�$(-E3#$'%>%8%(�)3')$���%01%+01%7%9.�6+ E)0'3%0'�6%'�-E-3%3)*+)3�-|����r��/T���6[[gU6&-'-(��3)3'1%'%(%@,%b���*+-0'-3+0%+(-�-33%��%(&%+01%�5*#1-60(��(*�>3?��%.,)�%+(),�TI��6 ieU6�%1��23?��%.,)�Tny6[^aU6>3?3�(-1)�Tpdbqaio6�JJJ6[^U��0+5*�0�'��>(��-(%�3-%9$%&��%%'�-'�'/6E'%+�(�%E/-�+-($%+/5$

�%.,�8�10�(2-'059%./�%-1%.�E-0'+%3)*+)3�7(-108�3)./Lb��� )�1-%3� ()0>(%0'()3-3# >%+0L&2 3) '-((�'%(�5$6 '()&�<�%33% >(�E�0.5-�#$1 8�33%@2,%(01��6%&3)1%�$3-'++-($%+/5$!0��1)('2��"�%0')'%E3%$%(%�%�*+-0'3%6E'%>%&��-3-�2433)0')(#$1)(')$+#0'2>)-'�%.,)��)163) 1)(')$�-(1)'%()!�AJA"��--'05*)>�0/FNWfludxleflhgZrdQON�%.,)@>%'%16()3--ZrdQ��('-.�2021)*).+1)E-0'+-3)*+)3�5�%.,�243�6VV=W87C3HN�)>)&3#7>%@'%1Q!0(������243�6>=87C3H=LN�%0'%E3#7>%'%1Q"���AH�,�3)1)('-&- R%&-K�-31�30%3)(-1)+--+-($3-�'-E-3��3)*+)3)A6HN3�243N�%'%1�%.,)Q��0-�'%0+�&-'-./0'+2-'%'%�6E'%+%&3%��*&(-+3�$5*#1%+<-3'()./3%7�%00��02�-0'+%+).)>-..5'�+ j>43� jb>3 �(-1)6>%'%1���>%./*2�'%,%*)1.LE-3�5,%+%(5'�')1�-+)(�)3'#3)*+)3�7(-1�(�%E/561)1�/������/��,�T���6eeaU�jA6q<�r>43�jA6q<�rq6�3!j>43�jq6�3�(-1)�"6(�.���(�.��T���6[]gU

����=�� �

������]��%(�)3'b��b

b��b'%>%8%(�)3'#3)9)0-73-�1�!��%.�301)5�JHS"

Page 143: south-eastern contact area of finnic languages in the light of onomastics

DD

�%>(%0#%3%�)0'�1������� �!��"

�(%9.-�)*)1.LE)-'05+'%�6E'%0%+(-�-33%-�%(&�>3?6>3?3�(-1)�3-./*5+%*+-0'�1�0$%&3%78%(�-j>Z4_361%'%()5>(%'�+%(-E�'8%3%')10��8�33%@2,%(01�$5*#1%+��0'/>(-&>%.%B-3�-%'%�6E'%+0%+(-�-33#7�%(&%+01�75*#10.%+%>(��.%�*�3&%@�()3�jL>3?3�>%'%1��>3?3TI���6X6iigU� )3)�+*,.5&6-�-9%.--+-(%5'3%7+#,.5&�'0+5*/>3?�j>Z4_30�3&%@�()301��0.%@+%�61%'%(%�20%%'+-'0'+2-')+-0'�j>3�43 �� T�)�B-U�� �'%�0.2E)-3)E)0'�

���������� � ������ �@��������=���� ���������=���� ����

� j;G4r>43�j;G4Hq!j>43�Hq�(-1)�"6)')1B-��r�����r��/T���6eei�ece6eacU!j>43�H8q�(-1)�"��%()0>(%0'()3-3�L)(-).)�%B3%02&�'/%'%�6E'%8%(�)3'b���j>Z4_3

�(-1)�+%0$%&�'1>(%'%+%.B01%�25*#1261%'%(#7.-B).+%03%+-��%(&%+01%@,%6��-(5301%,%5*#1%+!0��1)('2��"��9�'%�B-0+�&-'-./0'+2-'�'%6E'%(-1)03)*+)3�-��� !�%.,)"9#.)�*+-0'3)2B-�.)+&�L�'%.-�-L!%1�GAK�SA ,,�3���"TI���6X6iigU6O'-�0)�#�3)*+)3�-24363-0%�3-33%65+.5-'05%E-3/&(-+3��6%'3%05���056>%1()73-7�-(-61()33-�2B-.-*3%�2+-12�

������[f��%(�)3'b��

����"�)�$�%!�"����U� �[�����b��b,�&(%3��

�-(53%@�2(%�01)5'-((�'%(�5&(-+3-@�%(&%+01)5'-((�'%(�5

Page 144: south-eastern contact area of finnic languages in the light of onomastics

DC

�%>(%0#%3%�)0'�1������� �!��"

8�33%@2,%(01%75*#1%+%7'-((�'%(���%,.%03)E).)>(%�*%7'�+#>)&-3�-46) >%*&3--6>%'�>2�%(&%+01%,%5*#1)6+�3'-(+%1)./3%7>%*�<��>%0.-,.)03%@,%*)&3-,%(5&)>(%�*%�-.>-(-$%&j��?!0(�>(%'%2().�j5G�=��%(&�56?�.23)�"��'%B-+(-�5+3-1%'%(#$E)0'5$&(-+3-75*#1%+%7'-((�'%(���%,.)>(%�*%7@'��'()308%(�)<�5j��ø!0(�>(%'%2().�jq3��3��%(&�q3�3��%.%'/�"Tpdbqaio6�JJJ6c]U��%*�%B3%6�*3)E)./3%E2B&#7&.52()./01�$5*#1%+.)(�3,)./3#74+0%E-')3���4>%+-.0-95>%&%93%��+0%E-')3����6,&-61)1�*+-0'3%�*�0'%@(��5*#1)6>(%�*%�.%�*�-3-3�-j��ø�T�)�B-6c]U��)1��%9()*%�68%3-'�E-01%-()*+�'�->(-&>%.),)-�%,%3)���0$%&3%,%

0.%+)�%,.%>(%�*%7'�>%%&3%7�*&+2$0$-�Fj>3�43 ��j>3�3�>3?3�.�j>3�43 � �j>343�j>�43!�243�b>3+'%>%3����"��%$%B-6E'%3)�)(�701%75*#1%+%7'-((�'%(��&(-+3�7)'(�92'.2E�-0%$()3�.0+%L>-(+%3)E)./32L8%(�2O3)>(��-(6+3)*+)3��(��!,!�-0>29.�1)�)(�7I."T��6����6e\cde\^U�� &)./@3-7�-�63)&%>%.),)'/6>(�02�--+%.B01��5*#1)�j>3?Z3_�j>Z�_439#.%*)�-@3-3%+�%(&%+01%�5*#1-3)H8q6Häq�

YF\F�L�%�������(��_G�#�(_!�

�0-+-(2)(-).�%(&%+01%7'%>%3����()0>(%0'()3-3,%()*&%��(-6E-��0'%(�E-01��*+-0'3)5'-((�'%(�5()00-.-3�5�%(&+#!0��1)('2S"� )()01%>@1)$+�)(01%�,%(%&��-+9.�*�%*� -(%%93)(2B-3#$)()1'-(3#-&.5�%(&@+#>(-&�-'#T]afiq�am6�JJS6ie]U6E'%�%B-'21)*#+)'/3)--'%(,%+#-0+5*�0 0-+-(3#��'-((�'%(�5����'%B-+(-�5'%>%3���E-01�-&)33#-0+�&-'-./@0'+2L'601%(--6%��,()<���'%,%3)(%&)+0-+-(3%�3)>()+.-3��� )(5&20)'(�92')��0.%B3#$3)*+)3�763).�E�-0+5*-7&(-+3-7�%(&+#

0 0-+-(3#��'-((�'%(�5��>%&'+-(B&)-'058%3-'�E-01��()0>(-&-.-3�-�j8�8�j8� =60(�>(%'%8�33%@>-(��jQ��Tz_6^^iU��-(53%@�2(%��jQ8�8�jQ8�� �%(&�jQ=�8�jQ=��0%03)�!0��1)('2��"��-(53%@�2(%�01�-��%(&%+01�-�.-�-3'#0%0-&0'+2L'+3�*%+/5$�.5*/@

�#�%1(-0'3%0'5$�2(%�)6,&-+(5&-0.2E)-+&.5%03%+#%&3%,%�'%,%B-,�&(%3��)*)8�10�(%+)3#+)(�)3'#%��b�%��b��%%'+-'0'+-33%(5&�-(53%@�2(%�01�$,�&(%3��%++0'(-E)-'05�3)�%(&%+01�$*-�.5$6+()7%3-(��%1�)!0��1)('2��"�

\F� ���aW���

\FTF�L�%�M!*%�! ���"�)��!�

-%9$%&��%>(�*3)'/6E'%>(�+-&-33#-+()*&��0>%0%9#�&-3'�8�1)<���-(5301%7'%>%3����21)*#+)L'3)9.�*1%(%&0'+-33#-0+5*��-(5301%,%� �2@(%�01%,%5*#1%+65+.5+��$056+�&��%6&�).-1')��%&3%,%5*#1)!0��1)('2A"�� 0+5*�0�'��0'%�'3)>%�3�'/6E'%'%>%3���L�2(%�01�$*-�-./0E�').�-@

����=�� �

Page 145: south-eastern contact area of finnic languages in the light of onomastics

DA

�%>(%0#%3%�)0'�1������� �!��"

(5301%7>%>(%�0$%B&-3�L����)0�-(T0��F�59�3�36�JJH6[^f�(�0�C�>%�)0�-(2U��(-&0')+.5-'05&%0'%+-(3#�')1B-2'+-(B&-3�-%'%�6E'%+<-3'(-()0@

>(%0'()3-3�5&/51%+01%712./'2(#!�%01%+01)5%9.�",%+%(�.�3)5*#1-69.�*@1%�1�-(5301%�2��%*�%B3%6(-E/�&-'%+-($3-@+%.B01%�>(%'%5*#1-69%.--()33-�6E-�+%+(-�-3)&/51%+01%712./'2(#���'%�2>(%'%5*#12�%,2'+%0$%@&�'/�-(5301�7��2(%�01�76)')1B-6+%*�%B3%65*#1+%0'%E3%7E2&��0-+-(@3#7>-(�8-(�73#75*#1� )�).&)-61)19#.%>%1)*)3%+#�-6�*+-0'3%3-1%'%(%-1%.�E-0'+%'%>%@

3��%+6+%0$%&5��$15*#1261%'%(#79#.9.�*%1�-(5301%�2��&3)1%+�'%�0.2E)-(-E/�&-'601%(--6%9.�*1%(%&0'+-33#$&�).-1')$+%0'%E3%7E2&�����%@>%3��#6$)()1'-(3#-&.5�-(5301�$'-((�'%(�76>(-%9.)&)L'+()7%3-0-+-(@3#$%*-(!�-.%-K�29-301%-K�%B-"6E'%%'�-E).������)'+--+T����6[[]U�� �9%3-B/-�9)00-73-�3-,�')1B-9#.()0>(%0'()3-35*#161%'%(#75+.5.05.�9%&�).-1'%��-(5301%,%6.�9%9.�*1%(%&0'+-33#�-�25*#1%��

���������� � ������ �@��������=���� ���������=���� ����

���'&-./3)50')'/56>%0+5�-33)5�'%75*#1%+%7,(2>>-6+3)0'%5�--+(-�5,%'%+�'051>29.�1)@<��TZdrvfiai6����U�

������[[��-(53%@�2(%�01%-Q���6�%(&%+01%-Q=���Q=��0%03)�

�-(53��*����0%03)�

�%(&�*����0%03)�

Page 146: south-eastern contact area of finnic languages in the light of onomastics

DS

�%>(%0#%3%�)0'�1������� �!��"

�(�'%�6E'%�-(5301�7��2(%�01�79#.�6+�&��%69.�*1%(%&0'+-33#��5*#1)��6+'%>%3����>(%0.-B�+)L'05�$%'&-./3#-()*.�E�5F0(�63)>(��-(6�-(53�l.��6������ b,�6 b�,�!�jq6N3"61%'%(#�3)�2(%�01%7'-((�'%(��0%%'+-'0'+2L'�.��6�h����bp,�6b�,�!�jqGN3"��%3-'�E-01�70%0')+�-(53%@�2(%�01%,%5*#1)6>%1()73-7�-(-+%9.)0'�

,.)03#$6&%0')'%E3%9.�*%1>(�9).'�701%@8�301%@0))�01%�2>()5*#126)*3)@E�'6�(-1%30'(2�(%+)33%�28�301%@>-(�01%�2>()5*#12�I'%0+�&-'-./0'+2-'%9)($)�E3%�$)()1'-(-�-(5301%,%5*#1)��%*�%B3%6+0�.20+%-,%,-%,()8�@E-01%,%�-0'%>%.%B-3�5�-(53-�0>#').)')1%,%*3)E�'-./3%,%+.�53�50%@>(-&-./3#$5*#1%+61)1%-�0>#').��)(�7<#6�%(&+)�>(�9).'�701�-8�33#��%�'%�2+.-10�E-01%�0%0')+-�-(5301%,%5*#1)0%$()3�.�0/3-1%'%(#-0.%@+)62'()E-33#->(�9).'�701%@8�301�����%(&%+01��5*#1)��63%%0')+��-05+2,%(01�$63)>(��-(jG5C�ι�&%(%,)6>2'/6+%.%1��jq�5�9%.%'%�!+�-(5301%7'%>%3����l.�b�'!,b"��5&�0'%(�E-01�$�*�-3-3�7+�-(5301%�5*#1-3)$%&�')3).%,��+�0'%@

(��0))�01%,%5*#1)60(��-(53�jq�>�jq�>3�>(%'%0))��jq3 �?>8 ��jq5>!�%*-@(%�"��-(53�j?6HZ6_�>(%'%0))��j?6 �H8 ��j3H3!�3�B3�7�"��9�-7E-('%7�%(@&%+01%,%��-(5301%,%5*#1%+5+.5-'056+E)0'3%0'�6%*+%3E-3�-0�9�.53')+'%@(%,%0.%,)+�3'-(+%1)./3%7>%*�<��60(��-(53�j?mZ_6�%(&�?8�b�8�33%@+%.B�j?���'%B-+(-�5+�-(5301%���%(&%+01%�5*#1)$02�-0'+2-'%9�--0.%+%j?8>8�?8��+-($3�7�61%'%(%-3-+0'(-E)-'05+�'%�*3)E-3��+&(2,�$0%+(-�-33#$8�33%@2,%(01�$5*#1)$�

\FXF�L�%��� ���"�)��!�

(-+3-�%(&%+01)5'%>%3���50+�&-'-./0'+2-'%'%�6E'%0%*&)+��7--3)@(%&!>(%'%�%(&+)�"9#.()00-.-3*3)E�'-./3%*)>)&3--0%+(-�-33%7'-((�'%@(��>(%B�+)3�5�%(&+#��0%9-33%*3)E��#�5+.5-'0501%>.-3�-N*)>)&3%7Q'%>%3�����-B&2�%01+%76�).2,%7��5*)3/L!0��1)('2S"F3).�E�-�%(&%+0@1�$)'(�92'%+,%+%(�'%'%�6E'%*&-0/3-1%,&)>(%B�+).)&(-+355�%(&+)�� �'%�N*)>)&3%�Q)(-).-%9()�)-'3)0-95+3��)3�-%'02'0'+�-'%>%%03%+6�*+-0'3#$+0%+(-�-33%��%(&%+01%�5*#1-6O8�58�%*-(%��H8q�(-1)���%9%@*3)E-3��(-1�6+E)0'3%0'�6*&-0/%'�-E-3#0.%+)j>3?�jqGN361%'%(#-��-L'0%%'+-'0'+�5+0%+(-�-33%��%(&%+01%�5*#1-F>3?Z3_�>%'%16�%.,)�T`�6D6[\\^U�q6?!�(*�"�(-1)�%1�)�T`�6�6 ieU60(�>(%'%8�33%@>-(��jqG53�jq6N����%(&�q6?T0��pdbqaio6�JJJ6i\6 aU��(-&%'%E�-'%>%3��%++%9.)0'��).2,���-(>2$%+)')1B-%'3%0�'051 LB@

3#�<-3'()�&/51%+01%712./'2(#��&-0/*)>)&3)5�%(&+)>(%B�+).)+'-03%�0%0-&0'+-09).'�701%7,%.5&/L6%'1%'%(%7*)��0'+%+).)��8%.%,�LTndbmd6�JC�U6+0+5*�0E-�0(��%(&�QG�N=�86Q=�N=�8�,(%���9).'�!.�'�"Q8>5G�7=q3T__Y6�6icf�`�6�6[\^iU�

����=�� �

Page 147: south-eastern contact area of finnic languages in the light of onomastics

DH

�%>(%0#%3%�)0'�1������� �!��"

�(-��2�-0'+-33%&(-+3-�%(&%+01)5'%>%3���51%3<-3'(�(2-'053)>()@+%�!LB3%�"9-(-,2�1�6>-(-0-1)5--+()7%3-�-(>2$%+)�+�).2B01%7%9.�6) ')1B-+3�*%+/5$�.5*/�#� -0%�3-33%6>(�+-&-33#-&)33#-%'3L&/3-%*3)@E)L'6E'%*)>)&3#-8%(�#5+.5L'053)>(5�2L!>(%'%"�%(&%+01�����-E/�%@B-'�&'�%9.�*1%(%&0'+-33%��%(&%+01%�263%0)�%0'%5'-./3%�5*#1-��'%B-+(-�53)*+)3�53)b8�58!0��1)('2H"+.L9%�0.2E)-21)*#+)L'3)'%6E'%3) *)>)&-�%(&%+01�75*#1()0>(%0'()35.05+>.%'/&%�5*)3��(-1�)()��()� )*+)3�5�'�$(-16%E-+�&3%6'%B-5+.5L'05�%(&%+01���>%>(%�0$%B&-3�L60(��%1��Q3>3�$%(%��7�6�(*�Q�3�,%.%+)6*)&355E)0'/�T`�6D6[^c^6[g]aU� )��'%>%3���E-01�-3)9.L&-3�5+%*�%B3%>%&'+-(&�'/3-1%'%(#���0@

'%(�E-01���&)33#����)16+0.2E)-6-0.�>2'-+#-*)�-'1�+-3,-(01%,%�%3)$)M.�)3)!VXXX+�"0%&-(B)'&%0'%+-(3#-0+-&-3�5�-,%>2'/3)1%()9.->(%.-,).>%�1-�D6'%E)0'/�%(&%+01�$*-�-./&%.B3)9#.)9#'/��(-�()0>%.),)'/05

���������� � ������ �@��������=���� ���������=���� ����

�D�'%+(-�5&-70'+�'-./3%3-9#.%&(2,%,%+%&3%,%>2'��*�%.,)(+�-3,(�L61(%�-1)1E-(-*�%(&%+01�-*-�.�>%�1-&%3->()�

������[e�(-+3-�%(&%+01)5'%>%3���5+9)00-73-�1�

�%���!�%��� ���"�%%�"�%�

Page 148: south-eastern contact area of finnic languages in the light of onomastics

DG

�%>(%0#%3%�)0'�1������� �!��"

*3)E�'-./3%*)>)&3--0%+(-�-33%7�%(&%+01%7'-((�'%(��O+&%./+0-7�1�6'�1��'%'>2'/*)35.�A&3-7T0��F s]6�JJD�|lhgd6�JJSU��0.�>(-&>%.%B�'/6E'%*)&-3/02&3%>(-%&%.-+).%()00'%53�-+D�1�6E'%+>%.3-+-(%5'3%6'%�%(&%+01�->%0-.-3�5&%.B3#9#.�>(%0'�()'/05++-($>%�1->%E'�3)A�� 1���(%'5B-33%0'/�1�0%0')+.5-'%1��AA�1�6'�-�M.�)36+%*�%B3%6%>�0#+)-'>2'/61%'%(#7>(%$%&�.%'20'/5[���&%�5*)3�!0(�)(-).3)*+)3�73) b8�5861)(')H"�

\FYF���(���� ��"��" "���!�C�*�!�% ��!&�!*%�! ��!��!�%��� ��!�(���!�

�9%9�)5.�3,+�0'�E-01�-(-*2./')'#&)33%,%�00.-&%+)3�56>(�+-&-�+#@5+.-33#-3)��8%3-'�E-01�-�.-10�E-01�-1%((-.5<���-B&2�*2E)-�#��5*#@1)��+0+%&3%7')9.�<-�

�3)E-3�-0.%+) �-(5301�75*#1 �2(%�01�75*#1 �%(&%+01�75*#1

��*-(%� &.�b6b.���jq�>3� &.�b6b.���jq�>3� b��.����5�jq�> jq�>

��-1)� b,�6b�,��jq6NA p,6bp,�6b�,��jqGNA b��/6b�&/�H8q6Hq

��-($3�7� ���b�j?8>8 ���b�j=H8!�j�H8" ��b�?��

���b�j=H8!�j�H8" ��b�?�Ht

� �B3�7� �Z_b�j?6H6 �Z_b�j?6H6 ��b�3H663H3

��%.%1� �.�b�jG� CA .�b�j?6� CA ����,b�5=�N3

��%./�%7� !b�67b�j87 !b�67b�j87 �!b�=���=�

��).#7� &�b�j?m &�b�j?m �0�b6�0�b6�1b�?��r536?=�r536?��@

�1%3-E3%��'%,-6-0.�0%>%0')+�'/�-'%&#�+#+%&#&)33%,%�00.-&%+)@3�5�()9%'�����)'+--+)6'%%03%+3#-()*.�E�5*)1.LE)L'05+0.-&2L�-���%@>-(+#$6�#0'(-��.�0/1+#5+.-3�L'-$*)1%3%�-(3%0'-7+'%>%3����61%'%(#-%920.%+.-3#�0'%(�E-01%78%3-'�1%76'%,&)1)1�� �� �)'+--+3-+0-@,&)�'%2E�'#+)-'��3)�-7'%E1�*(-3�56-0.��#2'+-(B&)-�6E'%'-�.��3#-'%>%3��#��-L'�-(5301%->(%�0$%B&-3�-6'%0.%+)6.-B)��-+�$%03%+-6&%.B3#0%%'3%0�'/050>(%'%5*#1%+#��&)33#��>%-&�3%70$-�-��%@+'%(#$6+3)�-��00.-&%+)3��9%./�-+3��)3�56E-�2�� ���)'+--+)62&-.-3%()0>(%@0'()3-3�L'%>%3����+<-3'()./3#$E)0'5$�-(5301�$)(-).%+� ->(�35++ ()0@E-'�'�&)33#-6�����)'+--+0%>%0')+.5.,.)+3#�%9()*%��-(5301�-��)@(�701�-'%>%3��#6+(-*2./')'-E-,%��9#.%0&-.)3%%��9%E3%-63)3)�+*,.5&6*)1.LE-3�-%9.�*1%�(%&0'+-�-(5301%,%��)(�701%,%5*#1%+�

����=�� �

Page 149: south-eastern contact area of finnic languages in the light of onomastics

DJ

�%>(%0#%3%�)0'�1������� �!��"

�,�����������&(%3���5�2001%,%�-+-(%@�)>)&)1)1�0'%E3�112./'2(3%@�0'%(�E-01%7�38%(@�)<�����6�JGJ�

�����������-(5301)5>(%9.-�)3)8%3-�3%,%0.%73%0'�'%>%3���� ���%>(� 5*#1%*3)3�5��JJH� S�����KDS�

�����������-(53-63-�-(53-������%>(�5*#1%*3)3�5�����)� ����DCKCA������������-(53-63-�-(53-������%>(�5*#1%*3)3�5�����9� D���GDKJH������������290'()'3)5'%>%3���5�(%0.)+01%,%�%+%.B/5���E-(1��0'%(�E-01%7,-%,()@

8��F�-+-(%@�)>)&�%00��F�.)+53-�8�33#F09�3)2E�'(��>%&(-&������-(&)6�� �� �-9-@&-+)���9�6�������CDSKCSH�

�����������0.-&)$8�33%@2,%(01%712./'2(#3)�(%0.)+01%7*-�.-!3)%03%+-&)33#$'%>%@3����"���%./'+%(E-01%7.�E3%0'�+()*+�'��12./'2(#>(%+�3<�)./3%,%,%(%&)��(%0@.)+./6���C���JJK��C�

�x�!��������%��%>%3���5(-0>29.�1��%��F�.%+)(/@0>()+%E3�1��#1'#+1)(6�JJS���������������($)�E-01)5'%>%3���5 %+,%(%&01%7*-�.��!(-+3-0.)+5301�-&-)3'(%>%3��@

3#-%9()*%+)3�5"��-.�1�7 %+,%(%&6���A���O��!-��"��%�6�����!�$��(��%>%3���1)�-0>29.�1��)(�7I.F�0'%(�1%@�'��%.%,�@

E-01�7)3).�*��%�1)(@�.)6�����)��&,�!����'�6)��&,�!�����(�6 �!�.�!����$��%>%3���1)�-3%*-()��K���($)3,-./016�JGH������!�$��(��%>%3���E-01�-�'��%.%,�����%>(��)(�701%7%3%�)0'�1���#>��GK�J��%�1)(@

�.)6�JJ�����O(���-��&����%���&(%3���59)00-73)�1����6�JHS����������$��1%3')1')$>%*&3-0)(�)'01�$>.-�-30+%.B01%@>-(�01����'3�E-01���,(2>@

>)�����%>(��)(�701%7%3%�)0'�1���#>�H��%�1)(@�.)6�JJ�����������R,%301�75*#1F�.%+)(/.-10�1�>��%1)'%+�)1)(/-+01%,%6�)3'2(%+01%,%� -7@

01%,%()7%3%+�%0'(%�01%7%9.)0'����6�����$!1����$�����%>%3���E-01�70.%+)(/�%(&%+01%7�����)()3016�JGH��h���!����$�6���&�����(��()'1�7�'��%.%,�E-01�70.%+)(/1%��5*#1)��#1'#+1)(6�JJJ� �����������290'()'3)5'%>%3���5�2001%,%�-+-()��-(5301)5>(%9.-�)���%>(�5*#1%*3)@

3�5��JJS� ����DK�C� �����������-(5301)5'%>%3���53)�2001%��-+-(-O8)3'%��.�8-3%�-3����%>(�5*#@

1%*3)3�5��JJG� A���J�K��A� �����������290'()'3)5'%>%3���5�2001%,%�-+-()�:����1)'-(�392(,6�����:����1)'-@

(�392(,6���C� �����������3%�)'%.%,�5���6���S� ���!�!�$��$��%>%3���5�(�0+�(/5F�(%9.-�#�'3%5*#1%,%1%3')1'�(%+)3�5��-'(%*)+%&016

��������O /�����)(.)@��3.)�2'-(��%�1)(@�.)6�JJC����O�%+-0'/+(-�-33#$.-'��%.3%-0%9()3�-(2001�$.-'%>�0-7���6�JSA���JK���%*����$��%>%3���1)&(-+3�$�-(5301�$��2(%�01�$%9.)0'-7���-%,()8�E-01)50(-&)� ,-@

%,()8�E-01�-3)*+)3�5���6�JHC����AK�S��& �!�!��������33%@2,%(01�->.-�-3)+0%0')+-(-+3-7�20����9�6�JJH�����O ���!�!�$��$�6������$����6��������(��.%+)(/,�&(%3��%+L,%@+%0'%E3%,%�(�.)@

&%B/5F9)00-73(-1��+�(/���9�6�JJH����O�.%+)(/�)(�701%,%5*#1)F+��'��%�1)(@�.)6�JJ�K���A�(���� �����E-(1�>%�0'%(�E-01%7,()��)'�1-(2001%,%5*#1)���6�JS��#����!��"�����-(5301�75*#1���-+6�JGA�#����!��"�����00.-&%+)3�5>%�-(5301%�25*#12��%0'(%�)6���H�

���������� � ������ �@��������=���� ���������=���� ����

Page 150: south-eastern contact area of finnic languages in the light of onomastics

C�

�%>(%0#%3%�)0'�1������� �!��"

#����&��%������33%@2,(#69).'#�0.)+53-3)3->(-��%.,-������6�JSS�I��OI(*53/@�2*%3/+).10�I(*5301%@(2001�70.%+)(/�0%0'������-(-9(-33�1%+6�� ��2*)@

1%+6�����%0�3���6�JJD�I���O������� �I'��%.%,�E-01�70.%+)(/(2001%,%5*#1)F+C'���6���D�M4H�?=LC� M� |abqfgevohd|aovh@Wai���lq� XXXFsi�di �fvhmdbballd �� _efgdldho@eubhldhoai _aebdi

Yhvdvdeovhb�dGJ��febidljald_f?h�q�yhiif@keubhaiia�nalohivh6�����M4H�?=LC�M�Yi?haiq]dvaohiqrayfbgabyhiif@subhdi[abbhqfbhaofx\aiqbdlZeoohdFYia}tabhgaiqdl

kifgdoqh?@zdldaflfuh?dl_qejc��[ra_ldmh?h�dqhfifxqraZeoohdi�fbqr�_ldmh?dnalohiuaiohd��H�nalohivh6���S�����KCJ�

K3H6W8��]dqmhditdhvdiihghoq���]dqmhdirhoqfbhdd�dvelqqeebhd�Zf�aiq�looaebd�kqdmdivhb�dtdhif�|aebee6���A�

K3>C87L2�`fbjmdldhovhalqai bdvaiia �d varhqco� _efgdldho@eubhldhoai oaebdi qfhghqevohd� �D��_efgdldho@eubhldhiaioaebd�nalohivh6�JJJ�

K3>C87L2� zabghl�hoqai vhalqai bdvaiia �d varhqco� _efgdldho@eubhldhoai oaebdi qfhghqevohd� �DG�_efgdldho@eubhldhiaioaebd�nalohivh6�����

KGV5P�Yjh?qhfidbcfxoala?qajocifgcgohiqratbhi?htdlXijf@^ebftadildiueduaoFd?fiqbhweqhfiqfqrarhoqfbcfxhjado�\rh?duf6�JCJ�

J=<OGC3L�F�[rapdlqo�]�6�JSD�`3>?3�T�_efgaioemeieovfiifq�S�`fbjmdldhoqaigehidhoeovf�_k��zfbmff6�JC��`8H=<L5=�U�[raN�fbqr~aoqabiQ�bfetfxyhiif@subh?]diueduaodijhqonabhqduahiqrazld?a�dgao

dij_ewoqbdqegWf?dweldbcfxqraZeoohdi�fbqr��[ra_ldmh?h�dqhfifxqraZeoohdi�fbqr�-j��� �efblefqf�_ldmh?dnalohiuaiohd6�H�nalohivh6���S�����JK�AD�

nyO 8>>3H3�U�6�865C=LC6?�M� fv�dldho@oefgdldhiaiodidvhb�d�[ebeiclhfthoqfi�dclahoaivhalhqhaqaaildhqfvoai�elvdhoe�d�AG�[ebve6�JJG�

u3H=<3���|db�dldhoaq�dgab�dldhoaq�seoh_efgh@larqh�J��H��JC��uH=<3���[raYxxhihqcfxqraWfludh?yhiif@subhdiodijqrahbaqrifuaiaoho!adblcCqrp\Oldqa�oq

ghllaihegY�"6�JJS�sZ]FrqqtF��gav�ihhx�re���H�����HJC���HJC�tjx�]Y�O]haqemh�vdhYiulh�vdo�fjcidoXW]dhjd�Whlheoz�qabdhqho�]haqemh�vfo|icufo|lewdo6�JGA��84C=>37C3����rqahooddgaldhiaiodidoqf�_efgdldho@subhldhoaioaebdiqfhghqevohd�_efgdldho@eubhldhiai

oaebd�nalohivh6�������67Ct�?�M��U�[raYb?rdaflfucfxqra`abcd�![ra^dblcnhoqfbcfx�fbqr@^doqabiZeoohd"�Zeoohdi

`fifubdtrohi`hubdqhfi@tabhfjdij`ajhamdlYb?rdaflfuc�-j���^�Yxdido�am6y��dhghi?flldwfbdqhfi~hqr��|hjj�Wfl�C�`�6�JJS�

�=43C�6?�B��;��aoqfbhivbfihvvd!�%+-0'/+(-�-33#$.-'"�oefg�`�@]��ddvvfld��_k��zfbmff�nalohivh��emd6�JJC�

F353>6?�E��M�\elqebdlXjaiqhqcfxqraZeoohdi�fbqr_aqqlabohiqra��qrK�Dqr\aiqebhaoFYb?rdaflfuh?dl^mhjai?adij�bhqqai_feb?ao��[ra_ldmh?h�dqhfifxqraZeoohdi�fbqr�-j����efblefqf�_ldmh?dnalohiuaiohd6�H�nalohivh6���S����AJK�G��

F3HH6>R����:�6MW3<L�B����^i?cvlftajhdfxXijf@^ebftadi?elqeba�yhq�bfc�adbwfbizewlhorabo�]��\rh?duf6�JJH�

`�O fbj~hiho?rao�öbqabwe?r�XKXW�n�zddofiaio6�eodggaiuaoqallqmfi|�nahvvhlä�_efgdldho@subhldhiai_aebd�nalohivh6�JJ�K�JJS�

`s]O`ducdbsqd�fv]a}hvfid!?c?lftdajhdfxneiudbhdiqbdmallabo"�-j���pdld�o�pejdtaoq6�JJD�

�YO�hghdbvhoqf��lahovfvfalgd�|fqhgdhoqaivhalqaiqeqvhgeovaoveo�nalohivh!)($�+3#-�)'-(�@).#"�

E=LL=H�A�_efgai|db�dldiihghoq��|db�dldhoaivelqqeebhiedistämissäätiön julkaisuja��faioee6�JHA�:3qGH3�F�6A3743787�I�6;3<V6?3���Latviešu-somu, somu-latviešu v�rdn�ca�Zhud6�JJH�:3C>GL48?�A�[ra^dblcnhoqfbcfx qrayhiif@subh?zaftlaofx^ebftadiZeoohd�_f?haqdonhoqfbhda

yaiif@subh?da�kele6�����

����=�� �

Page 151: south-eastern contact area of finnic languages in the light of onomastics

C�

�%>(%0#%3%�)0'�1������� �!��"

:656>7R���Xijfuabgdiho?raoaqcgflfuho?rao�öbqabwe?r�pabiFybdi?va6�JAJK�JSJ�z_O;3<<3HH34C=�:�nhoqfbh?dltrfiflfucfxqrasbdlh?ldiueduao��[rasbdlh?ldiueduao�aj��� _hifb�

]ahjai�����6�JGG���CHGKAAC�23456787�:� [ra]hiuehoqh?pd?vubfeij fx qraYi?haiq`aor?rabd[bhwa dij zbhi?htlaYbado fx

_aqqlagaiq��yhiiho?r@subho?rayfbo?reiuai6S��nalohivh6���J����S�K����23456787�:�yhiif@subh?ncjbficgofxqraZhmabWflvrfmdij]eud\dq?rgaiqYbado��_efgdldho@

subhldhoai_aebdiYhvdvdeovhb�d6JD!,%'%+�'051�*&)3�L+����,�"�23?=H3�:�Y��^X�^ZFMax Vasmer Beiträge zur historischen Völkerkunde Osteuropas III. Merja und

Tscheremissen��yhiiho?r@subho?rayfbo?reiuai6�C�nalohivh6�JDH�23?=H3�:�zk]^`X|F`ab�deij[o?rabaghooai��yhiiho?r@subho?rayfbo?reiuai6�S�nalohivh6�JDG�;33>=5=?=���yhiih?zabofidl�dgaofi�fmufbfjphb?rpdbv�f?egaiqo�D48�LH3?=V=m3C=67�6S�C48�2GLL=37

E6>C4�O���efblefqf!qfhg�"��_ldmh?dnalohiuaiohd6D��nalohivh6���H)����JSK�CS�;33>=5=?=� �� ki qra sbdlh? oewoqbdqa qftfifgc fx Ybvrdiualov bauhfiF tbfwlago fx baoadb?r

gaqrfjflfucdijaqrifrhoqfbh?dlhiqabtbaqdqhfi��kifgdoqh?dsbdlh?d�C��awba?ai�nalohivh6���Hw���CAK��J�

_zO Suomen Paikannimikirja / päätoimittaja S. Paikkala. Karttakeskus. Kotimaisten kieltentutkimuskeskus6���H�

__YOSuomen sanojen alkuperä. Etymologinen sanakirja. 1–3 / E. Itkonen päätoimittaja. Helsinki,�JJ�K�����

s^�O28W8q�u�Uralisches Etymologisches Wörtebuch. Budapest6�JGSK�JJ��s__OF35L=<6?;�6B37=H6?A�6;33>=787;� Udmurttilais-suomalainen sanakirja. Turun yliopiston

suomalaisen ja yleisen kielitieteen laitoksen julkaisuja. Turku6���G�A3L<8>�F�Beiträge zur historischen Völkerkunde Osteuropas. I–IV. Verlag der Akademie der

Wissenschaften. Berlin6�JD�K�JDS�

�"�%�����%"�

KH83G���6KH83G���6J8>>=Cm�`�!�S�C"��fmmoYqldo6[dwmldZmoohda�Ygoqabjdg�W8��6W8P�6�875=7L67M�!�AJD"�_ta?elegkbwhoqabbB�`fo?fmhBgd}hghdgtlhoohgh�eajm?dqmo�

Yiqmabtai�F8>V3C6>�J�!�AJA"�Yqldoohma?fogfubdtrh?da6Zeoohd?eg?fixhih�o�Ygoqabjdg�@>C8H=GL�M�6�875=7L67�M�!�AH�"�[radqmgfbwhoqabbdbeg6ZeoohB6`fo?fmhBaq[dbqdbhBjao?bhtqhf�

YgoqabjdgO]fijfi�

���%�!������%"�����"�� �

���O�'.)0�%.%,%&01%7%9.)0'�!�F������"���9�F����N��(%,-%&-*�5Q6���G����O�'.)0�%0'(%�01%7%9.)0'�!�F������"��+-(/F�%01)('%,()8�56���J����O�'.)0�%01%+01%7%9.)0'�!�F������"���F�%01)('%,()8�56���H�� �O�'.)0 %+,%(%&01%7%9.)0'�!�F������"�����N %+,%(%&01%-)�(%,-%&-*�E-01%->(-&@

>(�5'�-Q6���S����O�'.)0�5*)301%7%9.)0'�!�F������"���F�%01)('%,()8�56���S����O�'.)0��%.-301%7%9.)0'�!�F������"���F�%01)('%,()8�56���G����O�'.)0�+-(01%7%9.)0'�!�F������"���F�%01)('%,()8�56���A����O�'.)0�(%0.)+01%7%9.)0'�!�F������"���F�%01)('%,()8�56�������������F�3-,)!�FA�����"���F����6�JJ����������F�%'.)0!�F�������"���F����6�JJ�����O�9�-,-%,()8�E-01�-1)('#�%00�701%7�-&-()<��F�($)3,-./01)5%9.)0'/!�F�������"�

�-&-()./3)50.2B9),-%&-*���1)('%,()8���%00��6�JJA�� �O�9�-,-%,()8�E-01�-1)('#�%00�701%7�-&-()<��F �B-,%(%&01)5%9.)0'/!�FA�����"�

�-&-()./3)50.2B9),-%&-*���1)('%,()8���%00��6�JJC�

���������� � ������ �@��������=���� ���������=���� ����

Page 152: south-eastern contact area of finnic languages in the light of onomastics

�%>(%0#%3%�)0'�1������� �!��"

C�

����O�%>%,()8�E-01)51)(')F�-0>29.�1)�)(-.�5!�F������"������6�JJH��[O[havdbqdoqf!�F������6�FC�����"�nalohivhF|dbqqdvaoveo6�����

���*����*���*����������-�p�if�fg�ef[[�,�

bF�025B76-6

sihmabohqcfxnalohivh!yhildij"tdelh�bdrvfiai�ugdhl�?fg

c�0deMcf0�cge��e�h��ih�c�0hjg��kdh0��dc��A�f�he0g��g���k��fbb�0�j�ile�e�h��me�0�lg���

| a c ~ f b j oFyhiif@subh?ldiueduao6oewoqbdqaqftficgc6kvdwdohi6sttabWflud6`abcd@`ebfghdircjbficgc6 abcd@`ebfghdidbad6klj fbjmhircjbficgc6klj fbjmhidbad�

[radbqh?laa}tlfbaoqraqftficgcfxqra`abcd6`ebfghdiodijklj`fbjmhio6yhiif@subh? taftlao6 xfbgablc hirdwhqhiu \aiqbdl Zeoohd��hqr baxabai?a qf diidlhoqh? dijdb?rdaflfuh?dljdqd6dlfiu~hqrdiegwabfxqragfoqbatbaoaiqdqhmadqqbhweqaodijxfbgdiqo6qradeqrfb?fi?lejaoqrdqqra`abcddij`ebfghdildiueduao~abavhijbajdijlf?dlh�aj~hqrhiqrawfeijdbhaofxxhmadbado6idgalc6Zfoqfm@|foqbfgd6 ebfg6�cdvfmf6�fbqr]dva�hoqbh?q6dijifbqrabitabhtrabc�Y??fbjhiuqradeqrfb6klj fbjmhiooaqqlajdlfqxdbqrab~aoqqrdijfgfjabi`fbjmhio�

����=�� �

Page 153: south-eastern contact area of finnic languages in the light of onomastics

5virittäjä 1/2013 s. 5–43

Suomen etymologisesti läpinäkymätöntä vesistönimistöä

Pauli Rahkonen

1  Johdanto 

Tämä artikkeli käsittelee eräitä Suomen nimistön sellaisia hydronyymejä, joiden kie­lellinen alkuperä on tähänastisessa tutkimuksessa jäänyt tuntemattomaksi.1 Tätä nimi­aineistoa kutsun Jalo Kaliman (1942) mukaisesti termillä x-kielinen nimistö. Peruste­len käyttämääni termiä sillä, että matematiikasta lainattu x voi tarkoittaa jotain, mikä on määrällisesti tai sisällöllisesti tuntematonta, jolloin kieliä voi olla useampia ja ne voivat olla varsin heterogeenisia. Useimmat jäljempänä tutkittavista nimityypeistä on valittu sillä perusteella, että niiden etymologiat ovat säännönmukaisen topografiaansa pohjautuvan nimeämismotiivinsa tähden mahdollisia selvittää ja niillä on vastineita Pohjois­Venäjällä. Muutamat ­(V)ri-loppuiset järvennimet on otettu tarkasteltavaksi, koska niihin liittyvät nimikannat ovat läpinäkymättömiä ja ne ovat asiakirjatietojenki n valossa hyvin vanhoja. Suomalaisen paikannimikirjan (SPK) mainitsemien 85:n pinta­alaltaan Suomen suurimman järven joukosta noin neljännes on SPK:n kirjoittajien ar­vioiden mukaan etymologisesti läpinäkymättömiä.2 Vaikka SPK:n ratkaisuista voisi olla toisinaan eri mieltä, on epäilemättä olemassa hyvin merkittävä hydro nyymien joukko, jota ei selvästi voi johtaa Suomessa puhutuista tunnetuista kielistä (suomi, kar­jala, saame, ruotsi). Tällaisten hydronyymien suuri määrä herättää monia kysymyksiä, joista keskeisiä tässä artikkelissa ovat:

1) Viittaako Suomen alueen etymologisesti läpinäkymätön vesistönimistö johon­kin muinaiseen tuntemattomaan paleoeurooppalaiseen kieleen?

2) Onko Suomessa puhuttu jotain tuntematonta uralilaista kieltä?

1. Kiitän artikkelin arvioijia, jotka ovat antaneet arvokkaita korjausehdotuksia alkuperäiseen käsi-kirjoitukseen.

2. Suuruusjärjestys perustuu Suomen ympäristöhallinnon tietoihin.

Page 154: south-eastern contact area of finnic languages in the light of onomastics

6 virittäjä 1/2013

3) Perustuvatko kielelliseltä alkuperältään opaakit nimet nykykielissä (suomi, kar­jala ja saame) tai niiden varhaisemmissa kielimuodoissa muinoin esiintyneisiin, mutta sittemmin kadonneisiin sanoihin?

4) Mikäli nämä nimet ovat peräisin tuntemattomasta lähteestä, niin millaisista ja mistä suunnasta tapahtuneista kielellisistä vaikutusaalloista kyseisten hydro­nyymien tarjoama evidenssi saattaisi todistaa?

Artikkeli rakentuu siten, että tutkimushistorian ja metodien esittelemisen jäl­keen tarkastelen opaakkia nimistöä, jonka etymologia on selvitettävissä säännön­mukaisen topografiansa perusteella. Tällaisia nimiä ovat kannaksiin ja veto taipaleisiin liittyvät vesistö nimet, joissa esiintyy kantauralista johdettavissa oleva nimikanta uht(V)-, oht(V)- ja V(u)oht(V)- < *ukti, sekä välijokiin liittyvät nimet, jotka palautu­vat suomalais­ permiläisessä kielentasossa asuun *viksi (tai ehkä *veksi) > vieks(V)-, viiks(V) ja luultavasti myös vääksy. Näiden lisäksi tarkastelen S(u)ont-/Sond- ja Kem(V)-nimikantoja, joiden levikki ulottuu Suomesta itään aina Vologdan, Rybins­kin ja Kostroman alueille. Lopuksi käsittelen Suomessa esiintyviä -ari-, ­äri- ja ­ere-loppuisia järvien nimiä, joiden joukosta olen poiminut tarkemmin tutkittaviksi nimet Inari, Ähtäri, Koitere ja Syväri. Aivan viimeiseksi vertailen esiteltyä nimistöä arkeo­logian tutkimus tuloksiin.3

2  Tutkimushistoriaa 

Eero Kiviniemi (1980: 320–321) on esittänyt, että Suomen nimistö voi teoriassa olla peräisin neljästä mahdollisesta tunnetusta kielellisestä lähteestä: suomesta, saamesta, skandinaavis­germaanisista ja balttilaisista kielistä. Näistä viimeksi mainittujen osuutta hän pitää käytännössä vähäisenä. Näyttääkin siltä, että balttilaisperäistä nimistöä ei Suomen alueella esiinny. Lisäksi Kiviniemi viittaa mahdollisiin tuntemattomiin esi­historiallisiin kieliin (mp.).

Jatkosodan (1941–1944) aikana Kalimaa (1942) kiinnosti Itä­Karjalassa esiintyvä epä itämerensuomalainen ja epäsaamelainen paikannimistö. Hän käytti termiä x­kieli ja viittasi paikannimistön yhtäläisyyksiin merjalaisalueilla. Hän pani merkille Karjalan ja myös Suomen paikannimistössä esiintyviä hämäriä nimiä, kuten Kemi, Kianta, Uh-tua ym., joita läheisesti muistuttavien nimien levikki ulottuu Venäjällä kauas itään tai kaakkoon. Vaikka Kaliman artikkeli onkin julkaistu sanomalehdessä eikä siksi edusta varsinaisesti tieteellistä julkaisutoimintaa, sisältää artikkeli kuitenkin tieteellisesti pä­tevää nimien fonetiikkaan ja levintään liittyvää argumentointia.

Käsittelen jäljempänä pääosin alkuperältään uralilaisiin kieliin pohjautuvia hydro­nyymejä, mutta tässä yhteydessä on kuitenkin syytä viitata Suomessa muinoin esiin­tyneisiin mahdollisiin paleoeurooppalaisiin kieliin. Paul Ariste (1971) on aikanaan

3. Tässä artikkelissa on noudatettu kyrilliikan ns. tieteellistä translitterointia (scientific trans­literation).

Page 155: south-eastern contact area of finnic languages in the light of onomastics

7virittäjä 1/2013

Rahkonen Suomen etymologisesti läpinäkymätöntä vesistönimistöä

herättänyt kysymyksen Suomen alueella esiintyvästä alkuperältään tuntemattomaksi jääneestä substraattinimistöstä. Janne Saarikivi (2004a) taas on puuttunut nimistös­säkin esiintyvään maastotermeihin liittyvään sanastoon, jolle ei ole löytynyt luotetta­vaa etymo logista taustaa. Hän on esittänyt hypoteesin Suomessa esiintyneestä paleo­eurooppalaisesta muinais kielestä. Ante Aikion samana vuonna (2004) julkaistu artik­keli pohjoiskalotin tuntemattomaan kieleen pohjautuvasta substraattinimistöstä on todistus voimaltaan kiistaton. Kieli, josta peräisin olevia nimiä Aikio (ma.) on esitellyt, ei voi olla uralilainen.

Kysymys opaakin nimistön alkuperästä liittyy jossain määrin myös keskusteluun maahanmuutto- ja jatkuvuusteorioista. Koska tämän artikkelin tarkoitus ei ole ensi­sijaisesti ottaa kantaa kyseiseen keskusteluun, käsittelen tutkimushistoriaa tältä osin vain lyhyesti. Maahanmuuttoteorian mukaan suomalaisten esi­isät saapuivat Suo­meen vasta roomalaisella rautakaudella ajanlaskumme ensimmäisillä vuosisadoilla. Jatkuvuus teorian mukaan taas suomalaisten esi­isien asutusjatkuvuus ulotetaan kauas kivikaudelle. Esimerkiksi Christian Carpelan (2006: 85) on sijoittanut Suomen kielelli­sen uralilaistumisen tyypillisen kampakeramiikan alkuun noin 3900 eKr.

Kysymys suomalaisten alkuperästä heräsi 1800­luvun lopulla. Syntyi käsitys, jonka mukaan suomalaiset muuttivat etelästä Suomeen. Tässä yhteydessä viitataan usein arkeologi Alfred Hackmaniin (1905) varhaisena maahanmuuttoteorian esittä­jänä. Lopullisesti tämä käsitys kanonisoitui Ella Kivikosken artikkelissa ”Suomen Esi­historia” (1961). Jatkuvuusteorian eräänä isänä taas voi pitää arkeologi Carl F. Meinan­deria (1969). Jatkuvuus teorian mukaan suomalaisten esi­isät olivat asuneet Suo­messa jo kivi kaudella. Meinanderin esittämä teoria alkoi syrjäyttää kauan vallinneen maahanmuutto teorian ja tuli laajasti hyväksytyksi Tvärminnen (1980, ks. TVS 1984) ja Lammin (1997, ks. PP 1999) symposiumeissa. Viimeaikaisimpiin arkeologien näke­myksiin voi tarkemmin tutustua lukemalla Carpelanin artikkelit (1999, 2006; Carpelan & Parpola 2001), Lavennon tekstiilikeramiikkaa koskevan väitöskirjan Textile Cera-mics in Finland and on the Karelian Isthmus (2001) ja Huurteen kansantajuisen kirjan 9 000 vuotta Suomen esihistoriaa (1995). Viime vuosina jatkuvuusteoriaa ovat kritisoi­neet esimerkiksi Aikio ja Aikio (2001) sekä Jaakko Häkkinen (2010a, 2010b).

Lingvisteistä jatkuvuusteoriaa ovat kannattaneet muun muassa Jorma Koivu­lehto (2006) ja Pekka Sammallahti (mm. 1999: 88–89). Terho Itkonen on käsitellyt aihetta monissa artikkeleissaan, joista viimeisimmäksi jäi FUF:ssa julkaistu ”Reflec­tions on Pre­Uralic and the ’Saami­Finnic protolanguage’” (1997). Myös Itkosta voi pi­tää jatkuvuus teorian kannattajana (mm. mas. 232). Petri Kallio (2009) ei ulota asutus­jatkuvuutta kivi kaudelle, mutta kuitenkin varhaiselle metallikaudelle (1900–800 eKr.).4 Tapani Salminen (1999: 21–23), kuten Kalliokin (2006), on olettanut Suomen alueen uralilais tumisen tapahtuneen suhteellisen myöhään. Tästä loogisesti seuraa, että on välttämätöntä olettaa uralilaista aikaa varhaisemman kivikautisen väestön puhuneen jotain tuntematonta epäuralilaista kieltä. Tietenkään jatkuvuusteoriakaan ei sulje pois mahdollisuutta, että jokin hyvin varhainen paleoeurooppalainen kieli on voinut jät­

4. Kallio (2006: 16–19) on esittänyt, että Suomi uralilaistui vasta varhaiselta metallikaudelta alkaen (n. 1900 eKr.).

Page 156: south-eastern contact area of finnic languages in the light of onomastics

8 virittäjä 1/2013

tää kielellisiä jälkiä niin suomen kielen sanastoon kuin Suomen nimistöönkin. Aikio (2006: 45, kartta 1) on esittänyt, että esisuomen ja esisaamen aikakaudella Suomessa puhuttiin laajalti jotain tuntematonta kieltä. Aikion tapaan Juha Janhunen (2005: 85) on esittänyt, että Lappi saamelaistui melko myöhään, mikä sekin herättää kysymyksen ainakin Lapin varhaisemman nimistön kielellisestä taustasta.

3  Metodit

Seuraavassa esittelen käytettyjä metodeja, joita ovat säännölliseen topografiaan perus­tuva opaakkien nimien etymologiointi, formanttien analyysi ja niiden produktiivisuu­den tarkasteleminen, etymologioiden todennäköisyys nimikantojen yleisyyden näkö­kulmasta ja nimistön levinnän painopistealueiden määrittäminen. Keskityn esittelyssä metodien keskeisiin seikkoihin; olen esitellyt niitä tarkemmin toisaalla (Rahkonen 2011: 214–222).

3.1 Maastoappellatiiveista muodostetut nimet

Kun on kyse tuntemattomasta kielestä, josta periytyvän nimistön etymologiaa koete­taan selvittää, yksi varmimpia menetelmiä on etsiä nimiä, jotka säännönmukaisesti viittaavat tietynlaisiin maastokohteisiin. Näiden nimikantojen taustalla olevat sanat ovat näin ollen topografisesti todennettavia maastoappellatiiveja. Esimerkkinä voisi mainita Keski­ Venäjän ja osin Pohjois­Venäjänkin merjalaisalueilla nimissä esiintyvät яхр-alkuiset [jaxr-] tai ­хра/о­loppuiset [-xra/­xro] nimet, jotka säännöllisesti liittyvät järviin (mm. Ahlqvist 2006: 14–16). Tällöin voi päätellä, että jossakin merjalaisalueilla puhutussa kielessä on esiintynyt sana, jonka voi rekonstruoida asuun *jäγra/ä < *jäkrä ’järvi’. Termillä nimikanta tarkoitan nimien johonkin yksittäiseen sanaan perustu­via alku komponentteja, joihin saattaa liittyä erilaisia jälkikomponentteja, esimerkiksi Huhta|mo < nimi kanta huhta, Hima|nka < nimikanta hima (henkilönimi lähtöinen; ks. mm. Mikkonen & Paikkala 2000 s. v. Himanen; Saarikivi 2006: 41), Valke|inen < nimi kanta valkea.5 Tässä artikkelissa kiinnitän erityistä huomiota kannaksiin ja veto­taipaleisiin sekä vesiä yhdistäviin väli jokiin liittyvään nimistöön. Tutkimuksellisena esikuvana voi mainita maast oappellatiiveihin perustuvien Pohjois­ ja Keski­Venäjällä esiintyvien suomalais­ ugrilaisten substraatti nimien etymologioinnin (Ahlqvist 2001; Matveev 2001; Mullonen 2002; Saarikivi 2006).

3.2 Formanttiaines

Formantilla tarkoitan nimissä esiintyviä, paikannimeä ilmaisevia jälki komponentteja, jotka voivat olla alkuaan johdinaineksia, kuten nimessä Päijä|nne < päijä + johdin

5. Termi nimikanta vastaa venäläisessä kirjallisuudessa käytettyä termiä основа (mm. Matveev 2001, 2004).

Page 157: south-eastern contact area of finnic languages in the light of onomastics

9virittäjä 1/2013

Rahkonen Suomen etymologisesti läpinäkymätöntä vesistönimistöä

*-nte(k), tai hämärtyneitä nimien perusosia, kuten nimessä Must|io < *Musta|oja (Ai­niala, Saarelma & Sjöblom 2008: 116; Rahkonen 2011: 217; Saarikivi 2006: 18). Formant­tien perusteella voidaan määritellä erilaisia nimityyppejä (mm. Ainiala, Saarelma & Sjöblom mts. 39; Mullonen 2002: 69–72, 85–96, 183). Nimiin voi liittyä sellaisia for­mantteja, joiden voi epäillä palautuvan johonkin substraattikieleen. Esimerkiksi alku­perältään hämärä -nka/i-formantti on sellainen (mm. Aikio 2007: 169; Räisänen 2003).

Tarkastelen tässä artikkelissa sellaisia järvien nimiä, joiden lopussa on formantti -ari­, ­äri­, ­ere. Jälkikomponentin -(V)ri voi katsoa alkuaan edustaneen nimen perus­osaa ’järvi’ (ks. SPK s. v. Inari, s. v. Koitere, s. v. Ähtäri). Tämä käy ilmi esimerkiksi siitä, että Äht|äri-nimisen järven muinainen laskujoki on Ähtä|vä ja Koit|ere-järveen liittyvä joki on nimeltään Koita. Jokien nimissä ei siis esiinny loppuosaa -(V)ri. Näin ollen ky­seinen formantti näyttäisi liittyvän järviin. Merkityksen hämärryttyä perusosa muut­tui nimistössä yleisesti esiintyvän kulumisen seurauksena formantiksi (vrt. SPK s. v. Kalm|ari; Aikio 2007: 174). Tähän formanttiin perustuvat nimikannat (esim. *Äts|äri, Koit|ere, In|ari) eivät useinkaan ole alkuperänsä kannalta selitettävissä vaikeuksitta suomen tai saamen pohjalta, joten niiden voi alkuolettamuksena epäillä juontuvan jos­tain tuntemattomasta substraattikielestä. Tällöin myös nimikantaan liittyvä formantti saattaa olla peräisin samasta kielestä.

3.3 Nimeämisperusteet

Saarikivi (2006: 18–21) on esittänyt neliportaisen mallin substraattikieliin pohjautuvien nimien etymologioiden todennäköisyydestä:6

Ryhmä 1: Nimityyppi, jolla on vastineita nykykielissä ja joiden etymologia voidaan varmistaa kielenulkoisten tekijöiden avulla (mm. topografia, veden tai pohjan laatu jne.), esimerkiksi Kuukka-, Kukas-järvet < ksa *kukkē ’pitkä’ (ks. Aikio 2007: 175–176).

Ryhmä 2: Etymologia on järkevä kielen ulkoisten tekijöiden perusteella, mutta nimi tyypillä ei ole juurikaan vastineita nykykielissä, esimerkiksi merjalaisalueiden Veks(V)- välijoet (ks. Ahlqvist 2001: 458–459).

Ryhmä 3: Nimityyppi esiintyy nykykielissä, mutta kielenulkoiset seikat eivät anna viitettä varmalle etymologialle, esimerkiksi kalojen nimiin pohjautuvat hydro­nyymit, koska saman laisia kaloja on lähes kaikissa järvissä.

Ryhmä 4: Nimityyppi ei ole yleinen nykykielissä, eivätkä kielenulkoiset seikat viit­taa mihinkään luotettavaan etymologiseen ratkaisuun, esimerkiksi monet nimet, joita Aikio (2004) on pitänyt paleoeurooppalaisina.

Tässä artikkelissa keskityn ensi sijassa ryhmiin 1 ja 2.

6. Varmuus on suurin ryhmässä 1 ja heikoin ryhmässä 4.

Page 158: south-eastern contact area of finnic languages in the light of onomastics

10 virittäjä 1/2013

On siis syytä pohtia, voiko kulloinkin tutkittavan vedenkokouman jokin ominai­suus antaa viitteitä nimeämisperusteesta. Onko esimerkiksi järven muoto pitkä, kapea, väärä, onko joki tai järvi vesistösysteemissään ylä­ tai alajuoksulla tai onko vesi kir­kasta vai tummaa? Silloin, kun hydronyymin nimeämisperuste näyttää topo grafisesti ilmeiseltä ja on nimityypin kannalta säännöllinen, voi yrittää etsiä etymologiaa suomalais­ ugrilaisten tai indoeurooppalaisten kielten sanastosta. Mikäli sopivaa ehdo­kasta ei löydy, on mahdollista, että nimi palautuu johonkin paleo eurooppalaiseen kie­leen. Unohtaa ei sovi myöskään nimikantojen tai määriteosien yleisyyttä. Usein tois­tuvia määriteosia tai nimikantoja on vain muutamia kymmeniä (ks. Saarikivi 2004b: 185–187). Siksi tutkimuksessa kannattaa mahdollisuuksien mukaan keskittyä niihin. Tällöin on turha olettaa jotain hyvin epätavallista etymologista lähtökohtaa. Usein ylei­simmät määriteosien tai nimikantojen taustalla esiintyvät sanat voidaan palauttaa var­haisempiin kantakieliin, mikä tekee niiden etymologioista varmempia.

3.4 Nimistön levinnän painopiste

Tutkimuksessa on tarpeellista huomioida myös kunkin nimityypin valtakuntien rajat ylittävä koko levikki ja levikin painopistealueet. Tämän seikan laiminlyöminen voi joh­taa sellaisiin virhepäätelmiin kuin Vahtolan (1980: 227–230) ja SPK:n (2007 s. v. Kemi) esittämä Kemijoen etymologia, joka on johdettu hämäläis­satakuntalaisesta murresa­nasta kemi ’keto’ ja jonka nimistöllinen vertailu koskee vain Suomen aluetta. Suomen Kemijoki ja -järvi kuuluvat kuitenkin laajaan Suomen ja Pohjois­Venäjän alueel la esiin­tyvään nimistökokonaisuuteen (ks. kartat 17 s. 24 ja 24 s. 35). Tällöin hämäläis peräisyys käy mahdottomaksi hyväksyä varsinkin, kun etymologiseksi lähtökohdaksi esitetyn murre sanan kemi esiintymisalueella Sata­Hämeessä ei esiinny yhtäkään Kemi­alkuista hydronyymiä.

4   Topografian ja levikin näkökulmasta tutkittavissa olevat  etymologiat

Luotettavan etymologian löytämisen kannalta helpoimpia ovat nimet, joiden nimi­kannoissa toistuvasti esiintyy topografisesti todennettavia identtisiä maasto­appellatiiveja. Näin on varsinkin, jos nimikantojen taustalla olevat sanat voidaan palauttaa varhaisempiin kantakieliin. Suomessa sellaisia ovat muun muassa läpi­näkymättömät toponyymit, joissa esiintyy vuoht-, uht-, oht- (’kannas’, ’vetotaipale’) sekä vieks-, viiks- ja vääks-nimikannat (’välijoki’).

Olen perehtynyt kartta­aineiston avulla seuraavana esiteltävien vesistöjen topo­grafiaan. Aluksi esittelen nimien esiintymisalueet. Hakasulkeisiin olen merkinnyt Suo­messa ja Karjalassa esiintyvien nimien sijainnin kunnan tai piirin tarkkuudella. Karja­lan ulkopuolella Venäjällä esiintyvien nimien sijainnin olen merkinnyt haka sulkeisiin; merkki ↔ kertoo, minkä nimisten jokien välisistä kannaksista on kysymys. Muuta­massa tapauksessa olen merkinnyt sijainniksi vain lähimmän suuren kaupungin ni­men. Sulkeissa olen ilmaissut lähdetiedot. Lähteen jäljessä esiintyvä numero­ ja kirjain­

Page 159: south-eastern contact area of finnic languages in the light of onomastics

11virittäjä 1/2013

Rahkonen Suomen etymologisesti läpinäkymätöntä vesistönimistöä

yhdistelmä viittaa lähteenä käytetyn kartan koordinaatteihin. Sijainnin esittelyn jälkeen kerron lyhykäisesti varhaisemman tutkimuksen tuloksista ja esitän oman näkemykseni.

4.1 Vuoht­kannakset

Suomessa: Vuohtajärvi [Reisjärvi], Vuohtojärvi [Pihtipudas], Vuohtojärvi, -joki [Kärsä mäki], Vuohtolahti [Pyhäjärvi], Vuohtolahti [Kiuruvesi], Vohtenoinen [Hämeen linna] (NA).

Vastaavuuksia Karjalan tasavallassa: Voht|ozero ~ ka Vuohťärvi [Prääsän piiri] (TKRK95; NA), Vuhtanjogi, Voht|ozero ~ ka Vuohťťärvi (TKRK110; NA), Voht|ozero ~ ka Vuohťärvi [Prääsän piiri: Vieljärvi/Palalahti] (NA).

Vastaavuuksia muualla Venäjällä: Vohta|nka (GBO192) [Murom], Vohte|nka (GBO190) [Murom], Vohtož|ka (AKO75A1/AVO94B2) [Suhona ↔ Kostroma], Vohtoma (AKO16B2/AVO83B5) [Viga ↔ Suhona], Vohtoma (AKO83­84) [Neja ↔ Viga], Vohtoma (AVO65G4) [Unža ↔ Suhona], Vohtom|ec (AVO46V3) [Jug ↔ Su­hona], Boht|juga (AVO39V5) [Kubena ↔ Vaga].

SPK (2007) esittää, että Vuoht(V)-nimet olisivat peräisin saamen sanasta, joka kanta­saamen tasossa palautuu asuun *vuoččō ’pitkä, kapea suo’ (SPK s. v. Vuohtajärvi, Vuohto mäki; Aikio 2006: 12). Äänteellisesti selitys on moitteeton, mikäli oletetaan savolais tyyppistä adaptaatiota *-ts- > -ht-. Vuoht(V)-järvien topografia ei kuiten­kaan tue tätä selitystä. Esimerkiksi Reisjärven Vuohtajärven ja Pihtiputaan Vuohto-järven ympäristössä ei ole minkäänlaista suota. Kärsämäen Vuohtojärvi vuorostaan sijaitsee laajalla Vuohtosuolla, joka ei ole millään lailla pitkä ja kapea, siis vuotso­mainen. Vastaavaa Karjalan Prääsän piirin Vuoht(V)-nimistöä ei voi selittää savolais­vaikutuksella. Liv vin kielessä ei *­ts- > -ht- ole mahdollinen. Sama koskee Hämeen­linnan Vohtenoinen- kannasta, koska hämeen murteessa *-ts- > -tt-.

Suomen Vuoht-nimistö liittyy selkeästi kannaksiin (kartta 1). Reisjärven Vuohtajärvi ja läheinen Pihtiputaan Vuohtojärvi yhdistävät kannaksien kautta Kalajoen, Lesti joen ja Kymijoen vesistöt toisiinsa (kartta 2). Järvien välinen etäisyys tosin on nykyisin noin 15 kilometriä, mutta itse nimeämisaikaista vesireittien etäisyyttä on vaikea arvioi da. Nykyinen kannas on täynnä pieniä jokia, puroja ja pikkujärviä, jotka ovat saattaneet nimeämisajankohtaisessa tilassaan kaventaa vetotaivalta merkittävästikin. Kärsämäen Vuohtojoki ja ­järvi yhdistävät kannaksen kautta Siikajoen­ ja Pyhäjoenvesistö alueen toisiinsa (kartta 3). Myös Pyhäjoen ja Kymijoenvesistön välisen kannaksen molem­milla puolilla esiintyy Vuoht-nimistöä sekä muita kannakseen viittaavia nimiä (kartta 4).7 Kymijoenvesistön puolella Vuohtolahti on Koivujärven lahti.8 Aulangon järven ja

7. Maaselänlahti ja Tiesuunlahti viitannevat kannakseen ja vetotaipaleeseen.8. Koivujärvikin saattaa olla kansanetymologiaa, jolloin alkuperäinen nimi olisi liittynyt sanaan sm

koive|ta ’kulkea (hitaasti)’, vi koiba|ta ’kulkea, vaeltaa’ (Rahkonen & Saarikivi, julkaisematon havainto; SSA 1 s. v. koipi); vrt. Syvärin ja Ojatin erottavalla kannaksella virtaa Kojbyža-joki (ALO28V2). Karjalassa Segežasta länteen Koivajärven ja Jelmozeron väliin jää kapeahko kannas.

Page 160: south-eastern contact area of finnic languages in the light of onomastics

12 virittäjä 1/2013

Vanajaveden erottavalla kannaksella esiintyy maastopaikan nimi Vohtenoinen (kartta 5). Myös Vuohtniemi Lappeenrannassa näyttää liittyvän tähän yhteyteen (NA).

Kartta 1.Vuoht­kannakset Suomenselällä.

Kartta 2. Kartta 3.Kymijoen-, Lestijoen- ja Kalajoenvesistön Pyhäjoen- ja Siikajoenreitin kautta yhdistä-kannaksen välisillä kannaksilla esiintyvät    vät Vuohtojoki ja -järvi (Reisjärvi, Pihti-Vuoht­järvet (Kärsämäki).        pudas).

Pyhäjärvi

Iisalmi

Kuopio

Ähtäri

Alaj‰rvi

Pietarsaari Haapajärvi

Haapavesi

Siikajoki

Ähtävän- joki

Lappaj‰rviViitasaari

Lesti- joki

Kala- joki

Pyhäjoki

VuohtojokiVuohtojärvi, -suoVuohtolahti, -niemi, -mäkiVuohtolahtiVuohtojärviVuohtajärvi

kannas

Lamujoki

Siikajoki

Pyhäjoki Vuohtojoki Vuohto-järvi

Iso-Lamujärvi

3 km

Lestijoki

Vuohtajärvi

LestijärviMuurasjärvi

Kalajoki

Reisjärvi

Vuohto-järvi

Alvajärvi

LestinpuroLESTIJOENVESISTÖ

KALAJOENVESISTÖ

KYMIJOENVESISTÖ

15 km7 km

Page 161: south-eastern contact area of finnic languages in the light of onomastics

13virittäjä 1/2013

Rahkonen Suomen etymologisesti läpinäkymätöntä vesistönimistöä

Kartta 4. Kartta 5. Pyhäjoen- ja Kymijoenvesistön välisen    Hämeenlinnan Vohtenoinen Vanajaveden ja kannaksen Vuoht-nimet (Pyhäjärvi Ol.,    Aulangonjärven välisellä kannaksella.Pielavesi).

Karjalassakin Vuoht-joet ja ­järvet liittyvät kannaksiin. Vuohťärvi (TKRK95) sijait­see Suojunjoen ja Suna­joen vesireittien välisellä kannaksella. Vuohťťärvi (TKRK110), jonka vedet laskevat Viteleen vesistöön kuuluvaan Vieljärveen, sijaitsee vuorostaan kannaksella, jonka toisella puolella alkaa Suojunjoen vesistöalue.

Vuoht­nimistö näyttää juontuvan kantauraliin palautuvasta sanasta, jonka Sammal­lahti (1988: 536) on rekonstruoinut kantauralin tasossa asuun *ukti ’track’ (ks. tarkem­min jäljempänä). Sanalla on vastineita nykykielissä vain ugrilaisessa haarassa: unkarin út ’tie’, hantin oγət ’track’, mansin āχt id. (mm. Aikio 2012: 230; Mullonen 2002: 208–215; Saarikivi 2006: 38). Keski­ ja Pohjois­Venäjän nimistössä esiintyy kuitenkin laajalti kannaksiin ja vetotaipaleisiin liittyviä Uht­ (Uft­), Voht­ ja Oht­nimiä (mm. Mullo­nen 2002: 208–215; Saarikivi 2006: 38). Venäjällä nimistö viittaa siihen, että sana Uht­/Voht­ on kuulunut merjalais­muromalaiseen kieleen ja sen pohjoiseen (Valkeajärvi‒ Suhonan seudun) perifeeriseen lähisukukieleen (Rahkonen 2012: 21).

4.2 Uht-nimistö

Suomessa: Uhtua [Tervo], Uhtipohja [Padasjoki] (NA).

Vastineita Pohjois­Venäjällä: [Karjalan tasavalta] Uhtuanjoki ~ Uhta (TKKR21/30), Uhta (TKKR58), Uhta (TKKR69), Uhtica (TKKR57), Uht|ozero (TKKR56), [Ark­angelin alue] Uhta, Uht|ozero (GUGK:Kotlas V2), Uhta (GUGK:OnegaA1), Uhta (GUGK:OnegaA4), Bol. Uhta oz. (GUGK:OnegaA4), Uhtinskoe oz. (GUGK:OnegaA4), Uhta (GUGK:ArkhangelskG1), [Vologdan alue] Uhta

Koivu-järviVuohto-

lahti

Maaselänlahti

Vuohtoniemi

Tiesuunlahti

Vuohtomäki

Vuohtolahti

PYHÄJOENVESISTÖ

KYMIJOENVESISTÖ

7 kmHÄMEENLINNA

Vanajavesi

Vohte-noinen

Aulangon-järvi

Page 162: south-eastern contact area of finnic languages in the light of onomastics

14 virittäjä 1/2013

(AVO13B7), Uhtoma (AVO91B4), Uhtomica (AVO36V1), Uhtomka (AVO34B2), Uh-tomka (AVO17G4), Uhtomka (AVO27A5), Uhtomjarskoe oz. (AVO32V1).

Tervon Uhtua saattaa liittyä Viitajärvi- ja Saarinen-järvien väliseen kannakseen.9 Padas joen Uhtipohja sijaitsee Kotuksen nimiarkiston (NA) mukaan jossakin Auttoi­silla, mutta haastattelemani nykyauttoislaiset eivät ole tunnistaneet paikkaa. Auttoi­sen seutu kuitenkin sijaitsee Kokemäenjoen­ ja Kymijoenvesistön vedenjakajalla, joten ’kannas’ sopisi hyvin nimeämisperusteeksi.

4.3 Oht­nimistö

Suomessa: Ohtaansalmi, -niemi [Outokumpu], Ohtuanoja [Ruukki], Ohtimus [Virra t] (NA).

Karjalan tasavallassa: Ohtanjärvi (TKRK20) [Kalevala], Ohta (TKRK21) [Kalevala], Ohta (TKRK43) [Kemi], Ohta (niemi) (TKRK126) [Aunus], Ohtoma (TKRK88) [Vodla], Ohtoma; Verh. & Niž. (TKRK101) [Vodla], Ohtom|ozero; Verh. & Niž. [Vodla].

Syvärin vesistöalueella: Ohtoja (MAG24), Ohtarv (MAG83), Ohtui (MAG86), Ohta (MAG88), Ohtega (MAG104).

Muu Venäjä: Ohtomica (GUGK:KotlasV6) [Njandoma], Ohtonga (GUGK:KotlasV4) [Kargopol’], Ohtoma (GUGK:KotlasA8) [Pinega], Ohtoma (GUGK:KotlasB10) [Pineg a].

Suomessa on kahden­ tai jopa kolmenlaisia oht-nimiä, mikä tekee niiden etymo­logioinnin hankalaksi. Jotkin savolaismurteisiin liittyvistä oht-nimistä epäilemättä palautuvat sanaan ’karhu’ smSavo ohto ~ sm otso. Savolaismurteiden alueella jyrk­kien rantojen ollessa kyseessä on lisäksi nimetty vesiä sanan smSavo ohta ~ sm otsa perusteella (ks. SPK s. v. Ohtaansalmi). Sellaisia ovat esimerkiksi Puolangan Ohta-lampi, jonka itäranta Ohtakulju kohoaa jyrkästi yli 30 metriä vedenpinnan ylä­puolelle, ja Lieksan Ohtalampi, jonka itäranta rajoittuu korkeaan ja jyrkkään Ohta-vaaraan.

Jotkin ohta­nimet on kuitenkin nimetty ilmeisestikin kannaksen tai vetotaipaleen perusteella. Näitä ovat muun muassa Ohtaanniemi < *Ohtamanniemi ~ vuodelta 1683 Ochtamanniemij (SPK s. v. Ohtaansalmi) [Tuusniemi], ­salmi, Ohtuanoja [Ruukki] ja Ohtimus (niemi) [Virrat]. Ohtaanniemen voi ylittää vesiteitse siten, että Iso­Vuorisen ja Iso­Kankaisen väliin jää kapeahko kannas (kartta 6). Ohtaansalmi on ilmeisesti saanut nimensä niemen mukaan (vrt. SPK s. v. Ohtaansalmi). Näin ollen niemen luonnollinen nimeämisperuste on ’kannas, taipale’, jollain uralilaisella kielellä *ohta(ma). Ohtuanoja (kartta 7) virtaa pitkän matkan paralleelisti pääjokensa, Siikajoen, rinnalla. Väliin jää

9. Tervon Uhtua saattaa olla siirtymänimi, jonka alkuperäinen esikuva on Vienan Uhtua.

Page 163: south-eastern contact area of finnic languages in the light of onomastics

15virittäjä 1/2013

Rahkonen Suomen etymologisesti läpinäkymätöntä vesistönimistöä

suhteellisen kapea (1,5–2 km) kannas. Ohtimus on niemi, jonka voi ylittää kapean veto­taipaleen kautta (kartta 8). Tähän yhteyteen voisi vielä lisätä Hämeenlinnan (ent. Kal­vola) Ohtinen­asutusnimen. Ohtinen sijaitsee Lontilanjoen ja Tarpianjoen latvojen vä­lisellä kannaksella.

Kartta 6.Ohtaanniemi (Ochtamanniemij v. 1683), Ohtaansalmi (Tuusniemi). 

Kartta 7. Kartta 8.Ohtuanoja Ruukissa.  Ohtimus (niemi), Virrat.

Siikajoki

Ohtuanoja

RUUKKI

n. 2 km

Uurasjärvi

Ohtimus(niemi)

Ohtimus-lammi

Muuran-vuori

veto-taival

TUUSNIEMI

KAAVI

Ohtaanniemi

Ohtaansalmi

Iso-Kankainen

Iso-Vuorinen

1 km

Page 164: south-eastern contact area of finnic languages in the light of onomastics

16 virittäjä 1/2013

Ohtaanniemi­nimen vanhoissa asiakirjoissa esiintyvä Ohtama­asu liittää sen Ää­nisen ja Onega­joen vastaavaan Ohtoma­nimistöön. Venäjällä Pinega­joen vesistössä virtaa Ohtoma­joki, joka kapean kannaksen kautta yhdistää Pinegan latvat Dvina­ jokeen: Pinega ← Ohtoma ← kannas → Verhnyj Tojma10 → Dvina. Taipaleentauksen tär­keimpiin kuuluva vesireitti yhdisti Onega­joen ja Dvinan: Onega ← Moša ← Ohtomica ← kannas → Puja → Vaga → Dvina.11 Nämä ja useat muutkin esimerkit todistavat jo­honkin uralilaiseen kieleen kuuluneesta maastoappellatiivista *ohta ’kannas, taipale’< kanta urali *ukti (ks. Saarikivi 2006: 38).

Irma Mullonen (2002: 214) katsoo Karjalan uht-nimistön olevan peräisin jos­tain kadonneesta ylävolgalaisesta kielestä, jota puhuttiin ennen alueen itämeren­suomalaistumista. Tähän näkemykseen on helppo yhtyä nimityypin levikin perus­teella, koska sen jatkumo Ylä­Volgalta on katkeamaton. Oht-nimistö näyttää esiinty­vän saman laisessa funktiossa vetotaipaleitten ja kannasten yhteydessä.

Koska keskenään erilaiset oht-, vuoht- ja uht-nimikannat ovat kaikki johdettavissa yhteisestä originaalista < *ukti (Sammallahti 1988: 536), voi niiden varioinnin selittää siten, että nimen taustalla oleva sana on jossain vaiheessa adaptoitu eri kieliin tai ne heijastavat alkuaankin kolmea erilaista kielellistä lähdettä. Pohjois­Venäjällä esiintyy sekä uht- että oht- ja voht-nimistöä. Uht-hydronyymit ovat erityisen tyypillisiä kroni­koiden määrittelemällä merjalaisseudulla Jaroslavlin ja Kostroman alueilla sekä poh­joisempana Vologdan ja Arkangelin alueiden länsiosissa. Oht-hydronyymit sijaitsevat erityisesti Syvärin ja Äänisen vesistöalueilla sekä Arkangelin alueella. Karjalan tasa­vallassa ja Suomessa esiintyy kaikkia kolmea varianttia (ks. kartta 9).

Äännehistoriallisesti *ukti > ims ohta tai vuohta ei ole mahdollinen. Itämeren­suomalainen äännelaillisesti säännönmukainen vastine olisi uksi : uhden. Aikio (2012: 230) esittää, että parhaimmillaankin ugrilaiskielten valossa sana voidaan palauttaa kanta­uraliin asussa *(V)kti. Hän kuitenkin huomauttaa, että mikäli nimistössä esiintyvä Uht- todella on ugrilaisissa kielissä esiintyvien sanojen vastine, voidaan kanta uralilaiseksi asuksi rekonstruoida *ukti. Toisaalta mikäli toisen tavun vokaali onkin ollut a (vrt. UEW s. 540), kehityskulku olisi äännelaillisesti ollut *ukta > ims uhta. Tosin UEW on edellyt­tänyt myös metateesia rekonstruoiden kantauralin sanaksi *utka ’spur’. Joka tapauksessa nimityypin Uht(V)- levikki ei kuitenkaan viittaa itämeren suomalaiseen lähtökohtaan. Itämerensuomalainen tausta edellyttäisi nimityypin esiintymistä Suomessa niin sanotun rannikkokulttuurin alueella ja Virossa (ks. kartta 9).12 Näin ei kuitenkaan ole.

Saameen liittyvä kehitys on vaikea selittää konsonanttiyhtymän *-kt- > ­ht- tähden muutoin kuin itämerensuomalaisen adaptaation kautta. Kantauralin *ukti tulisi edustua kantasaamessa asussa *okte ja vaihtoehtoinen *ukta > ksa *oktē. Oht(V)-nimistö esiintyy säännöllisesti -ht:llisena kaikkialla Suomessa sekä Pohjois­Venäjällä. Konsonatti yhtymää

10. Myös nimen Tojma merkitys on ’kannas, vetotaival’ (Rahkonen 2009: 184). Se on luultavasti pe-räisin permiläiskielistä: Tojma ~ udm Tujmi ; vrt. udm tuj ’tie’ < *taj-; ?sm taipale, taival. Ala-Kamalla Tojma-joki virtaa Ohtuanojan tavoin paralleelisti Kaman rinnalla siten, että väliin jää kapeahko kannas.

11. Nuoli → kuvaa joen virtaussuuntaa.12. Virossa esiintyy asutusnimi Uhtna [Kundan alue Virumaalla] ja järvennimi Uhtjärv [Antslan alue

Võrumaalla], mutta niiden taustalla lienee joko viron kielen murresana uhta mm. ’kaski’ ~ sm huhta (SSA 1 s. v. huhta) tai sana vi uhtuda ’huuhtoa’ (SSA 1 s. v. huuhtoa), vrt. suomen Liko-järvet ja -lammet. Nämä virolaiset nimet eivät topografisesti mitenkään liity kannaksiin.

Page 165: south-eastern contact area of finnic languages in the light of onomastics

17virittäjä 1/2013

Rahkonen Suomen etymologisesti läpinäkymätöntä vesistönimistöä

-ht- ei voi laajan säännöllisyytensä tähden pitää johonkin saamelais kieleen kuuluvana kantasaamen jälkeisenä erilliskehityksenä, kuten esim. saI kyehti < ksa *kōktē ’kaksi’. Nyky kielissä vain itämerensuomessa ja joissain saamelaiskielissä esiintyy *­kt- > -ht-. Nimistö todistaa vastaavasta äänteellisestä kehityskulusta *­kt- > -ht- myös kronikoiden merjalaisalueilla muinoin puhutussa kielessä.13 Merjalaisalueella esiintyy yleisesti veto­taipaleisiin ja kannaksiin liittyviä Uht-hydronyymejä (kartta 9).

Kartta 9.Uht-, Oht- ja V(u)oht­kannasten ja vetotaipaleitten levintä.

4.4 Vieks­, Viiks-, Vääks-välijoet

Suomessa ja luovutetussa Karjalassa: Vieksijoki, Ala-Vieksijärvi [Ilomantsi], Vieksin-joki [Kuhmo], Vieksinkijärvi, Viiksimojärvi, -joki, Viiksanlahti, Viiksinselkä (NA).

Karjalan tasavallassa: Vikšalampi (TKRK83), Vikšezero (TKRK84), Vikšitsa (TKRK96), Vikšozero (TKRK83), Vikšrečka (TKRK84), Viksozero (TKRK13), Vikso-zero (TKRK34), Vikšrečka (TKRK34), Viksenda (TKRK116), Vikša (TKRK67), Vikšozero (TKRK67).

13. Mahdollisesti merjassa *-kt- >* -χt-, jossa χ on saattanut olla hälyisämpi kuin ims h.

Helsinki

Pietari

Vologda

Arkangel

Uht- Oht- V(u)oht-vetotaipaleet ja kannakset

Page 166: south-eastern contact area of finnic languages in the light of onomastics

18 virittäjä 1/2013

Syvärin vesistöalue: Vekša ~ Vikša (MAG87), Vikšenga (MAG104).

Vologdan alueella: Veksa (AVO77B5), Veksa (AVO81G5), Vekšenskoe oz. (AVO25V5), Vekšen’ga (AVO80A2).

Jaroslavlin alueella: Veksa (AJO82A4/95B1), Veksa (AJO102A2), Veksa (AJO108A4/114A1), Veksa (AJO110A2) ja Kostroman alueella: Veksa (AKO54), Veksa (AKO102–103), Veksa (AKO124A2), Veksa (AKO149A1).

Keski­Venäjällä Veks- ~ Vёks-joet ovat säännönmukaisesti kahden veden välisiä väli­jokia, jotka useimmiten yhdistävät järven ja suuremman joen (mm. Ahlqvist 2001: 458; Mullonen 2002: 290–293).14 Mullonen (mp.) on liittänyt Syvärin, Äänisen ja Laa­tokan alueen viks-/š-, vieks-nimet Ylä­Volgan veks-nimistön yhteyteen. Samanlaisia jokien nimiä samanlaisessa funktiossa esiintyy myös Suomen puolella (NA): Vieksi-joki, Ala-Vieksijärvi ~ Weexijärvi (Hällström 2005 [1799]) [Ilomantsi], Ylä- ja Ala-Vieksi, Vieksin joki [Kuhmo](ks. kartat 12–13). Näyttää ilmeiseltä, että merjalaisalueiden veks(V)- ja Suomen vieksi-nimet palautuvat samaan kantasanaan kuin komin sana vis ’välijoki’; vis < *visk < *viks(V) (ks. Lytkin & Guljaev 1999: 58 s. v. вис; Mullonen 2002: 291). Räisänen (2003: 142–143) on verrannut Kuhmon Vieksiä inarinsaamen sanaan vieksâ ’voimakas’. Nimeämisperusteena määriteosa ’voimakas’ olisi hyvin epä tavallinen ja näin ollen epä uskottava.

Topografian kannalta näyttää ilmeiseltä, että samaan motivaatioon pohjautuvat myös sellaiset nimet kuin Vääksy ~ vuodelta 1491 Wäksy|ström (SPK s. v. Vääksy 1) [Asikkala], Vääksy ~ vuodelta 1405 Vexö(ö) [Kangasala], Viiksimo(järvi), -joki [Kuhmo] (ks. kartat 10–11 ja 14–15). Karjalankannaksella Suvannon ja Vuoksen välinen kapeikko oli joskus ilmeisestikin nimeltään Viiksa. Sen kohdalla olevan Suvannon lahden nimi on nimittäin vuoteen 1944 asti ollut Viiksanlahti.

Vääksyn rinnastaminen Vieksi­ ja Viiksi­nimiin voi tuntua äänteellisesti hankalalta. Joka tapauksessa vanha oletus, jonka mukaan nimi juontuisi ruotsalaisesta kaupungin nimestä Växjö, on äärimmäisen epätodennäköinen (ks. SPK s. v. Vääksy 1 ja 2 lähtei­neen). Vääksyn kartano tosin oli 1500­luvun alusta Wäxjöstä kotoisin olevan Westgöta­suvun rälssitilana. Kuitenkin nimi Wexö esiintyy asiakirjalähteissä jo vuonna 1405 ja Asikkalan Vääksynjoki esiintyy asiakirjoissa jo vuonna 1491 asussa Wäksyström (mp.). SPK:n viittaukset nimen siirtymiseen Växjöstä ruotsalaisten kauppiaiden mukana ei ole uskottava väite. Miksi hämäläiset tai heitä ennen mahdolliset saamelaiset paikalli­set asukkaat olisivat omaksuneet ruotsalaisen kaupungin nimen oman seutunsa nimis­töön? Joka tapauksessa Asikkalan ja Kangasalan Vääksynjoet ovat topo grafisesti ident­tisiä tyypillisiä välijokia (kartat 10–11). Lieneekö sattumaa, että kummankin Vääksyn­joen lähdejärvi on nimeltään Vesijärvi. Tämä johtaa kysymään, voisivatko Vesi järvet olla kansanetymologiaa: Vesijärvi < *Veksijärvi.

14. Jaroslavlin alueella: Veksa (AJO82A4/95B1), Veksa (AJO102A2), Veksa (AJO108A4/114A1), Vek­sa (AJO110A2); Kostroman alueella: Veksa (AKO54), Veksa (AKO102–103), Veksa (AKO124A2), Veksa (AKO149A1).

Page 167: south-eastern contact area of finnic languages in the light of onomastics

19virittäjä 1/2013

Rahkonen Suomen etymologisesti läpinäkymätöntä vesistönimistöä

Kartta 10. Asikkalan Vääksynjoki ~ Wäksy|ström v. 1491.

Kartta 11.Kangasalan Vääksynjoki.

Kartta 12.Kuhmon Vieksinjoki ja Vieksi-kapeikot.

Vääksynjoki

Päijänne

Vesijärvi

Vesi-järvi

Roine

Ponsan-selkä

Vääksynjoki

Ontojärvi

Ylä-Vieksi

Ala-Vieksi

Vieksin-joki

Page 168: south-eastern contact area of finnic languages in the light of onomastics

20 virittäjä 1/2013

Kartta 13.Vieksijoki ja Vieksijärvi (Ilomantsi/Suojärvi).

Kartta 14.Kuhmon Viiksimo.

Kartta 15.Suvannon Viiksa.

Nuora-järvi

Koitajoki Koitajoki

Ala-Vieksi-järvi

Vieksijoki

Iso-Tahkonen

Pieni-Tahkonen

Viiksimon-joki

Viiksimon-järvi

Vuoksi

Vuoksi SuvantoViiksan-lahti

?Viiksa

Page 169: south-eastern contact area of finnic languages in the light of onomastics

21virittäjä 1/2013

Rahkonen Suomen etymologisesti läpinäkymätöntä vesistönimistöä

On todettava, että eri nimivariantit sisältävät äänteellisiä ongelmia varsinkin ver­rattaessa niitä komin sanaan vis < *visk < *viks(V) (ks. Lytkin & Guljaev 1999: 58 s. v. вис). Nimet varioivat osittain samalla tapaa kuin jäljempänä tarkemmin esitetty Kemi-järvi ~ Kiemiträsk ~ Kiimjauri/Kiimjaure (Sjögren 1861: 65, 104, 109, 128).

Vanhan kirjasuomen sana vieska ’watudrag, watugang ner åt ifrån forssen, strömfall’ (Ganander 1997 [1787]: 1115), joka on koskiin liittyvä vesistötermi, saattaa olla samaa alkuperää. Arkangelin alueella esiintyy lisäksi venäjän murresana виска (Dal’ 1 s. v. виска; Saarikivi 2004a: 196 lähteineen). Ainakaan Kalajoen varrella sijaitsevat paikan­nimet Ala|vieska ja Yli|vieska eivät kuitenkaan viittaa siihen, että vieska olisi merkityk­seltään sama kuin vieksi ’kahta vedenkokoumaa yhdistävä välijoki’ (ks. SPK s. v. Ala-vieska lähteineen). Sen sijaan Alavieska ilmeisesti liittynee Haarankoskeen ja Ylivieska Hamarinkoskeen Gananderin antaman sanan merkityksen mukaisesti. Vieska-sanan palautuminen samaan kantasanaan kuin vieksi edellyttää metateesia ja merkityksen­siirtoa.15

4.5 Suont­nimistö

Suomessa: Suontee [Joutsa], Suontienselkä ~ Suonteenselkä [Suonenjoki], ?Sonna-nen [Heinola], Sontanen [Jaala] (NA).

Karjalassa: Sondala, Sondal’skaja guba [Paatene] (TKRK64/73), Sundam|ozero [Louhi] (TKRK25).

Pohjois­Venäjällä: Sondal ~ Sondaljogi ~ Sondaloja [Ojatin latvavesiä] (MAG43), Sondaljärv, Sondaloja [Ojatin latvat] (MAG39), Sondola; Bol. & Mal. [Kenozero] (GUGK:OnegaE6), Sonduž|koe ozero, Sond|uga [Vagan latvavesiä] (GUGK:KotlasG7/AVO41), Sondol’skij [Sudan latvavesi] (AVO30B2), Sonduš|ka [Sokol’skij] (AVO60A3), Sondol|ovo (asutus) [Danilov] (AJO37A3), Sondol|ovo (asutus) [Danilov] (AJO54A2), Sondo|ba (maasto) [Čuhloma] (AKO53B3), Sondoga [Galič] (AKO109A3).

Nimi Sonnejoki (nyk. Suonenjoki) esiintyy asiakirjoissa jo vuonna 1415. Nimi Suontee esiintyy asiakirjoissa vuonna 1468 asussa Sondewattnet ja Suontienselkä asussa Sondie vuonna 1556. (SPK s. v. Suonenjoki, Suontee, Suonteenselkä.)

Suomalaisen paikannimikirjan kirjoittajat jättävät Suont-nimien etymologian avoi­meksi. Heistä Manni­Lindqvist (2007) epäilee nimeämisen taustalla olevan järven kaartuvan muodon (ks. SPK s. v. Suontee, Suonteenselkä). Mullonen (2002: 264) on arvellut nimen mahdollisesti palautuvan ksa sanaan *sōnte ’leikata auki’ (Lehtiranta 2001: 126). Nimeämisperusteena tämä vaikuttaa hyvin epävarmalta.

Näyttää siltä, että nimikanta suont- palautuu asuun *sonta, jota voisi verrata karja­lan sanaan sonto ’käyrä’ (ks. jäljempänä). Suomalaiset Suontee ja Suontie(n selkä) ja sii­

15. Vastaavanlainen metateesi -ks- ~ -sk- esiintyy esimerkiksi sanassa sääski ~ KaakkHäme sääksi, ka seäksi, ve säsk, säks ’hyttynen’ (SSA 3 s. v. sääski).

Page 170: south-eastern contact area of finnic languages in the light of onomastics

22 virittäjä 1/2013

hen liittyvä Suonenjoki < *Suonteenjoki ovat ilmeisesti käyneet läpi kantasaamelaisen adaptaation *sonta > ksa *suontē. Karjalan tasavallan järven nimi Sundom(ozero) on ilmeisesti < *Suontoma; ven. adapt. сундом, jossa diftongi -uo- säännönmukaisella ta­valla on substituoitunut u:na; vrt. Suomi > Сумь.

Suontee-nimien taustalla voisi siis olla sana *sont(V) ’käyrä, kaareva’ ~ ka sonto ’kaa­reva, käyrä’, ly sońďištunnu ’vääristynyt (puu)’, sm sonnus (SSA 3 s. v. sonnustaa) < *sontus ’helma’. Komissa esiintyy sana suntola mm. ’vino’ (SSKD s. v. сунтола), joka komin kie­lessä vieraan ­nt-konsonanttiyhtymänsä tähden näyttää lainasanalta. Mahdollisesti tähän voisi liittyä myös mariI šund|aš ??< *sont- (liejusta, hiekasta, sumusta) ’painua’, ’laskeutua’ (SMJ 9 s. v. шунд|аш), mikä kylläkin semanttisesti on hiukan kaukaa haettua.

Topografialtaan kaarevia vesiä ovat ainakin jo edellä mainitut Suomen Suontee- järvet ja Karjalan Sundomozero.16 Myös Heinolan Sonnanen-järveä (?sonna- < *sonta-) voi pitää käyränä vetenä. Jokien kaarevuudesta on vaikea sanoa mitään, sillä lä­hes kaikki joet mutkittelevat enemmän tai vähemmän. Vologdan alueen *Sonduga- järven nykyinen muoto ei ole kaareva tai käyrä. Mikäli järven soistuneet rannat oli­vat nimeämisen tapahtuessa osa järveä, oli se aiemmin muodoltaan hyvinkin kaareva. Nimeämis perusteena ’käyrä, väärä’ on joka tapauksessa hyvin yleinen niin suomalai­sessa (Kiviniemi 1977, 1990: 184–185) kuin venäläisessäkin nimeämistraditiossa (ks. кривая-, кривое- ja кривой-nimet ’käyrä­’; GBO s. 337–338).

Kartta 16.Suont-, Sond­nimistö.

16. Suontienselkä on ”väärävesi”, mikäli mukaan luetaan siihen liittyvä Paasvesi.

LaatokkaSyväri

Onega

Dvina

Daugava

Dnepr

Volga

Volga

Oka

Vjatka

KamaBelaja

Kama

Olhava

Oka

Sura

Unža

Pietari

Vologda

Rjazan’

Kazan

Penza

Moskova

Komi

Mordva

Udmurtia

Novgorod

Pietari

Msta

Kljaz’ma

Sond-nimistö

Suontee

SuontienselkäSondal’skaja guba

Sundam-ozero

Sondol’skij

SondalSondalojaSondaljärv

Sondolovo

Sondolovo

Sondola;Verh. & Niž.

Sonduga

Sondužkoe oz.

Sondoba

Sondoga

Sonduška

Sondala

Sondala

Sonnanen

Laatokka

Ääninen

Suhona

Šeksna

Arkangelinalue

Page 171: south-eastern contact area of finnic languages in the light of onomastics

23virittäjä 1/2013

Rahkonen Suomen etymologisesti läpinäkymätöntä vesistönimistöä

Sond-hydronyymien levintä näyttää sellaiselta (kartta 16), että ne ovat ensisijaisesti peräisin Pohjois­Venäjän järviseudulla muinoin puhutusta substraattikielestä. Kysee­seen ei voi tulla Mullosen (2002: 228–290) esittämä ”parasaamelainen” kieli, koska Sond-nimistö ulottuu etelässä liian kauas aina Jaroslavlin ja Kostroman alueille asti ja koska saamesta ei löydy minkäänlaisia sanavastineita.17 Itämerensuomalainen lähtö­kohta ei sekään ole luultava, koska sana ka sonto, ly sonďištunnu, (Jusl 1745) sonnus esiintyvät kapea­alaisesti vain vanhassa kirjasuomessa, karjalassa ja lyydissä – ei siis nykymurteissa (ks. SSA 3 s. v. sonnustaa). Myöskään *sont(V)-nimistön levintä ei tue itämerensuomalaista lähtökohtaa.

4.6 Kemijoet

Karjala: Kemi ja Tširkka-Kemi.

Muualla Venäjällä: Kem’-ozero (PKOP40; MAG48), Kem|ka (ANO39V4/ATO36B2), Kema (AVO13G5), Kema (AVO66V2), Kema (AVO92V1), Kemas (WRG II 304: Shenkursk, Archangel’sk), Kemka (ALO79A5), Kemnica < ?*Kemna (AJO8A1), Ke-menka (WRG II 304: Peterhof, Petersburg).

Suomen Kemi mainitaan asiakirjalähteissä erilaisissa ortografisissa asuissa jo hyvin var­hain: Kijm vuonna 1386, Kym vuonna 1443, Kem sokn vuonna 1445, Kimi sokn vuonna 1490 (SPK s. v. Kemi). Nimi Kemi on useisiin vanhoihin karttoihin merkitty asuissa Chim vuonna 1579 ja vuonna 1595, Kimi noin vuosina 1662 ja 1772 (mp.). Sjögre n (1861: 104, 109) on merkinnyt muistiin sellaisia asuja kuin Kiemiträsk, Kiemielf ’Kemi järvi, ­joki’ ja saamelaisasuisen Kiimjauri/Kiimjaure ’Kemijärvi’ (Sjögren 1828: 65, 1861: 128). Pohjois­Venäjällä esiintyy suhteellisen runsaasti Kem(V)-vesistönimiä, pääasiassa jo­kia (kartta 17). Monet Kem(V)-joista ovat verrattain suuria: (Lapin) Kemijoki, (Vienan) Kemi ja Tširkka­Kemi, Valkeajärven Kema.

Kuten jo edellä totesin, on nimet Kemi ja Kemijoki johdettu satahämäläisestä murre­sanasta kemi mm. ’keto’ (SPK s. v. Kemi ja Kemijärvi lähteineen). Kyseisen nimi tyypin levintä jo yksinäänkin todistaa tätä selitysmallia vastaan ja tekee mahdottomaksi hy­väksyä sata­hämäläisen etymologisen lähtökohdan.

Kem(V)­nimistön taustalla saattaa olla kantasana, johon myös joennimi Kama pa­lautuu. Jotkut tutkijat ovat katsoneet sanojen udm kam, sm kymi ja komi Komi liittyvän yhteen (ks. Lytkin & Guljaev 1999: 132 lähteineen).18 Mikäli kanta permiläinen sana on ollut *kam, voi sen palauttaa suomalais­permiläisen kantakielen tasolla asuun *käme (Sammallahti 1988: 527–531). Ensitavun *ä ei äännehistoriallisesti voi olla > ims e. Sen sijaan varhaiskantasaamessa *ä > *e on mahdollinen (Korhonen 1981: 88). Kem(V)- nimistö kuitenkin on muinaisia saamelaisalueita eteläisempi (Saarikivi 2004b), eikä sanalle kemi löydy nykyisistä saamelaiskielistä vastineita, joten Kem(V)-nimistö lienee peräisin joltain x-kieliseltä väestöltä. Arkangelin alueella Dvinan vesistössä virtaa joki

17. Termi ”parasaamelainen” on lainattu seuraten Saarikiveä (2004b: 188–189).18. Komit mitä varmimmin saapuivat nykyisille asuinsijoilleen Kamalta.

Page 172: south-eastern contact area of finnic languages in the light of onomastics

24 virittäjä 1/2013

nimeltä Kjama [Кяма] ?< *Käme, joka voi sekin liittyä tähän yhteyteen. Arkangelin alueel la on nähtävästi puhuttu jotain tuntematonta arkaaista uralilaista kieltä (Saarikivi 2006: 56; Matveev 2004: 232–242), jossa sana *käme ’joki’ on saattanut esiintyä.

Kartta 17.Kem(V)-hydronyymit.

Olettaisin suomalaisen nimen Kymi olevan Kemi-nimen variantti lähinnä semant­tisista syistä. Myös Sirkka Paikkala (ks. SPK s. v. Kemijärvi) on viitannut tähän mah­dollisuuteen. On mahdollista, että itämerensuomalaisessa kieliympäristössä vokaalin *e y:llistyminen on johtunut vokaalin asemasta labiaalikonsonantin edellä, esimerkiksi balttilais lainoissa *kepta- > vksm küpte ’kypsä’, liet kepùre ~ sm kypärä (SSA 1 s. v. kypsä, s. v. kypärä). Koivulehto (1987: 36–37) on pitänyt mahdollisena, että Kymijoki on saa­nut nimensä germaanisesta originaalista suualueensa helppopääsyisen satamapaikan mukaan < kgerm *kwēmja- ’helppopääsyinen’. Tällainen nimeämisperuste suuren joen ollessa kyseessä on harvinainen. Joen ruotsinkielinen nimi Kymmene saattaa palautua suomenkieliseen genetiiviin Kymen-. Kymenvirta on virran nimi sen ylä juoksulla (SPK s. v. Kymijoki). Lahdessa (Nastolassa) sijaitseva Kymijärvi on nimestä päätellen katsottu muinoin joen lähdejärveksi. Vesiyhteys on kapea, mutta yhä olemassa. Tämä heiken­tää entisestään joen suualueen mukaan esitettyä etymologiaa. Johan Schalin (2012: 389–398) kylläkin katsoo ruotsinkielisen asun juontuvan sanasta Kymiminne ’Kyminsuu’. Tällöinkin nimikannaksi jää kuitenkin Kymi. Ensitavun etuvokaali saattaa siis varioida e ~y ~ i(i) ja jopa ~ie viitaten substraattikieliseen originaaliin.19

19. Osa eroavuuksista saattaa johtua vain varhaisten kirjurien horjuvasta tavasta merkitä muistiin epäruotsalaisia nimiä. Sjögrenin muistiinpanoja voi kuitenkin pitää ortografialtaan luotettavina.

LaatokkaSyväri

Suhona

Daugava

Dnepr

Volga

Volga

Oka

Vjatka

KamaBelaja

Kama

Olhava

Oka

Sura

Šeksna

Unža

Vetluga

Pietari

Vologda

Rjazan’

Kazan

Penza

Moskova

Karjalantasavalta

Mari-El

Mordva

Udmurtia

Novgorod

SUOMI

Pietari

Msta

Mologa

Kljaz’ma

Kemi

Kemi

Tširkka-Kemi

Kymi

Kemka

Kem’ozero

Kema

Kema

Kema

Kem(V)-hydronyymi

Kjama

Kemenka

Niûnij-Novgorod

Kemka

Kemnica

KemasÄäninen

OnegaDvina

Arkangelinalue

Page 173: south-eastern contact area of finnic languages in the light of onomastics

25virittäjä 1/2013

Rahkonen Suomen etymologisesti läpinäkymätöntä vesistönimistöä

4.7 Yhteenveto

Topografisin perustein voi väittää, että Suomen alueella muinoin asune(id)en x-kielis(t)en populaatio(ide)n kielessä tai kielissä on ollut Keski­ ja Pohjois­Venäjänkin nimistössä yleisesti esiintyvät maastoappellatiivit, jotka voidaan palauttaa suomalais­permiläisen kantakielen tasossa asuihin < *ukti ’kannas, taipale’ ja < *veksi tai *viksi ’välijoki’. Se, että edellä mainituista sanoista johdetuilla nimillä on useita erilaisia äänteellisiä variantteja, on vaikeasti selitettävissä siten, että variantit olisivat suomen tai saamen kielestä kadon­neita muinaissanoja – varsinkin, kun variantit muodostavat yhtenäisiä alueellisia ko­konaisuuksia (kartta 24). Äänteellinen vaihtelevuus voi näin ollen selittyä kantasanan myöhemmällä murteutumisella tai erilaisilla adaptaatioilla. Varianttien runsaus saat­taa viitata substraattilähtöisyyteen (Saarikivi 2006: 15; Salmons 1992: 267). Tietysti voi topografisesta yhtäläisyydestä huolimatta väittää, ettei kyseessä ole variointi vaan että taustalla on erimerkityksisiä sanoja. Mielestäni sellainen väite on lähinnä juuri topo­grafisista syistä kuitenkin tässä esitettyä selitystä heikommalla pohjalla.

Nimien levintä on erittäin epäitämerensuomalainen eikä ulotu Viroon tai Etelä­ tai Länsi­Suomen rannikkokaistalle. Kaakkoisilta osiltaan nämä nimityypit sijoittu­vat muinaismerjalaisille alueille eivätkä siis vastaa tähänastisen tutkimuksen olettamaa kantasaamenkaan puhuma­aluetta.

Suont-, Sond- sekä Kem(V)-nimillä on samanlainen levikki kuin edellä esitetyillä Uht-, Oht-, Vuoht- sekä Veks-, Vi(i)ks-, Vieks- ja Vääks-hydronyymeillä. Näin ollen on perusteltua olettaa niiden palautuvan samaan yhteiseen kieleen (tai sen murteisiin), josta ei ole jäänyt kielen muistomerkkejä mordvalaisalueille, Viroon eikä Suomen­lahden rannikkoalueille, mutta jolla on yhteisiä piirteitä merjalais­ ja muromalais­alueiden nimistön kanssa (ks. Rahkonen 2012: 19–21).

5  Järviä, joiden nimiin liittyy formantti -ari, ­äri, ­ere

Suomen alueella esiintyy joukko vanhoja järvennimiä, joita yhdistää formantti ­ari, -äri ja ­ere. Koska formantti liittyy järvien nimiin ja sen asu näyttää läheisesti muistut­tavan länsiuralilaisissa kielissä esiintyvää sanaa > mariI jer L jär, mdE eŕke M äRkä, li jāra, ims *järve, ksa *jāvrē (SSA 1 s. v. järvi) ’järvi’, voi sen taustalla olevan kielen olet­taa olleen länsiuralilainen.

Jokseenkin samanasuisia formantteja on kapealla alueella Ojatti­joen latvoilla: järvien nimet Särg|äŕ (MAG32), Rog|aŕ (MAG33,45), Vadž|aŕ (MAG34,35), Ahv|aŕ (MAG35,37), Kiľľ|aŕ (MAG35), Kops|aŕ (MAG35), Pik|äŕ (MAG35), Voukt|aŕ (MAG39), Voukt|ar (MAG37,43), Hit|aŕ, Süv|äŕ|järv, Pitk|äŕ, Ind|äŕ|järv, Kal|aŕ, Kuž|aŕ, Kuŕg|äŕ, Lept|äŕ, Mum|aŕ, Must|aŕ, Om|aŕ, Pad|aŕ, Čog|aŕ, Šat|aŕ, Tukš|aŕ (MAG43–47), Kek|äŕ|järv (MAG51), Kaid|aŕ (MAG53) Ašt|aŕ|järv (MAG61), Piťť|aŕ|järv (MAG85). Se, että vepsäläisalueen nimissä toisinaan liitetään sana -järv formantin ­aŕ/­äŕ jälkeen, viittaa siihen, etteivät vepsäläiset välttämättä aina ymmärtäneet formantin etymo­logista alkuperää. Siinä tapauksessa formantti voi olla varsinaista vepsäläisaikaa van­hempi, mutta nimikannoista päätellen kuitenkin itämerensuomalainen. Vastaavan­

Page 174: south-eastern contact area of finnic languages in the light of onomastics

26 virittäjä 1/2013

laisia asuja Suomessa on selitetty nimen kulumisella, esimerkiksi Kalm|ari < ?Kalma-järvi (SPK s. v. Kalmari) ja saamen ­jár- < jávrri (Aikio 2007: 173–174). Tosin Aikion esittämät saamelaisesimerkit ovat sellaisia, joissa ’järvi’­sana on nimen sisällä eikä perus osana, kuten hän itsekin toteaa.

Edellä esitettyjen Ojatin vesistössä esiintyvien hydronyymien nimikannoista suurin osa on johdettavissa itämerensuomesta, mutta jotkin saamen tapaisesta kielestä, kuten Vadž- < ksa *vōčō- ’herua’ (Lehtiranta 2001: 150) tai esisaame *waććo ’kapea suo’ (Aikio 2006: 12) ja Čog- < ksa *ćokke ’latva’ (Lehtiranta 2001: 24). Melko suuri osa näistä ni­mistä juontuu kuitenkin ilmeisen tuntemattomasta kielestä, kuten nimikannat Ind-, Mum-, Om-, Šat-, Tukš- ja Ašt-.

Tässä yhteydessä on syytä mainita, että useilla Lapin opaakeilla suurten vesien ni­millä on vastineita juuri Syvärin vesistöalueella:

Lappi: Inari ~ Inder|jaur [1593] vs. Syväri: Indärjärv (MAG44) Lappi: Teno < *Tänu vs. Syväri: Tänus (MAG56) Lappi: Muddusjävri vs. Syväri: Mundus (MAG7) Lappi: Veahcajávri < *Väcca- vs. Syväri: Vjač|ezero (MAG19), Vjačč|ezero (MAG27) Lappi: Paađaar vs. Syväri: Padaŕ (MAG45)

Tämä suo mahdollisuuden olettaa, että yleensäkin syväriläiset nimityypit ovat saatta­neet levitä Suomen alueelle aina Lappia myöten.

Seuraavassa tarkastelen joidenkin kirjallisuudessa melko usein käsiteltyjen -ari-, ­äri- ja -ere-loppuisten nimien etymologista, topografista ja levintään liittyvää taustaa (ks. SPK:n artikkeleita). Niitä ovat Inari, Ähtäri, Koitere, Syväri. Olen esitellyt nimi­tyyppien maantieteellisen sijainnin, varhaisemman tutkimuksen tuloksia sekä perus­tellut omia johtopäätöksiäni tarkastellen sekä nimikantoja että formantteja erikseen.

5.1 In|ari

Variantteja: saI Aanaar, saP Anár, ru Enare, vanhat dokumentit Inderiaur v. 1593, Indiager v. 1729 (SPK 99), Indiager eller Enara Träsk (Hällström 2005 [1799]).

Samuli Aikio (SPK s. v. Inari) katsoo aivan perustellusti, että nimi Inari periytyy jos­tain tuntemattomasta muinaiskielestä. On erittäin tärkeää huomioida vanhojen lähtei­den nykynimestä poikkeavat variantit: vuonna 1593 Ind|er|iaur ja vielä niinkin myö­hään kuin vuosina 1729 ja 1799 Ind|iager (SPK s. v. Inari; Hällström 2005 [1799]).

Formantit -iaur < sa *jauri ja ­iager; vrt. merja *jäγra/ä (Ahlqvist 2006: 12; Rah­konen 2011: 239–241) ovat huomionarvoisia. Suomenkielisessä nimessä In|ari ei jälki­komponentti -ari välttämättä juonnu saamen sanasta jauri, koska variantin Ind|er|iaur sekä ­er­ että ­iaur-komponenteilla on ilmeisesti sama merkitys ’järvi’.20 Tuskin saame­laiset inarilaiset olisivat toistaneet samassa nimessä kahta kertaa peräkkäin samaa saa­melaista sanaa. Sen sijaan näyttää siltä, että komponentit -er- ja ­iager- palautuvat yhtei­

20. Hyvin mahdollisesti kirjurien merkitsemä -er- ääntyi reaalikielessä -är-.

Page 175: south-eastern contact area of finnic languages in the light of onomastics

27virittäjä 1/2013

Rahkonen Suomen etymologisesti läpinäkymätöntä vesistönimistöä

seen originaaliin. Variantti -er- vastannee nimen nykysaamelaisia jälki komponentteja -ár ja ­aar (saP An|ár ja saI Aan|aar). Syvärin vesistöalueella ja Vologdan alueella esiin­tyy nimien määriteosa jagr(V) (< *jäγrä), jonka muun muassa Mullonen (2002: 244–245), Matveev (2001) ja Saarikivi (2006: 35, alaviite 37) ovat tulkinneet merkitykseltään ’järvi’­sanaksi.21 Indiager-variantin jälkikomponentilla ­iager ’järvi’ on siis runsaasti vas­tineita Syvärin vesistöalueella ja Vologdan alueella (kartta 18).

Kartta 18.Ind­ ja Jagr-hydronyymit Syvärin–Suhonan alueella.

Formantin lisäksi myös nimikannalla ind- on useampia vastineita Syväri–Suhona­ alueelta: Ojatin latvoilla Sondaljoen reitillä Ind|äŕ ~ Ind|äŕ|järv ~ Индярьозеро (MAG44) ja Šokšan reitillä Indaz|järv (MAG56), Vologdan alueella Suhonan vesis­tössä Sokol’skin piirissä joki nimeltä Inda|sar’ (AVO60V3), Valkeajärven pohjois­puolella Indoma|nka (AVO13G6). Matveev (2001: 252) mainitsee pohjoisvenäläisen joen nimen Ind|iga. Karjalan tasavallassa Suojärven piirissä esiintyy nimi Inda|lammed (NA). Mahdollisesti nimi Inari on siis kehittynyt nykymuotoonsa alkuperäisestä asus­taan *Indjäγ(ə)r ~ (vanhoissa dokumenteissa) Indiager kantasaamelaisen adaptaation kautta, jonka tuloksena ovat asut saI Aanaar ~ saP Anár ~ sm Inari.22 Nimikannan taustalla oleva sana *ind(V)- ei juonnu tunnetuista nykykielistä.

21. Vrt. nimet Jagra (MAG4), Jagro|ručej ~ Jagreẻj (MAG6), Jagrema (MAG59), Jagra ~ Jagr|ozero (MAG102), Jagrema (AVO13A7), Jagryš (AVO26G2), Jagryš|skoe boloto (AVO36A1) (suolla on lukuisia pie-niä järviä), Jagryš (AVO46G3) (joki virtaa järven läpi), Jagryš (AVO46B3), Jagryš (AVO56B2) (joki lähtee järvestä), Jagryš (AVO66A3).

22. Nimen inarinsaamelainen asu Aanaar tuntuisi edellyttävän kantasaamen originaalia *E ẻne ẻr, kun taas pohjoissaamen Anár < *E ẻnēr. Horjuvuus liittynee nimen adaptaatioon jostain substraattikielestä.

Laatokka

Suhona

Daugava

Dnepr

Volga

Volga

Oka

Vjatka

KamaBelaja

Kama

Oka

Sura

Un˛a

Vetluga

Pietari

Vologda

Rjazan’

Kazan

Penza

Moskova

Ni˛nij-Novgorod

Karjalantasavalta

Komi

Mari-El

Mordva

Udmurtia

Novgorod

SUOMI

VIRO

St. Petersburg

Msta

Mologa

Kljaz’ma

Ind-Jagr-

Ääninen

Šeksna

Syväri

OnegaDvina

Vytšegda

Olhava

Arkangelinobl.

Page 176: south-eastern contact area of finnic languages in the light of onomastics

28 virittäjä 1/2013

5.2 Äht|äri < *Ätsäri

Ähtärinjärvi on geologisesti yksi Suomen mielenkiintoisimmista. Sen vedet ovat alun perin laskeneet Ähtävänjokea < *Ätsävä myöten Pohjanlahteen. Geologien arvion mu­kaan Inhanjoen synnyttyä vanhalla vedenjakajalla noin 3 200 vuotta sitten (kartta 19) alkoi niin sanottu bifurkaatiovaihe, jolloin vedet laskivat kahteen suuntaan, Kokemäen­joen vesistöön ja Ähtäväjokeen. Yhteys Ähtävänjokeen katkesi noin 1 500 vuotta sitten (n. 500 jKr.). Nykyinen vedenjakaja on suurin piirtein Livonlähteen kohdalla (kartta 19). (Seppä & Tikkanen 2006: 89–92.)

Kartta 19.Ähtärinjärvi.

Nimet *Ätsävä (joki) ja *Ätsäri (järvi) viittaavat muinaiseen latvajärvi­ tai laskuvesi­suhteeseen (Vilkuna 1951; SPK s. v. Ähtävä lähteineen). Näin epäilemättä onkin. Siinä tapauksessa nimet on annettu vähintään yli 1 500 vuotta sitten ennen vesiyhteyden kat­keamista, jolloin nimikanta *ätsä saattaa olla jopa 2 000 vuotta vanha tai sitäkin van­hempi.

Nimikannan *ätsä- etymologia on vaikeasti selitettävissä (SPK s. v. Ähtäri, Ähtävä). Viljo Nissilä (1960: 331–334) on esittänyt, että nimi voisi juontua saP ahcit ’tulvia’ vas­taavasta sanasta. Tämä ei kuitenkaan näytä ensitavun a:n tähden äänteellisesti moit­teettomalta ratkaisulta, koska äännehistoriallisesti nykysaamen a palautuu < *e - < *i-. Äts-nimi on mitä luultavimmin vähintään kantasaamen aikainen (ks. edellä), joten ni­men ensi tavun vokaali ä ei voi olla kantasaamen vokaalin *e (tai sitä varhaisemman *i) vastine. *Ätsäri dokumentoituna nimenä on hyvin vanha, nimen etymologia on hä­

Latojoki

Livonlähde

Ähtärin-järvi

Hankavesi

Inhan-joki

Oulu-vesi

Peränne

Poikki-joki

Page 177: south-eastern contact area of finnic languages in the light of onomastics

29virittäjä 1/2013

Rahkonen Suomen etymologisesti läpinäkymätöntä vesistönimistöä

märä ja geologiset seikat viittaavat järven nimen *Ätsäri ja joen nimen *Ätsävä keski­näiseen yhteyteen ennen vesiyhteyden katkeamista (n. 500 jKr.). Näistä syistä on pe­rusteltua ottaa huomioon mahdollisuus, että nimikanta *ätsä- saattaa juontua jostain tuntemattomasta esihistoriallisesta muinaiskielestä. Topo grafian kannalta nimi voisi liittyä kannaksiin, mutta mitään todistetta tai rinnakkais tapauksia ei voi esittää, ellei sellaiseksi ota Kyyjärven Ähtyrinpuroa, joka virtaa kahden laajahkon suon välitse. Suot ovat saattaneet olla nimen antamisen aikaan matalia järviä.

Järven nimen -äri-jälkikomponentin on katsottu syntyneen nimen kulumisen seu­rauksena asusta *Ätsäjärvi (SPK s. v. Ähtäri). Kuitenkin esimerkiksi nimen asu Etz|eri Jerfwi vuodelta 1650 (mp.) tuntuisi viittaavan siihen, että perusosa -järvi ei ollut ku­lunut nimessä Ätsäri eikä -äri-komponentin merkitystä ole tunnistettu sanaksi järvi. Näin ollen on hyvinkin mahdollista, että nimen loppuosa ­äri on paljon vanhempaa perua (vrt. varhaiset asiakirjanimet Edzör v. 1582, Edzärö v. 1613; mp. lähteineen).

Ähtävän ruotsinkielisessä nimessä Esse esiintyvä konsonanttiyhtymä -ss- lienee pe­räisin suomalaisesta substraatista (SPK s. v. Ähtävä), joka vastaa lähistöllä puhutta­vaa Vetelin–Kaustisen murretta, jossa muun muassa metsä ~ messä, itse ~ isse, vitsa ~ vissa, vrt. paikannimi Vissavesi [Kaustinen] (GT2000: 107), karissa ’karitsa’ [Kausti­nen, Veteli] (ALFE 3 s. v. karitsa). Pietarsaaren seudulla Ähtävänjoen varsilla esiintyy ruotsinkielinen nimi Edsev|ö < *Ätsävä|saari, mikä osaltaan näyttäisi todistavan joen nimen vanhemmasta asusta *Ätsävä.

5.3 Koit|ere

Suomessa: Koita (joki) (GT2000: 102–103), Koitter|järvi (GT2000: 60D1) [Savon­linna], Koitelinkoski [Kiiminki], Koitamanniemi [Orivesi], Koiti|järvi, -joki [Taival­koski] (NA).

Mahdollisia vastineita Venäjällä: Koiton|jarvi ~ Koitajärvi (TKRK91), ?Kojk a (AJO75), ?Kojca (AKO31A2), ?Kojka (AKO173B2), ?Kojka (ATO65B4), ?Koj (AVO56B3), ?Koja|ra (GBO129).

Koska joen nimi on Koita, voi olettaa, että järvien Koit|ere (GT2000: 102D2) ja Koitt|er -er(e)- jälkikomponentti palautuu johonkin ’järvi’­sanaan. Käsitellessään Koit-nimistöä SPK:n (s. v. Koitijärvi, s. v. Koitelinkoski) kirjoittajat esittävät täysin perusteitta arvelun näiden nimien saamelaisperäisyydestä. Saarikivi (2006: 43) mainitsee, että Arkangelin aluee n Pinegan seudulla esiintyy venäjän murresana койдома [kojdoma] ’kulku­kelpoinen suoalue’, vrt. Oriveden Koitamanniemi (NA). Saarikivi on verrannut sitä itämeren suomen sanaan keidas < germ skaiδaz. Topografisesti tämä selitys ei semant­tisista syistä päde edellä esitettyihin Koit(V)-nimiin.

Page 178: south-eastern contact area of finnic languages in the light of onomastics

30 virittäjä 1/2013

Kartta 20.Koitijärvi (Taivalkoski).

Kartta 21.Koitajoki ja Koitere (Ilomantsi).

Kostonjoki

Kutinjoki

KoitijärviKoitijoki

Kostonjoki

Koitajoki

Koitajoki

Nuora-järvi

Koitere

Page 179: south-eastern contact area of finnic languages in the light of onomastics

31virittäjä 1/2013

Rahkonen Suomen etymologisesti läpinäkymätöntä vesistönimistöä

Kartta 22. Kartta 23.Koitter-nimipesye (Savonlinna).        Koiteli-saari Koitelinkoskessa                (Kiiminki).

Periaatteessa kyseessä ehkä voisi olla kantasaamen aikainen, nykysaamesta ka­donnut, mahdollisesti itämerensuomen kautta eteläsaamelaisiin kieliin saatu vanha germaani laina: kgerm *gaiđō- > ims *kaita (SSA 1 s. v. kaita) ?> ksa *kōjtē; vrt. sm kaima ~ ksa kōjmē (Lehtiranta 2001: 60). Koitelinkoskessa esiintyy pitkän ja kapean saaren nimi Koiteli (kartta 23). Koitterjärven (kartta 22) tapauksessa vesiyhteys on katkennut, mutta on ilmiselvästi aiemmin muodostanut pitkän ja kapean reitin ny­kyisten (lännessä) Koitterlahden ja Koitterjärven välillä sekä (idässä) Koittervuoren vieressä, missä yhä on jonkinlainen oja. ’Kaita’­etymologia sopii topografisesti kaik­kiin edellä esitettyihin nimiin: Koitijärvi on pitkä ja kapea (kartta 20), ja Koitereen eteläinen lahti, jonka läpi Koita­joki virtaa, on samaten pitkä ja kapea (kartta 21). Koitterjärven muinainen sivureitti on ollut kapeikko, ja Koiteli on hyvin kapea ja pitkä saari.

5.4 Syväri [Nilsiä]

Suomessa: Syvärinen [Äänekoski], Syväri [Joensuu], Syväri [Leppävuori], Syväri; Iso-, Pieni [Soini], Syväri [Sulkava/Juva], Syväri & Pikkusyväri [Lestijärvi] (NA).

Vastineita Venäjällä: Svir’~Syväri (MAG1), Süväŕ (MAG34), Süväŕ ~ Glubokoe ozero (MAG44), Sivozero ~ Sivärgod (MAG41).

Yleensä on ajateltu, että Syväri palautuu asuun < *Syväjärvi johtuen järven syvyydestä (SPK s. v. Syväri). Näin ei kuitenkaan ilmeisesti ole. Ensinnäkin muutamat Suomen Syväri-järvet ovat suorastaan melko matalia. Toiseksi tunnetuin Syväri, joka yhdistää Laatokan ja Äänisen, ei edes ole järvi, vaan joki.

Näyttäisi siltä, että syväri on ollut maastoappellatiivi, joka ei kuvaa veden sy­vyyttä, vaan vedenkokouman ja sen vieressä sijaitsevan maankohouman välistä huo­

Kuivinselkä

Koitterjärvi

Koitterlahti

Koittervuori

KoitterniemiKoitelin-koski Koiteli

Kiiminkijoki

Page 180: south-eastern contact area of finnic languages in the light of onomastics

32 virittäjä 1/2013

mattavaa korkeuseroa. Kaikki Suomen Syvärit näyttävät olevan sellaisia23: Nilsiän Syväri(järven) vieressä on nykyisin laskettelurinteenä toimiva Tahkomäki, joka ko­hoaa toistasataa metriä järven vedenpinnan yläpuolelle. Äänekosken Syvärinen si­jaitsee Syvärinmäen kupeessa. Korkeuseroa on yli 60 metriä. Joensuun Syväri sijait­see noin 50 metriä viereistä Syvärinmäkeä alempana, samoin Leppävirran Syväri, jonka kupeessa Syvärinvuori kohoaa yli 50 metriä ylemmäksi. Sulkavan ja Juvan ra­jalla Hakulisenvuori nousee 50 metriä korkeammalle kuin viereinen Syväri. Lesti­järven Syväri on noin 10 metriä syvä suppa, jonka pohjalla on vettä. Kyseessä on siis (järven, joen, supan) vedenpinnan poikkeuksellisen suuri korkeusero verrattuna ym­päröivään maastoon. Eräissä uralilaisissa kielissä on sanoja, jotka merkitsevät sekä korkeaa että syvää, mikä on tavallista monissa muissakin kielissä, muun muassa md seŕej~seŕev~seŕeŋ (MW 4 s. v. seŕ), komi džudžid (SSKD s. v. джуджыд). Tämä vah­vistaa edellä esitetyn semanttisen merkityksen mahdollisuutta. Syväri-vesien -äri-pääte ei näin ollen palaudu järveä merkitsevään sanaan, vaan kyseessä on johdin -ri, siis ims sana syvä + johdin -ri.

5.5 Yhteenveto

Näyttäisi siltä, että *-(V)ri-formantti liittyy Suomen alueella joihinkin opaakkeihin asiakirjojenkin mukaan vanhoihin (Inari 1556, 1593, Ähtäri 1582, Koitere 1500; ks. SPK) suurten järvien nimiin. Joennimet Ähtävä ja Koita viittaavat siihen, että formantti *­(V)ri liittyy nimenomaan järviin. Koska varsinkin nimikannat *in(d)- ja *ätsä ovat etymologisesti vaikeasti selitettäviä ja ilmeisesti hyvin vanhoja, voi niiden olettaa pe­riytyvän sanastosta, joka ei ainakaan suoraan ole johdettavissa nykykielistä. Formantti kuitenkin on uralilaista perua.

Nimen Inari variantilla Inder|jaur on ilmeisiä vastineita Syvärin vesistöalueella ja Vologdan alueen länsiosissa niin kuin monilla muillakin Lapin suurten vesien nimillä. Tämä ansaitsisi tarkempaa tutkimusta, mikä ei tässä ole mahdollista. Nimistöllistä yh­teyttä voisi selittää hyvin vanha Lapin eränkäynti, jota olisivat harjoittaneet Syvärin seudun ja Pohjois­Venäjän järviseudun muinaiset asukkaat jo ennen Lapin saamelais­tumista.

Edellä esitettyjen lisäksi on sellaisia -ari-päätteisiä järvennimiä kuin Hot|ari [Kitee], Iso- ja Pieni-Viht|ari [Heinävesi], Itt|ari [Joutsa], Kot|ari|järvi [Orivesi], Kiv|ari|järvi [Pudasjärvi], Kiv|ari|njärvi [Puolanka] (NA). Jotkin näistä ovat pienehköjä järviä. Heinä veden Vihtari­järvet, Puolangan Kivarinjärvi ja Pudasjärven Kivarijärvi ovat melko suuria. Räisänen (2007, SPK s. v. Kivarinjärvi) on johtanut Kivarinjärven sa­nasta kiva ’kova’, ’luja’ + johdin ­ri samalla tapaa kuin yllä esittämäni Syväri. Tämä se­litys pätee johtimen osalta varmasti useisiin -(V)ri-päätteisiin järviin.

23. Korkeuserot on laskettu karttojen korkeuskäyristä.

Page 181: south-eastern contact area of finnic languages in the light of onomastics

33virittäjä 1/2013

Rahkonen Suomen etymologisesti läpinäkymätöntä vesistönimistöä

6 Päätelmät

Lopuksi voi sanoa, että useitten edellä esitettyjen nimien motivaatiot on helppo todeta, mutta niiden kielellinen tulkinta on huomattavasti hankalampaa. Joitain edellä esite­tyistä nimistä voi topografisen säännönmukaisuutensa ja luontevan kanta kieleen pa­lautumisensa tähden pitää etymologisesti ratkaistuina: Uht-, Oht-, V(u)oht-nimet ’tai­pale, vetokannas’ sekä Vieksi-, Viiksi- ja ehkä Vääksy-nimet ’välijoki’. Joillekin nimi­kannoille taas löytyy varsin mahdollinen, mutta ei täysin varma etymologia: Kemi- ?< *käme ’joki, virta’, Sond- ?< *sonta ’käyrä’. Edellä tutkittu nimiaineisto sisältää etymo­logisesti myös hyvin epävarmoja nimiä, kuten Inari ~ Indiager, *Ätsäri ja Koitere. Kanta sanoihin *ukti, *veksi/*viksi, *sonta ja (kemi <) ?*käme palautuvien nimien le­vikki on keskenään hyvin samankaltainen (kartta 24). Nimien taustalla esiintyvät sanat ovat tästä syystä oletettavasti peräisin samasta kielestä tai sen eri murteista. Variantit voi selittää joko erilaisina adaptaatioina tai alkuaankin eri murteisiin kuuluneina sa­noina.

Tässä artikkelissa esitetyistä nimistä paleoeurooppalaisia nimikantoja voisivat olla Äts- ja Ind-, koska niille ei löydy minkäänlaista uralilaisiin kieliin perustuvaa etymo­logiaa. Tällöin näiden nimikantojen yhteydessä esiintyvä ­(V)ri-formantti < ’järvi’ voisi olla myöhempää uralilaista perua.

Tuntemattomiin uralilaisiin kielimuotoihin taas perustunevat kannaksiin liittyvät Uht-, Oht-, Vuoht-nimet, välijokiin liittyvät Vieks-, Viiks- ja mahdollisesti Vääks- nimet sekä Kemi- ja S(u)ont-nimet. Näiden nimien taustalla esiintyvät sanat *viksi/*veksi ja mahdollisena esittämäni *käme palautuvat suomalais­permiläiseen kantakieleen sekä *ukti aina kantauraliin. Ne ovat siis vanhoja uralilaiskieliin liittyviä perintösanoja, joita nimistön levinnän pohjalta arvioiden ei ole enää esiintynyt myöhäis kantasuomessa, kantamordvassa eikä kantasaamessa, mutta kylläkin merjalaiskielissä ja pohjoisissa x-kielissä (Rahkonen 2012: 20, kartta 2).

Edellä esitettyjen nimien voisi tietysti periaatteessa ajatella perustuvan itämeren­suomesta tai saamesta kadonneeseen sanastoon. Kun ottaa huomioon suurimpien jär­vien etymologisesti opaakkien nimien suuren määrän, noin 25 prosenttia, tuntuu vai­kealta hyväksyä lukumääräisesti näin suureen kadonneeseen suomalaiseen tai saame­laiseen sanastoon perustuva selitysmalli. Sen sijaan oletettavampaa on, että taustalla on jokin tuntematon kieli tai joukko lähisukukieliä tai niiden murteita.

Esitetyn nimistön levintä (kartta 24) ei sekään tue lainkaan itämerensuomalaista lähtö kohtaa, koska näitä nimiä ei esiinny Suomen niin sanotun rannikkokulttuurin eikä Viron alueella, jonne myöhäiskantasuomea puhunut väestö perinteisesti on sijoi­tettu (Itkonen 1980; Kallio 2006: 18, 2009: 40–42). Lisäksi esiintyy äänteellisiä vaikeuk­sia, esimerkiksi kantauralin *ukti > ims oht­ tai vuoht­ ei ole mahdollinen. Kanta­saamelainen lähtökohta olisi areaalisesti vain osittain mahdollinen eikä foneettisesti tai leksikaalisestikaan ongelmaton. Esimerkiksi kantauralin *ukti ei ensitavun vokaa­linsa tähden voi edustua saamessa asussa uht(V). Kantasaamelaisen ensitavun vokaalin pitäisi olla <o> (ksa *okte ). Saamelaishypoteesi on epätodennäköinen myös kaikkialla säännöllisesti esiintyvän konsonattiyhtymänsä ­ht­ tähden (Uht­, Oht­, V(u)oht­), vaikka ottaisi huo mioon Sisä­Suomen kadonneiden saamelaiskielten toden näköisen

Page 182: south-eastern contact area of finnic languages in the light of onomastics

34 virittäjä 1/2013

fono logisen ja leksikaalisen monimuotoisuudenkin (Aikio 2009; Saarikivi 2004b) tai itämeren suomalaisen adaptaation. Missään nykyään tunnetussa saamelaiskielessä ei esiinny kantasanoihin*ukti, *veksi/*viksi, *käme, *sonta palautuvia sanoja. Näin ol­len näiden nimien taustalla oleva sanasto näyttää kadonneen jo ennen suomen, saa­men ja mordvankin erilliskehitystä.24 Sen sijaan on luultavampaa, että sanat säilyivät kauem min olettamassani x­kielessä (tai ­kielissä) ja merjalaiskielissä. Melko laajasti säilynyt edellä esitetty nimistö tuskin on kokonaisuudessaan niin vanhaa, että olisi pe­räisin suomalais­ permiläisen kantakielen ajoilta asti. Tällöin nimien iäksi tulisi pe­räti 3 000–4 000 vuotta riippuen kantakielten ikäämisestä. Koit(V)­nimikannan taus­talla oleva sana saattaa olla itämerensuomesta kantasaamen eteläisiin murteisiin tullut germaani peräinen laina.

Edellä esitettyjen nimien yhteinen levikki vastaa pitkälti tekstiilikeramiikan (Suo­messa 1900–800 eKr.) levintäaluetta Suomessa ja Pohjois­Venäjällä (Carpelan & Par­pola 2001: 89, kartta 21). Jo von Hertzen (1973: 80–82) nojautuen eri arkeologien nä­kemyksiin viittasi siihen mahdollisuuteen, että juuri tekstiilikeraamikot uralilaistivat Itämeren alueen. Tämä on epäuskottavaa, koska tekstiilikeramiikka levisi vain Sisä­ Suomeen ja Karjalaan. Myöhemmin esimerkiksi Carpelan on useissakin yhteyksissä katsonut tekstiilikeramiikan leviämisen luoteeseen kohti Karjalaa ja Suomea mer­kinneen jonkinasteista väestöliikettä, mutta siten, että alkuperäisväestö säilyi (mm. Carpelan 1998: 82; Carpelan & Parpola 2001: 88–89). Muutoinkin on todettava, että von Hertzenin artikkelin kirjoittamisen jälkeen on kertynyt paljon uutta tekstiili­keramiikkaa koskevaa tietoa (esim. Lavento 2001).

Tekstiilikeramiikka syntyi Okan–Ylä­Volgan alueella vanhan nuorakeraamisen kulttuurin pohjalta (Venäjällä Fatjanovon kulttuuri n. 2500–1900 eKr.) ja osaltaan Pozdnjako von kulttuurin vaikutuksesta noin 1900 eKr. (mm. Carpelan 1999: 268). Tekstiilikeramiikka ei suinkaan ollut mikään täysin yhtenäinen kokonaisuus, sillä sen sisällä esiintyi monia alaryhmiä jo pelkästään Suomen ja Karjalan alueilla (ks. Lavento 2001: 165–167, 185). Keski­Venäjältä levinnyt tekstiilipainanteinen keramiikka Suo­messa ja Karjalassa oli kuitenkin uusi innovaatio muun muassa siinä mielessä, että siinä sideaine yleensä oli orgaanista perua syrjäyttäen pitkälti aiemmin käytetyn as­bestin (mts. 50–51). Tätä voi pitää teknisenä huononnuksena, mikä saattaa epä suorasti tukea ajatusta migraatiosta, koska voisi olettaa, ettei alkuperäisväestö olisi vaihtanut huono laatuisempaan keramiikkaan. Asbesti säilyttikin osittain asemansa sideaineena ja viittaa alkuperäisväestön säilymiseen alueella (Carpelan & Parpola 2001: 89; La­vento 2001: 167). Asbestin käyttö nousi uuteen kukoistukseen varhaisella rautakaudella Luukon saaren ja Sirnihtan keramiikassa (Lavento 2001: 116).

Tulkitsisin nimistöaineistoa hypoteettisesti siten, että länsiuralilaisen kielen25 poh­joista murretta puhuneet tekstiilikeraamikot alkoivat rautakaudelle tultaessa Suo­men ja Karjalan alueella eriytyä kielellisesti toisaalta kantasaamelaiseksi ja toisaalta

24. Näihin muinaissanoihin perustuvaa nimistöä ei esiinny myöskään muinaisilla mordvalaisalueilla (ks. Rahkonen 2012: 19–20, kartta 2).

25. Länsiuralilaisella kielellä tarkoitan jokseenkin samaa kuin perinteinen ilmaus suomalais­ mordvalainen kantakieli.

Page 183: south-eastern contact area of finnic languages in the light of onomastics

35virittäjä 1/2013

Rahkonen Suomen etymologisesti läpinäkymätöntä vesistönimistöä

x­ kieliseksi ryhmäksi tai luultavammin eri murteisiin perustuviksi ryhmiksi. Kanta­saamella oli enemmän yhteistä sen kantasuomalaisen kielimuodon kanssa, josta syntyi sittemmin itämerensuomi (Sammallahti 1999: 70). Sillä oli lisäksi germaani­kontakteja (Aikio 2006). Sen sijaan x­kielellä (­kielillä), jolla saattoi olla useampia tytärkieliä, oli enemmän yhteyttä Rybinskin–Kostroman Volgalle (merjalaisalueille) ja etenkin Venäjän pohjoiselle järvialueelle. Suomen alueella esiintyvällä x­kielisellä nimistöllä onkin erittäin vahva edustus juuri Syvärin ja Suhonan välisellä alueella (kartta 24).

Kartta 24.Tuntemattomaan uralilaiseen kieleen perustuvaa nimistöä ja etnografinen tilanne ensim-mäisellä tuhatluvulla eKr. sekä kantasaamen leviämisen suunnat.

Helsinki St.Petersburg Vologda

Arkangel

Kem(V), KymiInd-Uht-, Oht-, Voht-Veks-, Vieks-, Viiks-, Vääks-Sond-, Suont-, Sund-kantasaamen leviämissuunnat

Kanta-suoma-laisia

Kanta-saamelaisia?

X-kielistä uralilaista väestöä

Paleo-eurooppalaistaväestöä

Kanta-suoma-laisia ja germaa- neja

X-kielen

ydinalue

Page 184: south-eastern contact area of finnic languages in the light of onomastics

36 virittäjä 1/2013

Kartta 25.Tekstiilikeramiikan levintä Carpelanin ja Parpolan (2001: 89) mukaan.

Itkosen (1997), Kallion (tulossa 2013) ja Saarikiven (2011) näkemyksiin yhtyen en usko, että varsinaista suomalais­saamelaista kantakieltä reaalisesti puhuttuna kielenä koskaan oli olemassa. Heidän esittämiinsä argumentteihin voi vielä lisätä, että esi­merkiksi merjalla ja saamella oli joitain sellaisia yhteisiä piirteitä, joilla ei ole vasti­neita itämeren suomessa. Merjalaisalueiden nimistön pohjalta voi rekonstruoida muun muas sa sanan alkuisen *a:n vo:llistumisen, esimerkiksi merja *volo­ vs. ksa *vōlē ’ala­’, merja *vondo­ vs. ksa *vōmtē­ ’antaa’ tai ’järvi’­sanan palautuminen itämerensuomesta poiketen kanta sanaan *jäkrä > ksa *jāvrē, merja *jäγra/ä (Saarikivi 2004a: 216; Rah­konen 2009: 170–172, 2011: 241, 2012: 19–20, 23). Länsiuralilaisten kielten historian ym­märtämiseksi merjalaiskielten tuntemisen merkitys on suuri.26 Tähän myös Itkonen (1997: 255) viittaa. Olettaisin mieluummin uralilaisten kielten läntisen haaran hajau­tuneen vähitellen murteutumisen ja ulkoisten keskenään erilaisten kontaktien kautta suoraan niiksi kanta kieliksi, joista polveutuvat mordva, itämerensuomi, saame, merja ja sellaiset meille tuntemattomat ryhmät, joita ovat olleet muun muassa novgorodi­laiset tšuudit (Rahkonen 2011) sekä edellä esitetty pohjoinen länsiuralilainen x­kielinen ryhmä tai ryhmät.

26. Merjalaiskieliin kuuluivat itse merjan lisäksi muroma, niin sanottu ”itä-tšuudi” ja pohjoisen järvi-seudun kieli (ks. Rahkonen 2012: 19–27, 38, 2011: 254–255).

Volga

Volga

Oka

Oka

Olhava

tekstiilikeramiikanalue(n. 1900–800 eKr).

Väinäjoki

Laatokka

Ääninen

Suhona

Vienanjoki

Onega

Pietari

Moskova

Helsinki

Page 185: south-eastern contact area of finnic languages in the light of onomastics

37virittäjä 1/2013

Rahkonen Suomen etymologisesti läpinäkymätöntä vesistönimistöä

Kartat

AJO = Атлас Ярославской области. 1:100 000. Москва: Роскартография 2002.AKO = Атлас Костромской области. 1:100 000. Тверь: Роскартография 2009.ALO = Атлас Ленинградская овласть. 1:200 000. Санкт­Петербург: ФГУП

«Аэрогеодезия » 2005. ANO = Атлас. Новгородская область. 1:200 000. Новгород: ФГУП Новгородское

Аэрогеодезическое Предприятие 2006.ATO = Атлас Тверской области. 1:100 000. Москва: Роскартография 2005.AVO = Атлас Вологодская область. 1:200 000. СТ. Петербург: ФГУП «Аэрогеодезия»

2008.GT2000 = GT Tiekartasto 2000. 1:200 000, 1:400 000. Helsinki: Karttakeskus 2000.GUGK/Onega = ГУГК СССР Онега. 1:500 000. Ленинград: ГУГК 1990.GUGK/Kotlas = ГУГК СССР Котлас. 1:1 000 000. Ленинград: ГУГК 1990. TKRK = Топографическая карта. Республика Карелия. 1:200 000. Санкт­Петербург: ВТУ

ГШ 1997.WRG = Vasmer, Max 1961–69. Wörterbuch der Russischen gewässernamen I–V. Berlin:

Nachtrag.

Lähteet

Ahlqvist = Альквист, Арья 2001: Субстратная топонимия Ярославского Повол­жья. Очерки исторической географии северо­запад России. – А. С. Герд & Г. С. Лебедев (toim.), Славяне и финны s. 436–467. Санкт Петербург: Издательство С. Петербургског о университета. 2006: Ancient lakes in the former Finno­Ugrian territories of Central Russia. An experi­mental onomastic. Paleogeographical study. – Juhani Nuorluoto (toim.), The slavicization of the Russian North s. 11–49. Slavica Helsingensia 27. Helsinki: Department of Slavonic and Baltic Languages and Literatures at Helsinki University.

Aikio, Ante 2004: An essay on substrate studies and the origin of Saami. – Irma Hyvärinen, Petri Kallio & Jarmo Korhonen (toim.), Etymologie, Entlehnungen und Entwicklungen. Festschrift für Jorma Koivulehto zum 70. Geburtstag s. 5–34. Mémoires de la Société Néophilologique de Helsinki 63. Helsinki: Société Néophilologique. 2006: On Germanic­Saami contacts and Saami prehistory. – Suomalais-Ugrilaisen Seuran Aikakauskirja 91 s. 9–55. 2007: The study of Saami substrate toponyms in Finland. – Onomastica Uralica 4 s. 157–197.2009: The Saami loanwords in Finnish and Karelian. Oulu: [A. Aikio]. cc.oulu.fi/~anaikio/slw.pdf.2012: On Finnic long vowels, Samoyed vowel sequences, and Proto­Uralic *x. – Tiina Hyytiäinen, Lotta Jalava, Janne Saarikivi & Erika Sandman (toim.), Per Urales ad Orien-tem. Iter polyphonicum multilingue s. 227–250. Suomalais­Ugrilaisen Seuran Toimituksia 264. Helsinki: Suomalais­Ugrilainen Seura.

Aikio, Ante – Aikio, Aslak 2001: Heimovaelluksista asutusjatkuvuuteen. Suomalaisen väestöhistorian tutkimuksen pirstoutuminen. – Muinaistutkija 4/2001 s. 2–21.

Page 186: south-eastern contact area of finnic languages in the light of onomastics

38 virittäjä 1/2013

Ainiala, Terhi – Saarelma, Minna – Sjöblom, Paula 2008: Nimistöntutkimuksen perusteet. Tietolipas 221. Helsinki: Suomalaisen Kirjallisuuden Seura.

ALFE = Atlas Linguarum Fennicarum. Itämerensuomalainen kielikartasto. Alfe 3. Helsinki: Suomalaisen Kirjallisuuden Seura & Kotimaisten kielten tutkimuskeskus 2010.

Ariste, Paul 1971: Die ältesten Substrate in den ostseefinnischen Sprachen. – Совецкое финно- угроведение 7 s. 251–258.

Carpelan, Christian 1998: Suomi, häme, sabme sekä finne arkeologian näkökulmasta. – Riho Grünthal & Johanna Laakso (toim.), Oekeeta asijoo. Commentationes Fenno-Ugricae in honorem Seppo Suhonen sexagenerii s. 76–88. Suomalais­Ugrilaisen Seuran Toimituksia 228. Helsinki: Suomalais­Ugrilainen Seura. 1999: Käännekohtia Suomen esihistoriassa aikavälillä 5100...1000 eKr. – Paul Fogelberg (toim.), Pohjan poluilla. Suomalaisten juuret nykytutkimuksen mukaan s. 249–280. Bidrag till kännedom av Finlands natur och folk 153. Helsinki: Societas Scientiarum Fennica. 2006: On archaeological aspects of Uralic, Finno­Ugric and Finnic societies before AD 800. – Juhani Nuorluoto (toim.), The Slavicization of the Russian North s. 78–92. Slavica Helsingensia 27. Helsinki: Department of Slavonic and Baltic Languages and Literatures at Helsinki University.

Carpelan, Christian – Parpola, Asko 2001: Emergence, contacts and dispersal of Proto­Indo­European, Proto­Uralic and Proto­Aryan in archaeological perspective. – Christian Carpelan, Asko Parpola & Petteri Koskikallio (toim.), Early contacts between Uralic and Indo-European. Linguistic and archaeological considerations s. 55–150. Helsinki: Suomalais­Ugrilainen Seura.

Dal’ = Даль, Владимир 1880–82: Тольковой словарь живого великорусского языка I–IV. Москва: Русский Язык.

Ganander = Christfrid Ganander 1997 [1787]: Nytt finskt lexicon. Toimittanut Liisa Nuutinen. Kotimaisten kielten tutkimuskeskuksen julkaisuja 95. Helsinki: Kotimaisten kielten tut­kimuskeskus.

GBO = Смолицкая Г. П. 1976: Гидронимия бассейна Оки. Москва. Hackman, Alfred 1905: Die Ältere Eisenzeit in Finnland. Helsingfors: [A. Hackman].Hertzen von, Erik 1973: Itämerensuomen lainakerrostumien ikäämisestä. – Suomalais-

Ugrilaisen Seuran Aikakauskirja 72 s. 77–104.Huurre, Matti 1995: 9 000 vuotta Suomen esihistoriaa. Helsinki: Otava. Häkkinen, Jaakko 2010a: Jatkuvuusperustelut ja saamelaisen kielen leviäminen 1. –

Muinaistutkija 1/2010 s. 19–36.2010b: Jatkuvuusperustelut ja saamelaisen kielen leviäminen 2. – Muinaistutkija 2/2010 s. 51–64.

Hällström, Carl Petter 2005 [1799]: Suomi-kartasto. Suomen Karttakirja 1799. Toimit­taneet Jan Strang & Erkki­Sakari Harju. Porvoo: Genimap.

Itkonen, Terho 1980: Suomessa puhutun suomen juuret. – Tiede 2000 2/1980 s. 5–10.1997: Reflections on Pre­Uralic and the ”Saami­Finnic protolanguage”. – Finnisch-Ugrische Forschungen 54 s. 229–266.

Janhunen, Juha 2005: När kom finnarna till Finland? – Sphinx 2004–2005 s. 77–91.Kalima, Jalo 1942: Karjalaiset ja merjalaiset. – Uusi Suomi -lehti 19.7.1942.Kallio, Petri 2006: Suomen kantakielten absoluuttista kronologiaa. – Virittäjä 110 s. 2–25.

2009: Stratigraphy of Indo­European loanwords in Saami. – Tiina Äikäs (toim.), The roots of Saami ethnicitics, societies and space/places s. 30–45. Oulu: Publications of the Giellagas Institute.

Page 187: south-eastern contact area of finnic languages in the light of onomastics

39virittäjä 1/2013

Rahkonen Suomen etymologisesti läpinäkymätöntä vesistönimistöä

(tulossa 2013): The prehistoric Germanic loanword strata in Finnic. – Petri Kallio & Riho Grünthal (toim.), Linguistic map of prehistoric North Europe. Mémoires de la Société Finno­Ougrienne. Helsinki: Société Finno­Ougrienne.

Kivikoski, Ella 1961: Suomen Esihistoria. – Jalmari Jaakkola (toim.), Suomen historia I. Porvoo: WSOY.

Kiviniemi, Eero 1977: Väärät vedet. Tutkimus mallien osuudesta nimen muodostuksessa. Suomalaisen Kirjallisuuden Seuran Toimituksia 337. Helsinki: Suomalaisen Kirjallisuuden Seura. 1980: Nimistö Suomen esihistorian tutkimuksen aineistona. – Virittäjä 84 s. 319–338.1990: Perustietoa paikannimistä. Helsinki: Suomalaisen Kirjallisuuden Seura.

Koivulehto, Jorma 1987: Namn som kan tolkas urgermanskt. – Klassiska problem inom finlandssvensk ortnamnsforskning s. 27–42. Studier i nordisk filologi 67. Skrifter utgivna av Svenska litteratursällskapet I Finland 539. Helsingfors: Svenska Litteratursällskapet.2006: Arkeologia, kielihistoria ja jatkuvuusteoria. – Mervi Suhonen (toim.), Arkeologian lumoa synkkyyteen. Artikkeleita Christian Carpelanin juhlapäiväksi s. 153–165. Helsinki: Yliopistopaino.

Korhonen, Mikko 1981: Johdatus lapin kielen historiaan. Suomalaisen Kirjallisuuden Seuran Toimituksia 370. Helsinki: Suomalaisen Kirjallisuuden Seura.

Lavento, Mika 2001: Textile ceramics in Finland and on the Karelian isthmus. Suomen Muinaismuistoyhdistyksen Aikakauskirja 109. Helsinki: Suomen Muinaismuistoyhdistys.

Lehtiranta, Juhani 2001: Yhteissaamelainen sanasto. Suomalais­Ugrilaisen Seuran Toimi­tuksia 200. Helsinki: Suomalais­Ugrilainen Seura.

Lytkin – Guljaev = Лыткин, В. И. – Гуляев, Е. С. 1999: Краткий этимологический сло-варь коми языка. Сыктывкар: Коми книжное издательство.

MAG = Муллонен, И. И. – Азарова, И. В. – Герд, А. С. 1997: Словарь гидронимов юго-восточного Приладожья басейн реки Свирь. Ст. Петербург: Издательство С.Петербурского университета.

Manni­Lindqvist, Tiina 2007: Suontee. – Sirkka Paikkala (päätoim.), Suomalainen paikan-nimikirja s. 431. Helsinki: Karttakeskus & Kotimaisten kielten tutkimuskeskus.

Matveev = Матвеев, А. К. 2001: Субстратная топонимия Русского Севера. Ч. 1. Екате­ринбург: Исдательство Уральского Университа. 2004: Субстратная топонимия Русского Севера. Ч. 2. Екатеринбург: Исдательство Уральского Университа.

Meinander, Carl Fredrik 1969: Dåvits. En essä om förromersk järnålder. – Finskt Mu-seum 1969 s. 27–69. Helsinki: Suomen Muinaismuistoyhdistys ry.

Mikkonen, Pirjo – Paikkala, Sirkka 2000: Sukunimet. Uudistettu laitos. Helsinki: Otava.

Mullonen = Муллонен И. И. 2002 Топонимия Присвирья. Проблемы этноязыкого контактирования.Петрозаводск: Российская академия наук. Карельский научный центр. Институт языка, литературы и истории.

MW 4 = Mordwinisches Wörterbuch IV. Lexica Societatis Fenno­Ugricae ��III. 4 S–�. Hel­IV. Lexica Societatis Fenno­Ugricae ��III. 4 S–�. Hel­. Lexica Societatis Fenno­Ugricae ��III. 4 S–�. Hel­Lexica Societatis Fenno­Ugricae ��III. 4 S–�. Hel­ S–�. Hel­sinki: Suomalais­Ugrilainen Seura 1996.

NA = Kotimaisten kielten keskuksen nimiarkisto.Nissilä, Viljo 1960: Huomioita Ähtärin nimestä. – Virittäjä 64 s. 331–332.Paikkala, Sirkka 2007: Kemijärvi. – Sirkka Paikkala (päätoim.), Suomalainen paikan-

nimikirja s. 152. Helsinki: Karttakeskus & Kotimaisten kielten tutkimuskeskus. PKOP = Писцовые книги Обонежской пятины 1496 и 1563 гг. Ленинград 1930.

Page 188: south-eastern contact area of finnic languages in the light of onomastics

40 virittäjä 1/2013

PP = Fogelberg, Paul (toim.) 1999: Pohjan poluilla. Suomalaisten juuret nykytutkimuksen mu-kaan. Bidrag till kännedom av Finlands natur och folk 153. Helsinki: Societas Scientiarum Fennica.

Rahkonen, Pauli 2009: The linguistic background of Meshchera tribe and principal areas of settlement. – Finnisch-Ugrische Forschungen 60 s. 162–202.2011: Finno­Ugric hydronyms of the river Volkhov and Luga catchment areas. – Suomalais- Ugrilaisen Seuran Aikakauskirja 93 s. 205–266. 2012: Границы распространения меряно­муромских и древнемордовских гидронимо в в верховьях Волги и бассейне реки Оки. – Вопросы Ономастики 1/2012 s. 5–42.

Räisänen, Alpo 2003: Nimet mieltä kiehtovat. Etymologista nimistön tutkimusta. Suomalaise n Kirjallisuuden Seuran Toimituksia 936. Helsinki: Suomalaisen Kirjallisuuden Seura.2007: Kivarinjärvi. – Sirkka Paikkala (päätoim.), Suomalainen paikannimikirja s. 167. Hel­sinki: Karttakeskus & Kotimaisten kielten tutkimuskeskus.

Saarikivi, Janne 2004a: Is there Paleo­European substratum interference in western branches of Uralic? – Journal de la Société Finno-Ougrienne 90 s. 187–214. 2004b: Über die saamischen Substratennamen des Nordrusslands und Finnlands. – Finnisch-Ugrische Forschungen 58 s. 162–234. 2006: On the Uralic substrate toponymy of Arkhangelsk region. Problems of research methodology and ethnohistorical interpretation. – Onomastica Uralica 4 s. 1–64. 2011: Saamelaiskielet. Historiaa ja nykypäivää. – Saamentutkimus tänään s. 77–119. Tietoli­pas 234. Helsinki: Suomalaisen Kirjallisuuden Seura.

Salminen, Tapani 1999: Euroopan kielet muinoin ja nykyisin. – Paul Fogelberg (toim.), Poh-jan poluilla. Suomalaisten juuret nykytutkimuksen mukaan s. 13–26. Bidrag till kännedom av Finlands natur och folk 153. Helsinki: Societas Scientiarum Fennica.

Salmons, Joe 1992: Northwest Indo­European vocabulary and substrate phonology. – Roger Pearson (toim.), Perspectives on Indo-European language, culture and religion. Studies in honor of Edgar C. Polomé. Vol. 2 s. 265–279. Journal of Indo­European Studies. Monograph Series. Washington D. C.: Institute for the Study of Man.

Sammallahti, Pekka 1988: Historical phonology of Uralic languages. With special reference to Samoyed, Ugric and Permic. – Denis Sinor (toim.), Uralic languages description, history and foreign influences s. 478–554. Leiden: E. J. Brill. 1999: Saamen kielen ja saamelaisten alkuperästä. – Paul Fogelberg (toim.), Pohjan poluilla. Suomalaisten juuret nykytutkimuksen mukaan s. 249–280. Bidrag till kännedom av Fin­lands natur och folk 153. Helsinki: Societas Scientiarum Fennica.

Schalin, Johan 2012: Namnet Kymmene. – Tiina Hyytiäinen, Lotta Jalava, Janne Saarikivi & Erika Sandman (toim.), Per Urales ad Orientem. Iter polyphonicum multilingue s. 389–398. Suomalais­Ugrilaisen Seuran Toimituksia 264. Helsinki: Suomalais­Ugrilainen Seura.

Seppä, Heikki – Tikkanen, Matti 2006: Ähtärinjärven vanha lasku­uoma. – Geologi-lehti 3/2006 s. 89–94.

Sjögren, Andreas Johan 1828: Anteckningar om församlingarne i Kemi-Lappmark. Helsing­fors: [s. n.], 1828 tryckt hos J. Simelii Enka.1861: Gesammelte Schriften. Band 1. Historisch­Etnographische Abhandlung über den finnisch­russischen Norden. Leiptzig: Zentralantiquariat der Deutschen Demokratischen Republik.

SMJ = Словарь марийского языка 9. Йошкар­Ола: Марийский научно исследовательский институт 2004.

Page 189: south-eastern contact area of finnic languages in the light of onomastics

41virittäjä 1/2013

Rahkonen Suomen etymologisesti läpinäkymätöntä vesistönimistöä

SPK = Suomalainen paikannimikirja. Päätoimittaja Sirkka Paikkala. Helsinki: Karttakeskus & Kotimaisten kielten tutkimus keskus 2007.

SSA1 = Suomen sanojen alkuperä. Etymologinen sanakirja. 1 A–K. Helsinki: Suomalaisen Kir­jallisuuden Seura & Kotimaisten kielten tutkimuskeskus 1992.

SSA3 = Suomen sanojen alkuperä. Etymologinen sanakirja. 3 R–Ö. Helsinki: Suomalaisen Kir­jallisuuden Seura & Kotimaisten kielten tutkimuskeskus 2000.

SSKD = Сравнительный Словарь Коми-Зырянских Диалектов. Сыктывкар: Коми книжно е издательство 1961.

TVS = Gallén, Jari (toim.) 1984: Suomen väestön esihistorialliset juuret. Tvärminnen symposiumi 17. –19.1.1980. Bidrag till kännedom av Finnlands natur och folk 131. Helsinki: Suomen Tiedeseura.

UEW = Rédej, Karoly (toim.) 1986–91: Uralisches Etymologisches Wörterbuch. Budapest: Akadémiai Kiadó.

Vahtola, Jouko 1980: Torniojoki- ja Kemijokilaakson asutuksen synty. Nimistötieteellinen ja historiallinen tutkimus. Studia Historica Septentrionalia 3. Rovaniemi: Pohjois­Suomen Historiallinen Yhdistys.

Vilkuna, Kustaa 1951: Ähtärin nimestä ja muinaisuudesta. Vanhaa Ähtäriä. – Kyrönmaa VIII s. 7–21. Etelä­Pohjalaisen Osakunnan Kotiseutujulkaisuja. Helsinki: Etelä­Pohjalainen Osakunta.

SUMMARY

Etymological opacity in Finnish hydronyms

The article examines a number of Finnish hydronyms whose linguistic origins have hitherto been left unexplored in extant research. Of the eighty­five largest lakes in Finland, at least around twenty­five percent are considered opaque by Suomalainen paikannimi kirja. Some of the more obscure hydronyms, however, are equivalent to hydro nyms in Northern and Central Russia.

The etymology of certain hydronyms can be defined according to the regular topo­graphy of bodies of water. Examples of this phenomenon are names associated with isthmuses and tracks for dragging boats over a neck of land that can be traced back to the Proto­Uralic form *ukti. The same applies to short tributaries, connecting two bo­dies of water whose names appear in Northern and Central Russia in the form veksa, which in turn is equi valent to the Komi word vis ‘tributary’ (Finnish: ‘välijoki’). This Komi word can be extrapolated from the earlier form *viksa. Both these words have equivalents in Finnish hydronymy. Finnish names often have stems that can be traced back to the forms *sont(V) > suont- and ?*käme > kemi. The spread of these stems fol­lows rather closely the westward path of Eastern Textile Ceramics.

Finnish features a number of lake names ending in -(V)ri whose stems cannot be derived from any known Uralic languages, including Inari ~ Indiager (1799), Ähtärin-

Page 190: south-eastern contact area of finnic languages in the light of onomastics

42 virittäjä 1/2013

järvi < *Ätsäri and also possibly Koitere. Nonetheless, the particle -(V)ri can be seen to arise from a Western Uralic form of the word järvi ‘lake’. It would appear that the stem of names existed much earlier and that other components were added at a much later stage. Thus, non­Uralic Paleo­European nomen clature represents the earliest linguisti c layer, upon which the Uralic layer has subsequently formed. However, the process of retracing the words behind Uralic place names back to their forms in later Proto­ Finnic or Proto­Sámi is not with out its difficulties. Words of this kind do not appear in the Mordvinic language regions, but are common in Yaroslavl, Kostroma and Vologda oblasts. For this reason, the language behind these place names is in the article referred to as language x, denoting a northern dialect of a Western Uralic language. The spea­kers of this language are assumed to have belonged to a group of people having used Textile Ceramics.

The central conclusion presented in this article is that there exists in Finland stems of hydronyms based around some form of Uralic language, appearing across an area stretching from Finland all the way to the Volga at Kostroma, primarily via Karelia and Vologda. The language behind these hydronyms cannot easil y be retraced to la­ter Proto­Finnic or Proto­Sámi. The geographical spread of these names demonstra­tes that hydronyms of the type presented in the article do not appear along the wes­tern or southern coasts of Finland, in Estonia or in regions where one of the Mordvinic language s has historically been spoken. Such geographical spread makes it hard to link these place names to the Balto­Finnic, Sámi or Mordvinic languages.

Suomen etymologisesti läpinäkymätöntä  vesistönimistöä

Artikkelissa käsitellään joitakin Suomen nimistön hydronyymejä, joiden kielellinen alku perä on tähänastisessa tutkimuksessa jäänyt selvittämättä. Kahdeksankymmenen­viiden Suomen suurimman järven nimistä noin 25 prosenttia on Suomalaisen paikan-nimikirjan mukaan opaakkeja. Osalla hämäristä hydronyymeistä on kuitenkin vasti­neita Pohjois­ ja Keski­Venäjällä.

Joidenkin hydronyymien etymologia voidaan määritellä vesien säännöllisen topo­grafian pohjalta. Sellaisia ovat kannaksiin ja vetotaipaleisiin liittyvät nimet, jotka voi­daan palauttaa kantauralin tasossa asuun *ukti. Sama koskee lyhyitä välijokia, joiden nimet Keski­ ja Pohjois­Venäjällä esiintyvät asussa veksa. Tätä vastaa komin sana vis ’välijoki’. Komin sana voidaan palauttaa varhaisempaan asuun *viksa. Molemmilla näillä on vastineita Suomen nimistössä. Suomessa esiintyy myös nimikannat, jotka pa­lautuvat asuihin *sont(V) > suont- ja ?*käme > kemi. Kaikkien näiden levintä vastaa melko tarkasti niin sanotun itäisen tekstiilikeramiikan levintää.

Page 191: south-eastern contact area of finnic languages in the light of onomastics

43virittäjä 1/2013

Suomessa on muutamia ­(V)ri­loppuisia järvennimiä, joiden nimikantoja ei voi johtaa tunnetuista uralilaisista kielistä, kuten Inari ~ Indiager (1799), Ähtärinjärvi < *Ätsäri ja mahdollisesti myös Koitere. Kuitenkin -(V)ri-aineksen voi katsoa juontu­van jonkin länsiuralilaisen kielen sanasta ’järvi’. Vaikuttaa siltä, että nimikanta on var­haisempi ja jälkikomponentti myöhemmin lisätty. Näin ollen epäuralilainen paleo­eurooppalainen nimistö edustaisi vanhinta kerrostumaa, jonka päälle on syntynyt urali lainen kerrostuma. Uralilaisten nimikantojen taustalla olevia sanoja ei kuitenkaan voi vaikeuksitta palauttaa myöhäiskantasuomeen tai kantasaameen. Tämän tyyppisiä nimiä ei myöskään esiinny mordvalaisalueilla. Sen sijaan ne ovat yleisiä Jaroslavli n, Kostroman ja Vologdan alueilla. Siksi näiden nimien taustalla ollutta kieltä kutsu­taan artikkelissa x-kieleksi, jonka katsotaan edustaneen länsiuralilaista pohjoista mur­retta. Puhujat ilmeisesti kuuluivat johonkin tekstiilikeramiikkaa käyttäneeseen väestö­ryhmään.

Artikkelin keskeisin tutkimustulos on se, että Suomessa esiintyy johonkin sellai­seen uralilaiseen kieleen perustuvaa vesistönimistöä, jolla on jatkuvuus Suomesta pää­asiassa Karjalan ja Vologdan alueen kautta aina Kostroman Volgalle. Nimistön taus­talla oleva kieli ei ole vaikeuksitta palautettavissa myöhäiskantasuomeen eikä kanta­saameen. Maantieteellinen levintä osoittaa, ettei edellä esitetyn kaltaista nimistöä esiinny Suomen länsi­ tai etelärannikolla, Virossa eikä nykyisillä historiallisesti tunne­tuilla mordvalaisalueilla. Näin ollen se on levintänsäkin puolesta vaikeasti yhdistettä­vissä niin itämerensuomeen, saameen kuin mordvaankin.

Kirjoittajan yhteystiedot (address):[email protected]

Page 192: south-eastern contact area of finnic languages in the light of onomastics

160

Pauli Rahkonen

The Linguistic Background of the Ancient Meshchera Tribe and Principal Areas of Settlement

This paper considers place names which may indicate the contacts Finno-Ugric speak-ing populations in the Upper-Volga and Oka areas may have had before the Russian invasion. In particular, I wish to chart the geographical areas in which such contacts might have taken place and at what time, as well as to determine whether these contacts were the result of migrations, trading activities, or occurred for some other reason. I have chosen as the subject of my research place names, the names of the largest bodies of water, because they are generally older than settlement names and micro-toponyms. I endeavour to ascribe common names to different Finno-Ugric languages, modern and even extinct, on the basis of the characteristics of the name. As far as the dating is concerned, in addition to many phonetic features, I have used relevant findings from archaeological research. I also use ancient historical sources, often chronicles.

The Meshchera in historical sources

The ethnonym Meshchera [Мещёра] is not found in such very early Rus-sian chronicles as Povest’ vremennyh let [“Nestor’s Chronicle”] (PSRL 1965), first appearing in a document related to the afore-mentioned chroni-cle from the 13th century called Tolkovaja Paleja (Rjabinin 1997: 214; Pronin 2006: 1; Markov 1998: 1). This tribe is mentioned later, for exam-ple, in Sofijskaja pervaja letopis’ from the 15th century: “their own tongue they have, the Meshcheras, being amongst the Muromas and Mordvins…” (Rjabinin 1997: 214). The Vologodsko-permskaja letopis’, dating from the 15th century states: “On the banks of the River Oka, where it flows into the Volga, the Muromas dwell, and they have their own language, the Mesh-cheras, who have theirs, and the Cheremises, who have their own” (ibid. 1997: 214).

The reference in Latin from ca 550 B.C. by Jordanes concerning peoples of the north is in a class of its own. A piece of text by Jordanes which may

FUF 60: 160–200 (2009)

FUF 60 (2009)

Page 193: south-eastern contact area of finnic languages in the light of onomastics

161

The Linguistic Background of the Ancient Meshchera Tribe...

have been connected with this reads: “thiudos inaunxis vasinabron-cas merens mordens imniscaris”. Based on the ideas of D. A. Mačinskij and V. S. Kulešov, M. A. Juškova hypothetically posits that the in- form is a preposition, the translation of this text may be: Thiudos in Aunxis, Vas in Abroncas, Merens, Mordens in Miscaris [imniscaris ?< *in miscaris] (Juškova 2006: 143–144; Mačinskij – Kulešov 2004: 50–51). The Thiu-dos in the text may represent the Chudes, Vas the Vepsians, Merens the Meryas and Mordens the Mordvins. In this case Miscaris could refer to the Meshcheras. In such an event, Miscaris ~ Meshchera would mean, gener-ally speaking, the extensive area covering the Upper Volga and the lower and middle reaches of the River Oka, where the Meryas and Mordvins lived. This suggestion is interesting and could perhaps be supported by the results of archaeological and topological research, although the matter has not thus far been settled.

There is also reason to observe that imniscaris is reminiscent of the Mari word imneske ‘horse rider’, imne ‘horse’ (Moisio 1994: 68). Valerij Patrušev connects imniscar to the Maris (Patrušev 2000: 176). When it is recalled how important horses were to the ancient Finno-Ugrian tribes of the Volga–Oka, the reference by Jordanes may refer to the tribe of horse-men, rather than to the Meshchera area. This is supported by the evidence from the abundant ancient jewellery of the Finno-Ugrian tribes found in Central Russia featuring the horse, and the custom of burying horses to-gether with their masters or separately (cf. Patrušev 2000: 182–183). Fur-thermore, mention should be made of a Chuvash folk story in which the Meryas are stated to have fought with the Bolgars as their allies in the wars against the Tatars: “Slavs from Oka and reinforcements of Meryas were placed in the vanguard—they had speedier horses” (Punalippu 1973: 119).

In the oldest maps from the 16th century that show the Russian area, the name Meshchera appears in the Oka region in various orthographical forms near the confluence of the Mokša river (Lafreri – Gastaldi 1568 and Mercator 1595).

Determining the question and previous research

At the present time, both the ethnic and linguistic background of the Mesh-cheras and the exact boundaries of their main settlement areas are little un-derstood. This article will endeavour to provide answers to these questions,

FUF 60 (2009)

Page 194: south-eastern contact area of finnic languages in the light of onomastics

162

Pauli Rahkonen

principally using the topographical method. If chroniclers have informed us correctly that the Meshcheras had a language of their own, then it is to be surmised that topographical names relating to this language will be found in the Oka area. The picture suggested by the place names can then be compared to the archaeological findings.

The ethnonym Meshchera has itself been the subject of debate. Many specialists, such as Rjabinin, have associated this with the ethnonym Misčari [Мищари], which in turn has been regarded as a Tatar group from Volga Bolgaria. According to him, A. H. Halikov and B. A. Vasil’ev, for example, consider that the earlier name changed after the 14th century to become madžar, mesčëra or misari (Rjabinin 1997: 215 citing Halikov 1989: 139–141 and Vasil’ev 1960: 205–206). The Russians have called a certain Baškir group by the name možary/mažary (Rjabinin 1997: 215). For these reasons, it has been concluded that ancient Magyars (Hungar-ians) gave their name to some Finno-Ugrian and Turkic tribes (Ageeva 1990: 65). The ethnonym magyar can be traced to the Proto-Ugric word *mancɜ (< cf. Sanskr. mánuṣa ‘man’), from which the name of another nationality, mansi ~ Vogul, is derived. Rédei thought that the component -ar could be derived from the FU protolanguage from *irkä (*ürkä) ‘man, boy’ (UEW 866). The Modzars of Bashkiria quite probably belonged ear-lier to the ancient bashkirified Hungarian group that the travelling monk Julian mentioned in his 13th-century report (Klima 1995: 20).

According to Aleksej Markov, among others, Meshchera could never-theless have come from the Moksha Mordvin word mes ‘honey’ (Markov 1998: 3). A. Pronin doubts this is the case. He is also reluctant to accept the etymological alternatives suggested by other researchers, such as < Mari mež ‘wool’, Balt./Lith. *medžia-, Lat. *meža- ‘forest’. Rather, Pronin con-siders the original ethnonym to have been mačjar (Pronin 2006: 1); com-pare Hung. magyar.

Relying evidence from archaeology, E. A. Rjabinin has determined the main settlements of the Meshcheras to have been in the areas between the estuaries of the rivers Moskva and Mokša on the left bank of the River Oka1 (Rjabinin 1997: 216, map). Heikki Kirkinen has reached the same conclusion as Rjabinin concerning the location of Meshchera settlement (Kirkinen 1990: 244).

A number of Russian researchers have also gathered interesting miscel-laneous information about the Meshcheras. According to Aleksej Mitro-fanov and Vladimir Doukelsky, old travelogues describe russified Mesh-

FUF 60 (2009)

Page 195: south-eastern contact area of finnic languages in the light of onomastics

163

The Linguistic Background of the Ancient Meshchera Tribe...

cheryak people who had a look of sorrowfulness (Mitrofanov – Doukelsky 2003: 1). These Meshcheryaks, about 60,000 of them, were still living in the Governments of Penza, Tambov and Rjazan’ at the close of the 19th

century (Pronin 2006: 3). Aleksej Markov, for instance, considers that they were the descendants of the ancient Meshcheras (Markov 1998: 3). They differed from other Russians in that many of them were hunters, fishermen and beekeepers, that is, they practised the same forms of earning a living as the ancient Meshcheras (ibid. 1998: 3). It has been hypothesised that a considerable number of the Meshcheras migrated east, converted to Islam and became assimilated with the Tatars to become the Mišar Tatars, an eth-nic subgroup (ibid. 1998: 3). The russified Meshcheryaks are generally of medium height and dark-haired, and under certain circumstances speak a special dialect (idem.). Pronin describes how that dialect of their language had a “hard č” or “cokanje” [ч → ц] (Pronin 2006: 1; see also Požarickaja 2005: 94, map 4). At least the Russian author, M. Baranovič, from the mid-dle of the 19th century is known to have used the ethonym Meshcheryak (Markov 1998: 2). The archaeologist V. Patrušev has reported a village in a Mordvin area whose inhabitants claim that they are not Mordvins, but Meshcheras (conversation 03.09.2006). The ethnonym Meshcheryak would thus be both an exonym and an endonym.

Archaeological material

From the outset it is necessary to discuss the relevance of archaeology in describing ethnoses and linguistic groups in general terms. When consider-ing ceramic cultures, it is essential to classify the ceramics. On what basis can artefacts that are not completely identical be shown to be interrelated and belonging to the same groups? A good example is Mika Lavento’s way of classifying textile ceramics. Notice is taken of the technical properties of the ceramics, which includes the quality of the clay, temper, firmness, sur-face finishing, polishing and painting, and the firing process. In addition, in classifying attention must also be paid to design, thickness and size of sets of vessels, as well as their decoration (Lavento 2001: 44–74).

It can confidently be asserted that a sudden change in all these factors, or at least most of them, would require a transformation in the structure of the population or a very strong outside influence. Lavento writes: “It is evident that a single material indicator is not enough to delimit a social group, but a large number of different attributes have to be taken into ac-

FUF 60 (2009)

Page 196: south-eastern contact area of finnic languages in the light of onomastics

164

Pauli Rahkonen

count (Lavento 2001: 160)”. Technical and other sporadic innovations can very easily occur within the same ethnos, if the change is, for example, an improvement on the previous situation. In ancient times, the style and often the manufacturing technique were nevertheless largely based on tra-dition. If we consider the long period of existence of such ancient ceramic cultures as the Volosovo Culture (3650–1900 BC) and the Textile Ceram-ics Culture (1900–800 BC), whose influence was for the most part felt in the same area, and the enormous extent of its territory, the only common denominator may be the common tradition of manufacturing the utensils of the socio-ethnic group.

The south-west limit of the Finno-Ugrian substrate toponyms observes the boundary of the Volosovo and Textile Ceramics cultures pretty accu-rately.2 For this reason, it can be supposed that the boundary of these ce-ramic cultures has been a linguistic boundary demarcating tribes speaking Finno-Ugrian languages from various Indo-European groups for a long period. It should be noted that Finno-Ugrian toponyms are not to be found on the other side of the cultural border between the Volosovo and Textile Ceramics, that is, in the Smolensk oblasť, except on its very northern and eastern borders (ASO 2008: 164–175). On the other hand, Indo-European groups have apparently migrated to areas considered to be Finno-Ugri-an. Seemingly these were represented by members of the Fatjanovo and Abaševo cultures (Carpelan – Parpola 2001: 83–87). On the other hand, those who to some degree spoke the same language among themselves, the Meryas and the Muromas (see below), for example, both belonged to some extent to different cultural groups defined archaeologically (see Rja-binin 1997: 150, 168, 200, illustrations 40, 44, 53; Leont’ev 1996: 333, etc.). Nonetheless, it may be assumed that the longer a cultural boundary defined on the basis of archaeological material is, the more certain it is to represent a linguistic boundary as well.3 Cultural boundaries on a smaller scale that at the same time also indicate language or dialect borders can be found in Ostrobothnia (Finland) where the building style of farmhouses corresponds to dialectal boundary, the Karelian Russian-influenced mate-rial culture, which marks a linguistic boundary as well and the border of home-brewed beer preparation methods that pretty closely follows the *δ > l and *δ > r boundary of the Häme dialect.

It should also be observed that funeral customs, motifs on ornamental jewellery or ceramic decoration often reflect their creators and the mytho-logical concepts of the community. The jewellery production of the Central

FUF 60 (2009)

Page 197: south-eastern contact area of finnic languages in the light of onomastics

165

The Linguistic Background of the Ancient Meshchera Tribe...

Russian Finno-Ugrians favoured themes based on horses and the webbed feet of ducks along with spirals. Although many features were shared, the material used was very often indicative of a type of object particularly related to a certain group. Examples are the Djakovo Culture’s x-shaped chain fasteners that are characteristic of the Djakovo-gorodišče inhabit-ants of the Moscow oblasť, where 18 examples are known (Hirviluoto ‒ Vormisto 1984: 21–49; Krenke 1989/2: 79–87), the “hook and eye rings” typical of Muroma areas, the sulgama buckles typical of Mordvin areas (Leont’ev 1996: 328) and the large breastplates of the Meshcheras (Mark-ov 1998: 2).

Pronin has explained that the horse-theme pendants relate to the belief that the horse follows a person even into the afterlife, while pendants fea-turing the webbed feet of ducks signify the role of mallards and pochards in the creation of the world (compare the Kalevala pochard). Spirals, Pronin claims, symbolise the sun and triangular forms, fertility (Pronin 2006: 2). In ancient times, religion was very communal, so that common symbols and funeral customs denote adherence to the same religio-social tradition and often the ethnic and linguistic domain of the community as well.

A Russian archaeological study has defined the Meshchera culture pre-dominantly on the basis of three factors. 1) Meshchera-type underground graves [Russ. грунтовые могильники], 2) Meshchera-type barrows [Russ. курганные могильники] and 3) Meshchera-type artefacts (Rjabinin 1997: 217, drawing 57).

Admittedly a large number of the finds were made as long ago as the end of the 19th century and the beginning of the 20th. A. A. Spicyn initially dated the buried remains in the Žabok graveyard around the middle reaches of the Oka as from the beginning of the 10th century (AD), but later re-vised this estimate to the 11th century (OAK 1899: 235–236). According to A. Markov, the artefacts were dated to the 5th–8th centuries AD (Markov 1998: 1), but evidently he has also included material from the so-called Rjazan’–Oka Culture (see below). In 1899, graves were discovered that were thought to be of Meshchera origin along the banks of the Gus’ and Kolp’ rivers, dated by Spicyn to the 12th–13th centuries (1906: 1–6). The River Gus’ area was excavated in the 1920s. A. Ivanov dated findings that were considered to be Meshchera to the 11th century (Ivanov 1925). In ad-dition to the underground burials, a considerable number of tumuli were found (kurgans), the artefacts of which were apparently of Finno-Ugrian origin (Rjabinin 1997: 220). Spicyn dated the Parahinski collection of

FUF 60 (2009)

Page 198: south-eastern contact area of finnic languages in the light of onomastics

166

Pauli Rahkonen

graves to the 12th century, Popovskij somewhat later mentioning that “these are either Russian (not Vjatičian) or Meshchera kurgans”. Nevertheless, he considered the objects Finno-Ugrian (Spicyn 1899: 238). In relation to the artefacts discovered in the tumuli, Pronin relates that they included pen-dants with horse motifs typical of Finno-Ugrian jewellery (Pronin 2006: 2). Meshchera objects considered characteristically Finno-Ugrian are intri-cately stylised horse motifs,4 the webbed feet of the duck and spiral motifs, and especially the large-sized breastplates (Rjabinin 1997: 230, table 6; Pronin 2006: 2; Markov 1998: 2).

It will be noticed that from the archaeological point of view that the representatives of the culture considered to be Meshchera dwelt in two pri-mary settlement areas: on the left bank of the “Oka Bend” between Rjazan’ and the confluence of the Mokša and the area to the east of Moscow on both banks of the River Moskva and at the sources of the Kljaz’ma (Rjab-inin 1997: 232).

As mentioned earlier, a unique Meshchera culture can be discerned from ca 900–1000 AD at the latest. Rjabinin has also dwelt upon the connections this culture may have had with the earlier iron age archaeological mate-rial. He considers the population of the iron age Gorodec Culture to have had a determining influence, although the population of the Later Djakovo Culture did have a significant role in the birth of the Meshchera ethnos (Rjabinin 1997: 232). In this respect, it can be claimed that the toponyms (Rahkonen manuscript) connect the (later) Djakovo groups to the Meryas and/or their immediate forefathers (Rjabinin 1997: 150–151 and related lit-erature, see also map 2). On the other hand, it is more difficult to determine the ethnic origin of the more eastern Gorodec Culture.5 Ancient Mordvins (Patrušev 2000: 174 citing Smirnov 1965 and Alihova 1959) and ancient Maris (Patrušev 2000: 176 citing O. N. Bader) have been suggested. The area covered by the culture in question is that between the lower reaches of the River Oka and the lower reaches of the Volga, the northern bound-ary being the right bank of the central Volga. In modern terms, this means predominantly the territories of the Mordovian and Chuvash republics, the southern part of the Nižnij-Novgorod oblasť and the Uljanovsk oblasť.

It is also possible that the Gorodec Culture had connections with the Pjanobor–Ceganda Culture inherited from the Anan’ino Culture. The Pjanobor Culture can be dated from ca 300 BC–400 AD (Patrušev 2000: 16). The burial customs of this culture were shared by those in the Oka area. As an example, Patrušev mentions the underground burials in the cemetery

FUF 60 (2009)

Page 199: south-eastern contact area of finnic languages in the light of onomastics

167

The Linguistic Background of the Ancient Meshchera Tribe...

at Košibeevo in the middle ground of the Cna Mokša intersection and other corresponding graves in the modern Chuvashia, Mordovia and Volga Mari territories. These locations are situated in the Gorodec cultural area. To-gether with these findings, flatbottomed ceramics have been discovered in three Nirginda II site graves belonging to the (Pjanobor)–Ceganda Culture in the area of the present day Republic of Udmurtia (Patrushev 2000: 166). Košibeevo is situated precisely in the central area of the Meshchera. Un-der these circumstances, those belonging to the Pjanobor–Ceganda Culture could well be part of the Meshchera population.

Consideration has also been given to the connection between the cul-ture classified as Meshchera and the Rjazan’–Oka Culture, which was in-fluential in the first millennium of the Christian era. According to Markov, the majority of researchers regard this culture as having been of Meshchera origin in an ethnic sense (Markov 1998: 2). Nevertheless, the renowned archaeologist A. L. Mongajt thinks the Rjazan’–Oka Culture is related to the Erzya Mordvins (1961: 71, 115–117) and P. N. Tretjakov considers the Meshcheras to have been an ancient Mordvin group (Rjabinin 1997: 217 citing Tretjakov 1961: 138). Valerij Patrušev notes that many researchers believe that the Rjazan’–Oka Culture was derived from the Gorodec Cul-ture (2000: 148 citing Smirnov 1952; Sedov 1967). Some have considered the Rjazan’–Oka Culture graves as belonging to the Eastern Finno-Ugrian domain (ibid. 2000: 148 citing e.g. Gorodcov 1910).

In any event, the archaeological material suggests that the Meshcheras, at least since the end of the Viking period, have been a separate Finno-Ugri-an tribe that has had its own material culture and, according to chroniclers, possibly its own language (see above). Rjabinin believes that russification began in the 14th century at the earliest and that the population was dis-tinctive even in the 16th century (Rjabinin 1997: 235). Markov and Pronin also assume that the Meshchera language survived until the 16th century (Markov 1998: 2; Pronin 2006: 3). In the broadest sense, the Meshcheras could not have originally been the Mišar Tatar group because, according to the evidence from archaeology, they inhabited the Oka district long before the Tatars arrived in the area. A partial assimilation of the language with the Tatars is possible (see Markov 1998: 2; Pronin 2006: 2). In general terms then, the source of the material culture considered to be of Meshchera ori-gin is to be found in areas situated in the middle Oka rather to the east than to the western area of the Gorodec Culture (see below Patrušev 2000: 148, 174–176; Rjabinin 1997: 232 and others).

FUF 60 (2009)

Page 200: south-eastern contact area of finnic languages in the light of onomastics

168

Pauli Rahkonen

Table showing the chronology of archaeological cultures

Oka-Volga area Textile Ceramics 1900–800 BCDjakovo Culture, early stage 800 BC–300 ADGorodec-Culture 800 BC–300 ADDjakovo Culture, late stage 300–600 ADRjazan’–Oka Culture 400–900 ADMeshchera Culture 900–200 AD

Vyatka-Kama area Kazan Culture 1700–800 BCAnan’ino Culture 800–300 BCPjanobor–Ceganda Culture 300 BC–400 AD Azelino Culture 200–400 ADLomovatova Culture 400–900 AD

Table 1. Chronology of archaeological cultures (based on V. Patrušev 2000: 16 and C. Carpelan’s lectures Helsinki University 2009).

Finno-Ugrian ethnic hydronyms in the Oka water system area

The ethnic names of watercourses, at least in some cases, reflect the border areas of ethnic and linguistic groups, The Russian name Čudskoe ozero (~ Peipsijärvi) and an other Čudskoe ozero on the upper reaches of the River Lovat’ (ANO 50) being possible examples. Both names are undoubtedly situated in an area which at some period in history has served as an eth-nic boundary between the Slavs, and those they called the Chudes. They have been preserved until the present in the border areas of čud ethnonyms (Rahkonen manuscript). It is clear that ethnic hydronyms must be inter-manuscript). It is clear that ethnic hydronyms must be inter-. It is clear that ethnic hydronyms must be inter-preted carefully, but they can be used indicatively. At least the names of the larger water systems serve as better indicators of ethnic borders than settlement names. The latter may have originated a very long way from the core area of the original national environment of those who migrated there, in this case representing predominantly dispersed occurrences.

In the Oka region, such ethnonymic word-stem hydronyms as mordv-, mere-, murom-, čeremis- and mesčëra- can be found. I should also add to this ugr- stemmed names, and ud- names (< ud|murt). In what follows, Meshchera hydronyms in particular will be considered. The names have been taken from the dictionary of ethnonyms Gidronimija basejna Oki [GBO] (Smolickaja 1976).

FUF 60 (2009)

Page 201: south-eastern contact area of finnic languages in the light of onomastics

169

The Linguistic Background of the Ancient Meshchera Tribe...

The Smolickaja register of water-related names recognises 8 Mesh-chera hydronyms. Of these, three are situated in the vicinity of the town of Muroma, one near Moscow at the source of the River Kljaz’ma, one in the Nižnij-Novgorod area, one in the Rjazan’ area, one in the Tambov area and another in the upper reaches of the River Mokša (maps 1 and 6). In addition to this, such settlement names as Kasimov ~ Mesčёrskij gorodec (‘Meshchera castle’) are found at the mouth of the River Gus’ and Mesčёra to the east of Moscow, as well as a marsh called Mesčёrka at the mouth of the River Moskva and the settlement names Mesčerskij (ARO32A2), Mesčerskij Bor (ARO7A4) and Mesčerskij Filial (ARO30Б4). These names confirm the descriptions given by chroniclers (see above).

It would appear from this evidence that the Meshcheras really did dwell amongst the Mordvins and Muromas (see maps 2 and 3), as chroniclers have claimed, near the Maris at the mouth of the River Oka. Furthermore, it appears on the basis of both ethnonyms and other Meshchera toponyms that Meshcheras lived in the vicinity of Moscow on the lower reaches of the River Moskva and at the source of the River Kljaz’ma. The main set-tlement areas did not necessarily form an interrelated continuum, but more likely represented two separate colonies. Linguistic background of the Meshcheras

If we accept the remark by chroniclers that the Meshcheras had their own language different from Mordvin, Muroma and Mari, we would expect this to be reflected in the toponyms. Although the Povest’ vremennyh let (“Nestor’s Chronicle”) does not even mention Meshchera, it is certain on the strength of archaeological evidence that they did dwell in the territory described above, even during the period when the Chronicle was written. Written sources (1200–1500 AD) mentioning the name locate the Mesh-cheras over a slightly larger territory than the cultural area (900–1200 AD) that archaeologists consider Meshchera (see, e.g., Markov 1998: 1; Pronin 2006: 3). The existence of Meshchera ethnonyms occurs over a slightly more extensive area even than this (map 1).

One method of studying the Finno-Ugrian linguistic groups in the Oka area would be to seek likely versions of the name from the host of prevail-ing specifics of the toponyms. In the Finno-Ugrian worlds, these include hydronyms with the following specifics: upper/lower, big/little and white/black. In this way, it can be determined whether these specifics are typical

FUF 60 (2009)

Page 202: south-eastern contact area of finnic languages in the light of onomastics

170

Pauli Rahkonen

Map 1. Meshchera ethnonyms and archaeological sites deemed Meshchera.

of the Meshchera areas determined by the chroniclers and archaeological materials. In the Finnish designation of lake names, specifics found include the following, in order of generality: 1. valkea- ‘white’, 2. vähä-/pikku-/pieni- ‘little’, 6. suuri-/iso- ‘big’ and 13. musta- ‘black’. The most common river names are: 3. ala-/ali- ‘lower’, 5. iso- ‘big’, 6. ylä-/yli- ‘upper’ and 7. musta- ‘black’ (Kiviniemi 1990: 184, 198).

‘Upper-’ and ‘lower-’ appellations

The following specifics of names, the meaning of which is almost certainly ‘high, upper’, occur in the Oka area < PU *wilä (wülä) ‘high, upper’ (UEW 1988: 573–574). These are: il(e),6 vel, vil, jel. Of these, il(e) and il’m- would appear on the basis of the geographical distribution of the appella-tion7 mainly to reflect the Muroma–Merya tradition. The il- names in the Oka territory occur most frequently in the Muroma area, but the fact that

Moskva

Ivanovo

Serpuhov

Ryazan

Kaluga

Orel

Tambov

Vladimir

Volga

VolgaOka

Klyaz’ma

Oka

Žizdra

Ugra

Protva

Upa

Pronya

Tsna

Pra

Gus’

Ušna

Nerl’Teza

Oka

Vad

Klyaz’ma

Tula

Murom

Mokša

Nižniy-Novgorod

Meshchera names in the Oka area hydronym with the speci�c Meshchera- toponyms with the speci�c Meshchera- Meshchera archaeological site (Ryabinin 1997: 216)

Žabok Mešèerskijgorodec

Map 1

FUF 60 (2009)

Page 203: south-eastern contact area of finnic languages in the light of onomastics

171

The Linguistic Background of the Ancient Meshchera Tribe...

they do occur in the Jaroslavl and Kostroma oblasťs shows that it can un-doubtedly be linked to the Meryas as well, which would seem to prove the linguistic proximity of the Meryas and Muromas. This would also appear to be the way Max Vasmer, who has suggested that the Merya appellations cover the area of the Muroma, sees the matter (Rjabinin 1997: 150, figure 40). It is possible that because Il- forms are found in the Serpuhov–Tula area, the Merya and Muroma tribes and the population of the Djakovo Cul-ture had common roots (map 2). At least in the Jaroslavl oblasť Ild’ AJO58, Il’ma AJO1098, Il’menka AJO112, Il’mež AJO36 and in the Kostroma oblasť Ilezem TKKO25 and Il’movka TKKO36 are all river sources, which would seem to confirm the etymological conclusions suggested above.

Words with the stem vel-, meaning ‘high, upper’, are still found today in the Mordvin languages. This is accounted for quite well in the modern day distribution of vel- forms in the Mokša basin, Rjazan’ and Serpuhov areas, the territories where the ethnonym mordv- is attested (map 3). The hydronyms of this type found in the Moscow and Serpuhov–Kaluga areas could reflect the previous existence of people speaking an older form of the Mordvin language, possibly Proto-Mordvin.

Names with the vil- specifics (map 4) occur fairly regularly in areas where the ethnic hydronym mesčёra is found (see map 6). The vil specific could have been derived from the Permic word *vil(i); compare Udm. vil, Komi vili ‘high, upper’. The source branches of the River Kil’mez’ flow through Udmurtia, the official name (i.e., russified) is Vili|sur (RAU16) < Udm. vil(i) ‘high, upper’ + sur ‘river’ (URS 101,510). Vil- names are also found in the Tula–Serpuhov area and in Upper-Kljaz’ma.

Jel- names are also extensively connected to source waters in northern Russia; for example, Jel|da AJO71, Jelenka AJO27, Jel|omza AJO40 in the Jaroslavl oblasť, Jel|nat’ TKKO50 in the Kostroma area, and Jelač|ručej RAV19, Jelana RAV48, Jel|ego|nka RAV46, Jelimskoe oz. (lake) and to which it is related Jelima, Niž. (river) RAV11 and Jel’ma RAV69 in the Vologda oblasť; are all without exception source waters. The etymologi-cal background could be related to Udm. jil, Komi jiv < Proto-Perm. * jul ‘top, tip, summit’ (Lytkin – Guljaev 1999: 113), which also occurs as a postposition attested in Proto-Permian (Bartens 2000: 295). According to Sammallahti, the Proto-Permian *u > Proto-Udm. *e (Sammallahti 1988: 533). There may also be a question of Russian influence *e > je.9 Names with jel- do not, nevertheless, appear on the distribution map, because its etymological history is not yet clear.

FUF 60 (2009)

Page 204: south-eastern contact area of finnic languages in the light of onomastics

172

Pauli Rahkonen

Al(o) ‘lower’ names can be regarded as Mordvin. They are found in the Serpuhov, Rjazan’ and Mokša basin areas (map 3), which belong to the ancient Mordvin territory as defined by the ethnic hydronym mordv-.

The volo- names, which appear to be Merya–Muroma,10 occur through the territory of Kljaz’ma, in the Muroma area, around the source of the River Moskva and in the Kaluga–Serpuhov area (map 2). Names of the volos- type are included in this category, even if some might connect them to the Russian volok- (‘isthmus’). However, it should be observed that there are such name variants as Volo|ksa ~ Volo|s|ka (GBO196) showing the formants -ksa ~ sV to be synonyms.

Since the reason for naming rivers ‘low’ is often more difficult to deter-mine than for ‘upper’ rivers, it can be hard to know why some ‘lower’ riv-ers have been so named. This, for example, applies to Finnish hydronyms Alajoki in Ilomantsi, which is in the headwaters of the River Koitajoki, Alajoki (Inari) and Alajoki (Sotkamo) (GT126D3). None of these are situ-ated in the lower waters of the river system to which they belong. It would appear, then, that their names are perhaps more probably related to the lowness of the banks.

A third type, ulo, ‘low’, is situated along the River Moskva and on the Oka between the mouths of the Moskva and Mokša, in the southern and western parts of the Meshchera territory as defined by ethnic hydronyms and archaeological findings (map 4).

They are therefore possible to define the Finno-Ugrian ‘upper’ and ‘lower’ appellations of the Oka water systems in the following way.

ethnos upper lower location

Mordvin vel al Mordva, Rjazan’, Moskva, Serpuhov, Kaluga, Tula

Merya–Muroma il vol Muroma, Kljaz’ma, Upper Moskva, Serpuhov, Kaluga

Meshchera vil ul Rjazan’- mouth of Kljaz’ma, Kaluga, Tula, Serpuhov, Upper-Kljaz’ma

FUF 60 (2009)

Page 205: south-eastern contact area of finnic languages in the light of onomastics

173

The Linguistic Background of the Ancient Meshchera Tribe...

‘Little’ and ‘big’ appellations The Finno-Ugrian names for ‘big’ seem to be represented by the appella-tions in-, von- and un-. Similarly, three types are found for the appellation ‘little’: ič/iz- and vež-/vesk- and vjaz- (?*väz).

The in- form corresponds quite closely to the Mordvin territory shown above (map 3). Since it is also known that the word meaning ‘big’, ine, exists in Erzya Mordvin and inä in Moksha Mordvin (SSA I 106), the boundaries of the ancient Mordvins can relatively safely be determined. In addition to the water system of the River Mokša, these forms are to be found in the area between the Serpuhov and Kaluga. Combining these achieves a result corresponding to large extent a to that obtained using the ethnonym mordv- (map 3). Another interesting additional area is located in the water system of the River Kljaz’ma in Vladimir oblast’. This is prob-ably explainable as being related to a migration that occurred in the Viking period or slightly before that, and which took place from the River Oka via the River Pra. This northerly migration could be linked to archaeological discoveries of sulgama buckles in the so-called Merya territory typical of the Mordvins (Leont’ev 1996: 329). These buckles are from the second part of the first millennium.

Von-hydronyms are attested in the main in the Merya–Muroma territory (map 2). In the basin of Svir’, the name variant Von|ozero ~ En|arv (MAG 64) is to be found, which illustrates that the von- specifi c of the name cor-specific of the name cor- of the name cor-responds to the Veps word in toponyms en- ‘big’. It would seem evident that von derives from an original form *on or *en, and the prosthetic v would result from a Russian influence. From the point of view of the history of phonological change, a Russian influenced *e > o is also possible (Mullonen 2002: 56); compare also Skand. Helgi > Slav. Oleg (REW III 133). Never-theless, the form appearing in the toponyms is used here.

Names with un- occur rather neatly at the same locations as incidences of the ethnonym Meshchera and archaeological discoveries relating to the Meshcheras (maps 1 and 4). There would seem to have been features simi-lar to the Permic languages in the Meshchera tongue. Apparently in Mesh-chera ‘low’ was ul(V), as in Udmurt and Komi. ‘Big, much’, in Udmurt uno and in Komi una, is evidently present in names in the Meshchera area in the form un(V) < PFP *enä (Sammallahti 1988: 541; Lytkin – Guljaev 1999: 297).

FUF 60 (2009)

Page 206: south-eastern contact area of finnic languages in the light of onomastics

174

Pauli Rahkonen

In principle there are three types in the area for names meaning ‘little’. Ič forms seem to correspond mainly to the Meshchera territories defined by archaeology and chroniclers (maps 4 and 6). This word is the same as the Udmurt iči ‘(a) little’ (URS 170). The iz appellation associated with Mari names (Mari izi ‘small, little’). The words Udm. iči and Mari izi are related etymologically < PFP *icä (UEW).

Words with vež- and vesk- are of Mordvin origin, judging by their dis-tribution (map 3). This is also supported by an unproblematic etymology from Mordvin: Mord. vež-aske ‘little finger’ and Mord. veska/viska ‘little’ (SSA III 478); < FW *wäsä ‘little, small’ (UEW 818). The appellations in question are found in the Mokša basin – Rjazan’ area, and in the vicinity of Kaluga. There are a couple of other occurrences in the Upper Kljaz’ma area as well.

The third type of name is the vjaz- form (map 2). In some cases, this may be connected with the Russian word vjaz ‘elm’ and in the Voronež and Pskov oblasťs it occurs in the dialectal vjaz ‘marsh’ (Murzaev 1984: 135). Nevertheless, this is not likely to be the case where the following Finno-Ugric formants11 -ma, -ra, -ir, -ič are concerned: Vjaze|ma ~ Vjaze|m|ka (GBO103, 114, 194, 219, 253), Vjaze|ra (GBO255), Vjaz|ič (GBO37), Vjaz|ma (GBO103), Vjaz|yr (GBO179), Vjaz’|ma (GBO103, 219). These appellations chiefly occur in the Merya–Muroma–Djakovo areas.

At great distances from the traditional Merya territory, toponyms re-garded as Merya–Muroma verify that these tribes possibly maintained commercial bases, particularly at a distance from their home territories. The settlement of Uhtomka (ARO110B3), on an isthmus between the branches of the River Pronja, a tributary of the Oka, and the River Don, can be men- can be men-tioned as a certain example of Merya names very much to the south. Uht(V) < PU word *ukti is a word that existed in the languages of the Merya12 or certainly in the protolanguage (*Proto-Merya?) before these, meaning ‘isthmus’ or ‘stretch of road’ (Mullonen 2002: 208–215, Helimski (2006: 119). Since the PU word *ukti ‘track’ is probably in the background (Sam-mallahti 1988: 537), the geographical location of the toponym in question very strongly supports the etymology of the name.

My conception that the word belonged to the Merya language or its predecessor is based on its prevalence in the focal areas, the old territo-ries generally regarded as inhabited by Meryas: the Kljaz’ma water sys-tem Uktoma GBO215, Uhtoma GBO214, Uhtohma GBO219, Jaroslavl

FUF 60 (2009)

Page 207: south-eastern contact area of finnic languages in the light of onomastics

175

The Linguistic Background of the Ancient Meshchera Tribe...

oblasť Uhtanka AJO66, Uhtoma AJO19, AJO102, Uhta-Toržok AJO60, Kostroma oblasť Uht|yngir’ TKKO50, Popovo ~ Uhtubuž (Ahlqvist 2001: 238; TKKO27). Irma Mullonen writes similarly that “this (uht- appella-tion) may have become extinct before the period of the spoken language of the Finnic settlement that spread out from the Upper Volga to the north” (Mullonen 2002: 214).

Underlying the vjaz- form there would then appear to have been the ancient Merya word *väz(V) ‘little’ < FW *wäsä (UEW 818). I make this claim because there is no alternative appellation in the Merya area with the sense ‘little’ which, when compared to other well-known Finno-Ugrian languages, would suit the ancient Merya tongue. Nevertheless, it is certain that abundant examples must be found.

The rivulet Vjazkij- in the Svir’ area13 is connected to a lake called Ma-loe ozero ‘little lake’ (MAG 50), which could itself support an interpreta-tion according to which the word *väz ‘little’ existed in Merya. Of course, this could also have come from the Veps vähä ‘little’ > Russ. adaptation form *vjag- > vjazkij.

There is also an island in the river Svir’ called Vjazostrov which Irma Mullonen has reconstructed with a question mark attached as ?*Vezostrov [< Finnic vezi or veza] (Mullonen 2002: 62). Nevertheless, nothing should prevent the assumption that this could be a case of ‘little island’ with a Merya origin. In this area in the River Svir’, there are actually two succes-sive islands, the large Ivan’no|ostrov and the smaller Vjaz|ostrov. It is evi-dent that the name of the bigger island has become russified into its present form at some stage. Close to the island is a settlement called Jan|navolok (TKKR124), the ян- component of which can be traced to the form Ä(ä)n-; compare Proto-Saami *εnē ‘much’ (Lehtiranta 2001: 32), which could sug-gest that the original name of Ivan’no|ostrov meant ‘big island’ (*enV-). If this is ‘big island’, Vjaz|ostrov might naturally be ‘little island’. In the wa-ter system of the lower reaches of the River Paša is a marsh called Vjazun, connected to which is a stream called Malyj ‘little’ (MAG 102), which may also refer to a word of Merya origin *väz(V) ‘(a) little’.

If the word *väz(V) had really existed in Merya, it must be seriously considered that the Finnish word vähä is related to this word rather than the Germanic *wæha- ‘fine, small-grained [of flour]’ (SSA III 478) proposed by some researchers. The Mordvin–Merya word vež/*väz cannot be a Ger-manic borrowing.

FUF 60 (2009)

Page 208: south-eastern contact area of finnic languages in the light of onomastics

176

Pauli Rahkonen

Names for ‘big and ‘little’, and their ethnoses:

ethnos big little

Mordvin in vež-, vesk-

Merya–Muroma von ?<*on or < *en väz

Meshchera un ič

‘White’ and ‘black’ appellations

Names with the stem *as- seem to be attested in the Oka area mainly in three types: aks-/asč-/as-, os- and ?us- appellations; compare PFU *ačka ‘white’ < Turk-Tat. akča ‘money’ (UEW 3, according to Rédei etymology uncertain).

On the basis of the appellations, it would appear that the Finnic coun-terpart *volg(V) ‘white’ occurred in Merya rather than a word based on the common origin of the Mordvin aso and Mari os. The valg-/volg-stemmed word form is also found in Mari, but there the meaning is ‘bright, clear’ (SSA III 400).

The appellations with as- (compare MdE aso ‘white’) considered to be Erzya are found in Moksha territory and in the vicinity of Rjazan’ (map 3). The Moksha appellation aks- (compare MdM aksa ‘white) is chiefly attest-ed in the water systems of the rivers Mokša and Tёša, near the present day settlements of Moksha Mordvins (GBO264, 239, 257). Admittedly, one hydronym, Aksenka ?< *Aksa (GBO141), is found in the Serpuhov area.

Os- appellations occur in the water system of the River Mokša (GBO241, 242, 253, 254). In theory they could be related to the Meshchera appella-tions or even the Mordvin word os ‘town’ < *voča ~ Finn. ota-va (Bartens 1999: 41). A few os- names are also found in the area of the Kljaz’ma water system (GBO202, 209), which could conversely imply a Merya ori-gin for the names in question. It is nonetheless significant that the appel-lation os- [Mari os- ‘white’] is attested in precisely the same territory in the Mokša and Kljaz’ma water systems as sem- and sim- names (Mokša GBO242, 250, 257, Kljaz’ma GBO203, 211) [Mari sem/sim ‘black’], so

FUF 60 (2009)

Page 209: south-eastern contact area of finnic languages in the light of onomastics

177

The Linguistic Background of the Ancient Meshchera Tribe...

that they would seem more likely to be Mari appellations. Near the town of Krasnoslobodsk on the upper reaches of the River Mokša, a village called Ceremis is situated, which may also be related to older Mari settlement. Both the ing(e)r- specifics GBO222, 228, MariE eŋer ‘river’ (Moisio 1994: 415), and Čeremis- hydronyms GBO229 at the mouth of the Oka also pro-vide evidence of ancient Mari settlement in the Oka area. Similarly, some old chroniclers (Rjabinin 1997: 214) refer to Maris living on the lower reaches of the Oka.

The us- appellations would appear to be mainly concentrated in the archaeologically defined area of the Meshcheras and Meshchera ethnic hy-dronyms (map 6). In that case it could be assumed that their language, and that of the Mordvins and Maris, included the etymologically common word *as(V) ~ *us ‘white’ or the word was an adaptation from Mordvin (comp. Md. *a > Mešč. u). Phonetically this would be possible (see, e.g., Sam-mallahti 1988: 522). Because, as mentioned earlier, the Meshchera lan-guage appears to have other words in common with the Permic languages (see above), it could be assumed that the word in question belonged to an earlier Permian word form; certainly so, if Rédei is right in reconstructing the word as as Proto-Finno-Ugrian (UEW 3). Forms corresponding to this are found among names in Udmurtia, such as two Us|na- rivers in the Oka area GBO128 and 194 vs. Udmurtia’s Us|net|ka RAU16, and the Oka’s Usč|er GBO190 and 226 vs. Udmurtia’s Us|ur RAU11, which might refer to the lost ancient Permian word *us ‘white’.

Appellations with the specifics sim- occur in the Merya–Muroma terri-tory (GBO196, 203, 209, 211, 216), and this can probably be traced to the original form PFP *simɜ ‘rust’ (UEW 758). In Merya names, the meaning of the specific is probably ‘black’, as is evidently the case with the Mari sem/sim ‘black’ which derives from the same original word (Sammallahti 1988: 553).

As already mentioned, the sem-/ sim appellation [‘black’] of Mari ori-gin seems to be geographically located in exactly the same way as the os- forms. The sum- names are located in the ethnically and archaeologically defined Meshchera territory (GBO103, 126, 227, 228, 259, 262). In such a case, the word *sum or *səm ‘black’ ??< PFP *simɜ ‘rust’ would pos-sibly have belonged to the Permian language. Phonologically, since direct derivation from the PFP level is not possible, this must be a question of borrowing a Mari-type word. The dialectal sum ‘soot’ (URS 1983: 509) and corresponding som ‘coal’ in Komi < PPerm. *söm ‘coal, soot’ (Lytkin

FUF 60 (2009)

Page 210: south-eastern contact area of finnic languages in the light of onomastics

178

Pauli Rahkonen

– Guljaev 1999: 321) does occur in Udmurt, for which reason this could indeed be a word of Permian origin. The change in meaning ‘coal’ > ‘black’ would not be difficult to explain.

It is interesting that toponyms based on the modern Mordvin word for ‘black’ raužo are not found at all in the River Oka catchment area (Smolickaja 1976; Inževatov 1987). On the other hand, such hydronyms as Čemeskoj (GBO266), Čemis|lej (GBO256) do occur in the River Mokša area. In the Moskva catchment the hydronym Čem|rav|skoj (GBO 117); compare MdE čemen ‘rust’ ? < PFP *simɜ14, MdE/M Rav ‘Volga’ (i.e., ‘riv-er’), MdM rava ‘river’ (Bartens 1999: 15) is found. In view of the forego-ing, it could be assumed that Mordvins used the word čem to correspond to the sem ‘black’ word the Maris used for naming purposes.

In Merya–Muroma areas, the corresponding word would seem to have been čim; compare Čiman|ovs.koj (GBO203), Čim|sora (AJO15 13).

The appellations us- and sum- that I have assumed to be possibly Mesh-chera are nevertheless uncertain enough for them not to have been included on the distribution map.

The appellations for ‘white’ and ‘black’ with the related ethnoses:

ethnos white black

Mordvin MdE as-, asč-, MdM aks- čem-

Meshchera ? us, ? əs ? sum, ? səm

Merya–Muroma volg- sim-, ? čim

Mari os sem, sim

Observations on the ethnonym Meshchera

What the literature says about the ethnonym Meshchera has been shown above. If the hypothesis advanced in this work that the Meshcheras were actually a Permian tribe, is acceptable, then the etymology of the ethnonym itself could also be sought in the Permian languages.

FUF 60 (2009)

Page 211: south-eastern contact area of finnic languages in the light of onomastics

179

The Linguistic Background of the Ancient Meshchera Tribe...

Lytkin – Guljaev (1999: 176–177) state the following concerning the modern Komi word: “mösör ‘valley, ravine’: < PPerm. ? *(mu) sɛr(t) ‘area between two masses of terrain, depression, valley’; möstras|ni ‘car-ry to another place, drag a boat from one waterway to another’ > Russ.N. мышер|ина ‘mixed forest, that grows in damp and soft ground’ (Lytkin – Guljaev 1999: 176 citing Kalima 1927: 32)”. In his list of Komi toponyms A. P. Afanas’ev gives the meaning ‘isthmus’ for the word mösör (1996: 194).

The ethnonym Meshchera could be explained phonologically by this Permian point of departure. Semantically it could be a question of a plot of land lying between the Oka and Volga that is called in Russian волго-окское междуречье, or an isthmus окско-клязьминское междуречье ly-ing between the Kljaz’ma and Oka, in which case it would be possible to interpret Jordanes’ imniscaris as in miscari ‘in Miscari’ (see above), that is, in Möśör, and in such an event the Meshcheras would be “isthmusians”.

In the Komi republic the Knjažpogost raion on the bank of the River Jemva, a tributary of the Vym, is a settlement named Mesčura (ARK51V6). A water route which connects the Jelva and Vym is located in this area (the route: Jelva ← Cel’ju ↔ isthmus ↔ Olem → Vym). The name Mesčora occurs along the River Onega to the north of Kargopol’ (de Jode – Jenkin-Kargopol’ (de Jode – Jenkin- (de Jode – Jenkin-(de Jode – Jenkin-son 1593, Ortelius – Jenkinson 1571). The former is situated exactly in the area of the River Jemca which connects the River Onega and the Dvina through a shortish isthmus.

Connections between the Oka water system and the waterways of Udmurtia

What follows presents the most obvious connections between the hydro-nyms of Udmurtia and the Oka area, together with some brief comments. There is reason to emphasise that a comparison between the names in question would require a far more extensive description and more detailed analysis. The modest comparison offered here nevertheless ought to sup-port the idea that a toponymic connection between Udmurtia and the Oka area is quite probable.

The names from Udmurtia have been taken from the Regional’nyj Atlas Udmurtskaja Respublika (RAU), the page numbers of the atlas having been used for coding. The Permian formants from the Oka territory (or in some cases ancient generics) are shown in boldface. The formants are founded on Atamanov’s 1988 definitions. Undoubtedly, although the Atamanov’s

FUF 60 (2009)

Page 212: south-eastern contact area of finnic languages in the light of onomastics

180

Pauli Rahkonen

Moskva

Ivanovo

Serpuhov

Ryazan

Kaluga

Orel

Tambov

Vladimir

Volga

VolgaOka

Klyaz’ma

Oka

Žizdra

Ugra

Protva

Upa

Pronya

Tsna

Pra

Gus’

Ušna

Nerl’Teza

Oka

Vad

Klyaz’ma

Tula

Murom

Mokša

Nižniy-Novgorod

Mordvin hydronyms vel- ‘upper’ al- ‘lower’ in- ‘great’ vež-/vešk- ‘little’ aš-/ašč-/akš- ‘white’ čem- ‘black’

present Mordvin linguistic area area of mordv-etnonymic hydronyms Mordvin names area

Map 3

Moskva

Ivanovo

Serpuhov

Ryazan

Kaluga

Orel

Tambov

Vladimir

Volga

VolgaOka

Klyaz’ma

Oka

Žizdra

Ugra

Protva

Upa

Pronya

Tsna

Pra

Gus’

Ušna

Nerl’Teza

Oka

Vad

Klyaz’ma

Tula

Murom

Mokša

Nižniy-Novgorod

?

?

Dyakovo culturalarea

Meryaarea

Muromaarea

Map 2

Merya-Muroma hydronyms il- ilm- volo- von- < *en- vjaz- < *väz- volg- sim-

Map 2. Merya and Muroma hydronyms (Smolickaja 1976).

Map 3. Mordvin hydronyms (Smolickaja 1976).

FUF 60 (2009)

Page 213: south-eastern contact area of finnic languages in the light of onomastics

181

The Linguistic Background of the Ancient Meshchera Tribe...

Map 4. Meshchera–Permian hydronyms (Smolickaja 1976).

Moskva

Ivanovo

Serpuhov

Ryazan

Kaluga

Orel

Tambov

Vladimir

Volga

VolgaOka

Klyaz’ma

Oka

Žizdra

Ugra

Protva

Upa

Pronya

Tsna

Pra

Gus’

Ušna

Nerl’Teza

Oka

Vad

Klyaz’ma

Tula

Murom

Mokša

Nižniy-Novgorod

Map 4

Oka Permian names (Meshchera) vil- ‘upper’ ul- ‘lower’ un- ‘great’ ič- ‘little’

topoformant list does hit the target, the etymological point of departure for the formants is certainly not on a very firm footing. His ideas are generally based on the doctrine of the Russian School, the belief that formants have evolved from appellatives. Nonetheless, Finnish formants, for example, re-semble adfixes more than appellatives, for which reason it is sufficient to note the formants without further analysis in what follows.

The names in the Oka area are based on Smolickaja’s topological dic-tionary (GBO). The numbering refers to page numbers in the GBO. Map 5 has been drawn on the basis of the material in question. Names on the map have been transliterated according to the rules for Cyrillic, in which it is not always immediately clear whether a sibilant or affricate is palatalized or not. The soft sign ь is represented by the sign ’. However, in discussing the etymology of Permian words palatalisation has been marked s, ʒ, etc.

• Cep|ca ~ Udm. Cupči (RAU12), Cep|yc (RAU11), Cep|yk (RAU13) vs. Cep|ur|da|nka (GBO268), Cep|ur|inskaja (GBO141) < čep- undefined

|| Permian formant -ur < *-ur ~ -ir ? (Atamanov 1988: 79).

FUF 60 (2009)

Page 214: south-eastern contact area of finnic languages in the light of onomastics

182

Pauli Rahkonen

• Ir|ej|ka (RAU23), Ir|in’ga (RAU26), Ir|im|ka (RAU13/18) vs. Ira (GBO231), Ir|ža (GBO265), Ir|ka (GBO251), Ir|mez ~ Irmes (GBO216), Ir|mis|a (GBO214), Ir|ov (GBO113), Ir|ša (GBO254) < Komi ir ~ jir ‘deep water’ (SSKD 138) || Permian formants -ej < *-oj (Atamanov 1988: 61); possibly an ancient Permian specific ‘ditch’ (Atamanov 1988: 61), -mez ~ -mes, -mis < *mes; according to Atamanov ‘water source’ (Atamanov 1988: 60–61), although I consider this etymological assumtion somewhat uncertain; -ža ?< *ǯi (Atamanov 1988: 74).• Ita (RAU18/19), It|inka (RAU19) vs. It’ja (GBO173) < Udm. iti|ni ‘join’ (URS 170); in Udmurtia, the Ita and Siva rivers formed a short isthmus for portage in the distant past by connecting important water routes, Cepca and Kama; in Jaroslavl oblasť Volga tributary It’ and its tributary the Toj-mina and the Kostroma River tributaries Uhtanka/Savondranka function as a connecting river between the Volga and the River Kostroma, through a short isthmus for portage.• Jaga (RAU36), Jago|šur (RAU10), Jag|ul|ka (RAU25), Jag|ul|ka (RAU29) vs. Jag|us (GBO254), Jago|ma (GBO218), Jagu|b|ovskoj (GBO219), Jagu|p|ovskoj (GBO171) < Udm./Komi jag ‘pine wood’ (Lyt-kin – Guljaev 1999: 337) || Permian formants/generics -b-, -p- < *-pa ~ -ba, the basis of the etymology of which Atamanov considers uncertain. In Udmurtian topology, pa-/ba- also occurs as a specific. (Atamanov 1988: 80.) The element -ul in the name Jag|ul|ka (RAV25, 29) corresponds to Udm. ul ‘low’ (Kel’makov pers. comm. 16.03.2009).• Kačo (RAU11) vs. Kač|ka (GBO243), Kač|kur (GBO196), Kač|ma (GBO214), Kač|ur|ov (GBO191), Kač|hra (GBO228) < Udm. kaz ‘net’ (URS 181) < *kaǯ (Kel’makov 16.03.2009) || Permian formant -ur ~ -ir, see above; ?Permian generic kur < Komi kur”ja ‘(river) inlet, sound’ (SSKD 144; Lytkin – Guljaev 1999: 147), in the Oka area kur ‘lake’ (see Kuro oz. (GBO192, 228). • Kady (RAU39) vs. Kad (GBO129), Kada|da (GBO238), Kady|b|ka ~ Kad|yč|ek (GBO68), Kad|ym|ov (GBO167). < Udm. dial. kad ‘swamp’ (URS 180), Komi kad ‘lake which has become marsh, boggy shore’ (SSKD 144) || Permian formants/generics -b- < *ba (Atamanov 1988: 80), -yč- < *-ič ~ -ič (Atamanov 1988: 78), -ym (-im) < *-im ~ -um (Atamanov 1988:78); regularly corresponding to the Permian formant -im- (Sammallahti 1988: 530) often -om in the Volga-Oka area; e.g., RAU11 Kestim|ka vs. GBO194 Kestoma, RAU13 Kostim vs. GBO104 Kostom|ka.

FUF 60 (2009)

Page 215: south-eastern contact area of finnic languages in the light of onomastics

183

The Linguistic Background of the Ancient Meshchera Tribe...

• Keč|evka (RAU32) vs. Keč|ka (GBO169), Keč|kura (GBO201), Keč|uga (GBO215), Keč’ (GBO237) < Udm. keč, Komi köč ‘hare’ (SSKD 173; URS 196) || Permian kur(a) < Komi kur”ja ‘(river) inlet and possibly -uga < early PPerm *juk (Atamanov 1988: 60) || A. K. Matveev and the ar-chaeologist V. F. Genning consider the distribution of the specific -jug(a)- to correspond with the Anan’ino cultural area and thus be connected with the Permian nations (Atamanov 1988: 60 citing Matveev 1961: 138; 1965: 211.). Unlike Atamanov, Lytkin – Guljaev believe the PPermian word for ‘river’ occurred in the form *ju not *juk (1997: 334). For his part Sam-mallahti favours juka/joka as the Proto-Finno-Permian form (1988: 537).• Kel’|vaj (RAU29) vs. Kel’|da (GBO237), Kel’|inka (GBO105), Kel’|man (GBO223), Kel’|ca (GBO125), Kel’ja (GBO268) < ? PPerm *kel’ ‘ale-coloured’ [perhaps in the appellative for ‘muddy water’] (Lyt-ale-coloured’ [perhaps in the appellative for ‘muddy water’] (Lyt- [perhaps in the appellative for ‘muddy water’] (Lyt-muddy water’] (Lyt-’] (Lyt-kin – Guljaev 1999: 121) || Permian formant -man; Atamanov considers the Indo-European < *mano-, *mani- ‘wet, damp’ (1988: 76-77) to be the etymological basis.• Ker|njur (RAU11) vs. Ker|mis (GBO252) < Komi, Proto-Perm. ker ‘timber’ (Lytkin – Guljaev 1999: 121) || Permian formant -mis < *-mes; if this formant corresponds to basic form ‘source’, it cannot be semantically related to timber. It is certainly possible that the generic has lost its mean-ing and become a pure formant or that the ‘source, spring’ etymology is incorrect. • Kok|man (RAU16) vs. Kok|men|noj (GBO134) < Udm. koko ‘egg’ (URS 204), Komi koko ‘(game)birds’ (SSKD 161) || Permian formant -men < *-man; see the name Kel’- above.• Kut|yk (RAU16) vs. Kut|uk|ova (GBO142) < Komi kut|ni, Udm. kutini ‘hunt, catch’ (Lytkin – Guljaev 1999: 147) || -uk ?< ?(early) PPerm. *juk.• Nyrse|vaj|ka (RAU23) vs. Nyrsa (GBO238) < Udm./Komi nir ‘nose, beak’ (Lytkin – Guljaev 1999: 197), ‘headland, promontory’ (USS 328) || a Permian formant -sa < * -si; (Atamanov 1988: 75–76).• Pozim’ (RAU25) vs. Pozem|noe (GBO262) < Komi poz ‘nest’ (SSKD 290) || Permian formant -em < *im ~ -um; see the name Kad- above.• Pyž’|ja (RAU14), Pyž|man|ka (RAU28) vs. Pyž|avka (GBO236), Pyž|evskoj (GBO177, 205), Pyž|ik (GBO172, 233), Pyž|ovskoj (GBO216) < Udm./Komi piž, PPerm *puž ‘boat’ (Lytkin – Guljaev 1999: 235)• Sed|mikča (RAU5), Sed|murča (RAU22) vs. Sed|ma (GBO253) < Udm./Komi sed, PPerm *sod ‘black’ (Lytkin – Guljaev 1999: 269).

FUF 60 (2009)

Page 216: south-eastern contact area of finnic languages in the light of onomastics

184

Pauli Rahkonen

• Sep (RAU18), Sep|ož|ka (RAU18), Sep|yč (RAU11), Sep|yč (RAU24/25) vs. Sep|or|ka (GBO189) < Udm. sep ‘strip of land’ (URS 386) || Permian formant -or- < *-ur ~ ir (Atamanov 1988: 79-80), in many cases Perm. i ~ Oka o in the toponyms.• Sine|pur|ka (RAU15) vs. Sine|bor|ka (GBO226) < Udm. sin ‘eye’ [‘source’ in the topologies] (URS 389) || Permian generic Komi bör, Udm. ber, PPerm *bɛr- ‘rear-, back’ (Lytkin – Guljaev 1999: 41).• Siva (RAU20/26) vs. Siv|ka (GBO108,200, 264), Siv|skoj (GBO161), Siv|us ~ Siv|či (GBO232), Siv|il’ (GBO257) < etymology of generic unclear; since the Udmurtian Siva is a big river, the name may be very old, possibly an archaic form of the word *sawe ‘clay’, which the UEW considers Proto-Finno-Ugric. The *a could be traceable to the initial syllable PU vowel *i reconstructed by Sammallahti (1988: 481). On the other hand, since there is an abundance of siv- names around the Oka, the etymology should be of a general nature || Permian formant -či (Atamanov 1988: 75), generic -il’ < jul’ ‘forest river’ or the generic < jil ‘source area of a river’ (Atamanov 1988: 62, 80; URS 175).• Sjur|ek (RAU21), Sjur|vaj (RAU17), Sjur|juk (RAU14), Sjur|sovajka (RAU18/19), Sjur|zja (RAU16,19), Sjur|zi; Verh. (RAU10) vs. Sjur (GBO261) < Udm./Komi sur ‘horn’ (Lytkin – Guljaev 1999: 274).• Šark|an (RAU19) vs. Šark|inskaja (GBO145) ??< Udm. sark ‘clatter’ (URS 495), Komi sark ‘rapidly, noisily’ (SSKS 425); compare the Finnish naming of Koliseva, Tyrisevä, etc. ‘noise making’.• Šur|vaj|ka (RAU24) vs. Šur|b|enskaja (GBO227), Šur|il|ka (GBO236), Šur|man|skoj (GBO262) < Udm. sur ‘river’ (URS 510) || Permian formants -b- < * -ba ~ -pa, -man- < *-man, Permian generic -il- < *jil ‘source area of a river’; see above.• Tojma (RAU30/37), Tojma; Mal. (RAU30) vs. Tojm|iga (GBO228), Tajm|yga (GBO225) < Komi tuj ‘road’ < PPerm *tȢj (Lytkin ‒ Guljaev 1999: 285) > in Udmurtia Tojma (officially) ~ Tujmi (Udm.), Tojmo|bas (officially) ~ Tujmi|jil (Udm.) (Atamanov 1988: 80); in the toponyms Tojma-rivers always ‘river road-stretch’ or ‘river isthmus’; e.g., Tojma (RAU30), the River Dvina tributaries Tojma, Verh. & Niž., Jaroslavl oblasť Tojmina (AJO66).• Tort|ym|ka (RAU13) vs. Torto|mas|ovs.koj (GBO259), Torta (GBO231) ? < Udm. dial. turto ‘shaft’ || Permian formant -mas- < *mes ~ mas ~ mos; see above.• Tyl|oj (RAU18), Tyl|oj|ka (RAU18) vs. Tylec ~ Tyl|ma (GBO130), Tyl|ka (GBO184) < Udm. til ‘wind’; compare Komi tila ‘slash and burn-forest’ (Lyt-kin – Guljaev 1999: 292), Udm. tilo ‘low forest’ (Atamanov 1988: 66).

FUF 60 (2009)

Page 217: south-eastern contact area of finnic languages in the light of onomastics

185

The Linguistic Background of the Ancient Meshchera Tribe...

• Ud|eb|ka (RAU27) vs. Ud (GBO270), Uda (GBO187), Ud|va (GBO241), Ud|evskoj (GBO193) < Udm. ud ‘Udmurt’ (tribe) (URS 441) || Permian generic -va < Komi, va, PPerm *va [?*vå] (Lytkin – Guljaev 1999: 46) ‘water’.• Uj (RAU18), Uj|vaj|ka (RAU19) vs. Uj|ka (GBO38) < Udm. uj ‘night, north’ (URS 444).• Usa (RAU38) vs. Usa (GBO45) < Udm. usi ‘harrow’ ?~ Komi vos ‘tooth’ (Lytkin – Guljaev 1999: 63–64), < Komi us|ni, PPerm *Ȣs- ‘(to) drop’ (Lytkin – Guljaev 1999: 298), ? < ?Old Permian *usa ‘waterfall’. In Udmurt names Us- (official) ~ Jus- (Udm.) (Atamanov 1988: 148) < Udm. jus ‘swan’.• Ušn|et|ka (RAU16) vs. Ušna (GBO128, 194); see ‘white’ names above; ?? < Mari os ‘white’; ?? < Udm. jus ‘perch’.• Vala (RAU21/29/30) vs. Val (GBO185), Vale|vaš|evs.koj (GBO64), Val|ej (GBO257), Vale|m|ka (GBO97), Vale|nga (GBO227), Val|oga (GBO140) < Udm. val ‘horse’ (URS 69). The Vala in Udmurtia can be interpreted as va ‘water’ + formant -la (Atamanov 1988: 59) || ? Permian formant -vas < bas. • Vi|šur (RAU17), Vi|šur|ka (RAU29) vs. Vi|hra oz. (GBO196), Vi|enka (GBO153) < Udm. dial. vi ‘plain between two rivers’ (URS 80) or Komi vij, vi ‘butter’ (Lytkin – Guljaev 1999: 71). • Vož|gajan|ka (RAU16), Vož|oj|ka (RAU25) vs. Voža (GBO160), Voža|tel’ (GBO268), Vož|enka (GBO211), Vož|noe (GBO130) < Udm. vož ‘mouth of river, intersection, branching’ (URS 86), Komi vož ‘branch, branching’ (Lytkin – Guljaev 1999: 60) || Permian element -tel’ < Udm. tel’ ‘young fir or pine for-est’ (Atamanov 1988: 66).• Vuko|šur (RAU19) vs. Vuko|nka (GBO168) < Udm. vuko ‘mill’ (URS, 97); Kel’makov points out that vuko is a recent word in Udmurt (Kel’makov 16.03.2009). Nevertheless, the suggestion that the Meshchera language was still quite recently being spoken in the 16th century was made above.

Conclusions

First, let it be observed that both the most essential specifics of hydronyms ‘upper’/’lower’ and ‘big’/’little’, and toponymic contacts with Udmurtia appear to suggest a connection between Permian names and the archaeo-archaeo-logical cultural territory of the Meshcheras. It should also be remembered that although the three Finno-Ugrian linguistic groups of the Oka water system area discussed above, the Mordvins, Merya–Muromas and Permi-ans, reside pretty much within the their own areas, the tribes in question did not dwell in their own precisely defined national states. For this reason,

FUF 60 (2009)

Page 218: south-eastern contact area of finnic languages in the light of onomastics

186

Pauli Rahkonen

Map 5. Udmurt toponyms (RAU 2003) and Oka toponyms (Smolickaja 1976).

Moskva

Ivanovo

Serpuhov

Ryazan

Kaluga

Orel

Tambov

Vladimir

Volga

VolgaOka

Klyaz’ma

Oka

Žizdra

Ugra

Protva

Upa

Pronya

Tsna

Pra

Gus’

Ušna

Nerl’Teza

Oka

Vad

Klyaz’ma

Tula

Murom

Mokša

Nižniy-Novgorod

Map 5

Mešèerskij Gorodec

Common names on Udmurtia and Oka hydronyms Meščerskyj Gorodec

Meshchera core area

we can only speak of a core area and peripheries. In particular, the areas in which the Meshcheras lived overlapped with those of the Muromas and Mordvins, exactly as stated in the Chronicle (see above). Nonetheless, we can speak of a core area of Meshcheras, which appears to have been bipo-lar; the more westerly territory being situated along the banks of the River Moskva and the Upper Kljaz’ma, and the eastern on the River Oka from Rjazan’ to Murom.

The different approaches in this work chosen for the study of the Mesh-chera territories do give results that slightly differ from each other, although as a whole they are fairly congruent. Maps 4 and 6 show that the distribu-tion of the most essential specifics vil-, ul-, un- ič- (‘upp(er), low(er), big, small’) (in the areas of Moscow, Rjazan’ and Meščerskij Gorodec) matches the archaeological sites dated 900–1200 AD fairly closely. Taking into consideration both the specifi cs and the evidence from archaeological ex-specifics and the evidence from archaeological ex- and the evidence from archaeological ex-cavations, the Meshcheras were located in two core areas, such that the

FUF 60 (2009)

Page 219: south-eastern contact area of finnic languages in the light of onomastics

187

The Linguistic Background of the Ancient Meshchera Tribe...

western area was on the eastern side of Moscow and the eastern area in the Oka basin between Rjazan’ and Murom, the midpoint being Meščerskij Gorodec ~ Kasimov.16

The ethnic mešcёra hydronyms extend to the mouth of the Oka, which is north of Murom (maps 1 and 6). The description given by late medieval chroniclers affirming that the Meshcheras dwelt among the Mordvins and Muromas (maps 1–3) corresponds to this. The fact that these ethnic hydro-nyms are also found by the River Pronja, the area around the source of the Mokša, the Tambov area and in the Moscow area is also evident from the territorial distribution of the specifics vil-, ul-, un- and ič- (map 4).

The toponyms shared with Udmurtia (map 5) confirm the concept of a Meshchera territory somewhat more extensive than the archaeological findings. In addition to the territory between the Moscow area and Rjazan’-Murom, common names are attested in the area around the source of the Mokša and north of Murom in the direction of the confluence of the Oka. It would seem that the Permian Meshcheras tried to control the traffic on the important necks of land between the River Moskva and the Volga, be-tween the Pronja and Don and between the Mokša and Sura. Furthermore, it would appear that they attempted to man important confluences, such as those of the Moskva, Mokša, Kljaz’ma and the Oka itself.

It should be borne in mind that Permian names also occur over a very wide territory elsewhere in central and northern Russia. Some of these are probably connected with the Anan’ino Culture fanning out from the Lower Kama towards the west. This is suggested by A. K. Matveev, who alludes to -jug names (1961, 1965). Not all of the Permian population living in the extensive area of these toponyms in northern Russia can be directly as-sociated with the Meshcheras, but at least it would seem to apply to other different Permian groups.

In summary (map 6), it can be stated that the archaeological materi-al provides a more limited view of the Meshcheras. The ‘big’/’little’ and ‘upper’/’lower’ names extend this territory in the direction of the lower reaches of the Oka and to the district of Rjazan’. The combined picture from the Meshchera ethnic hydronyms and the Udmurt toponyms is even more extensive than this, reaching further, particularly eastwards to the River Mokša and the north-eastern confluence region of the Oka. One ex-planation may be that the archaeologically defined territory corresponds to the situation 900–1200 AD, but the toponyms describe the state of affairs which, according to the chroniclers, existed at the end of the medieval pe-

FUF 60 (2009)

Page 220: south-eastern contact area of finnic languages in the light of onomastics

188

Pauli Rahkonen

riod. Consequently, the Meshcheras would have moved towards the north-east and east, as suggested by Markov (1993: 3).

When was this layer of Permian names established? Such an abundance of names presupposes a considerable population flow. From the archaeo-logical point of view, there were several periods of migration. The earliest can be considered to be the period of the Anan’ino Culture ca 800–200 BC. Both A. H. Halikov and V. Patrušev consider the westward migration of the Anan’ino population in the east relatively certain (Halikov 1992: 57–60; Patrušev 2000: 89–99). The change brought about by the Anan’ino Culture in ceramics is also so striking as to suggest that an extensive migration is indeed probable. At that time Proto-Permian or, more precisely, Early Proto-Permian language was spoken (Bartens 2000: 10).

On the other hand, as evidenced earlier, many archaeologists con-sider the Meshchera Culture to have been based on the Gorodec Culture of the Iron-Age (e.g., Rjabinin 1997: 232 and appropriate citations). As mentioned earlier, the Gorodec Culture in turn could have had contacts, at least to some extent, not only with the Anan’ino Culture, but also with that which followed, the Pjanobor–Ceganda Culture.

A third significant cultural flow was that of the Lomovatova Culture, which blossomed ca 600–700 AD. (Conversation with Carpelan 1.9.2008; Patrušev 2000: 162, 169–171.) The period of the distinctive culture of the Meshcheras begins in the Oka region soon after this. It would seem that the Lomovatova Culture could not on the face of it have initiated such a large migration as the substantial number of Permian names would have necessitated. On the other hand, access to Udmurt names does not seem old enough to have reached back to the period of the Anan’ino Culture. The specifi cs are quite transparent and even many modern Udmurt form-specifics are quite transparent and even many modern Udmurt form- are quite transparent and even many modern Udmurt form-ants would appear to have originated in the Oka topology (see above). For these reasons, a progressive migration can be posited that may admittedly have commenced during the Anan’ino period, when Early Proto-Permian was already being used (Bartens 2000: 10) and apparently acquired con-siderable increases later, including migrants from the Lomovatova cultural environment. During the time of the Lomovatova Culture, Proto-Permian is thought to have begun to split up into Komi and Udmurt (ibid. 2000: 13). It is, however, hard to determine what part was played in this process by Oka Permian.

On the basis of what has been stated above it can be supposed that the old Permian colonies, small to begin with, lured new settlers to the

FUF 60 (2009)

Page 221: south-eastern contact area of finnic languages in the light of onomastics

189

The Linguistic Background of the Ancient Meshchera Tribe...

Map 6. Summary of Meshchera names from the Oka area and archaeological material.

Moskva

Ivanovo

Serpuhov

Ryazan

Kaluga

Orel

Tambov

Vladimir

Volga

VolgaOka

Klyaz’ma

Oka

Žizdra

Ugra

Protva

Upa

Pronya

Tsna

Pra

Gus’

Ušna

Nerl’Teza

Oka

Vad

Klyaz’ma

Tula

Murom

Mokša

Nižniy-Novgorod

Map 6

Meshchera etnonymic hydronymtheir bordersMeshchera archaeological sitesPermian vil-,ul-,un-,ič- hydronymscorresponding density of Udm. Names

Meshcherskij Gorodec

productive commercial routes. Pronin speaks of “the Great Volga trading route” that proceeded from the Upper Volga to Kljaz’ma and along the River Moskva to Oka (Pronin 2006: 2). Quite possibly the connection with the old “mother land” Udmurtia continued. Linguistically this would im-ply a western Proto-Permian, that is, a Meshchera variant. Thus, migration could have continued over a period of almost a thousand years in the same way in which Slavic expansion occurred little by little over the course of many centuries.

Pauli RahkonenUniversity of Helsinki

Kivimäentie 49, 15200 Lahti, [email protected]

FUF 60 (2009)

Page 222: south-eastern contact area of finnic languages in the light of onomastics

190

Pauli Rahkonen

Notes

1 In the Russian literature, the terms ‘right bank’ and ‘left bank’ are used according to the direction of the current from the upper reaches to the lower reaches.

2 Generally speaking, my own observation has been that the toponyms have spread somewhat further than what is considered to be the corresponding archaeological cultural area in many instances.

3 The border between the Finnish coastal and inland cultures can also be considered a long-standing cultural boundary that began to take shape during the period of the Corded Ware Culture and continued until the Medieval Finnish invasion.

4 The horse motif of the Meshchera pendants is elaborately stylised (see Rjabinin 1997: 219, 226, plates 58, 61) compared to, for example, the otherwise correspond-ing or almost corresponding Mari pendants, the horse representations of which are decidedly recognisable as horses (Nikitin – Nikitina 2004: 100, plate 42).

5 This territory has been the object of many instances of migration since the period of Gorodec Culture influence: for example, the Bolgars, Tatars, Mordvins, and Rus-sians have since left a substantial toponym substrate.

6 I have also added the Il’m- names to this, even though here it is not necessarily a case of a word being formed from the elements ile + the formant -ma. The Il’m- ap-pellation is, however, always found in river source areas.

7 The ethnic definition of a territory is based on identical evidence from archaeology (as in Rjabinin 1997: 150, 168–169, 200, illustrations 40, 44, 53; Leont’ev 1996: 26, illustration 1), ethnic hydronyms and historical sources (see Rjabinin 1997: 149-150, 197 and citations).

8 The hydronyms El(i)m- ?< PSaami *elmē ‘ilma’ ~ ‘air’ (Lehtiranta 2001: 10) of Finnish and Saami origin are often associated with ‘upper-’ waters (e.g., Mullonen 2002: 236–244). In regard to central and northern Russian hydronyms, it is not quite certain that the word ‘ilma’, i.e., the sky, is in the background. It could be a matter of ‘upper-’ + the -ma- formant. At least in the names Ild’ and Ilezem it is a question of ‘upper-’ + the formants -d’ < *da and -z + m< *ma. In the case of those toponyms assumed to be of Saami origin in Finnish areas, one might also suspect that in some cases the Proto-Saami *elē ‘upper’ (Lehtiranta 2001: 10) + formant -ma may be somewhere in the background. In this event, the middle vowel could be explained in such source lakes as Elamonjärvi [Kuhmalahti], Elimojärvi [Lieksa], Elimonjärvi [Ilomantsi], Elimysjärvi [Kuhmo]; observe the source lake of the River Laajoki Elijärvi [Yläne] (GT2000).

9 MAG 81, e.g., Veps variant En|oja ~ Russ. Енная [Jennaja], Енуя [Jenuja]10 This study will not enter into the debate as to whether the prosthetic /v/ belonged to

the Merya–Muroma language in the same way as SaN vuolle- < Proto-Saami *vōlē ‘lower-’ (Lehtiranta 2001: 152; see Korhonen 1981: 131) or is a form that has since been influenced by Russian; compare вобжа (Kursk) ~ обжа (Dal’ I 217; REW III 99), вольха (Voronež, Kursk) ~ ольха (Dal’ II 672), вомиг (south, west) ~ омег (Dal’ II 672), вострец ~ острец (Dal’ I 251).

11 -ma is an extensive formant in Finno-Ugrian languages; -ra, compare Md. rav(a) ‘river’, in old maps Rha ~ Volga, i.e., ‘River’; -ir, -ič (Atamanov 1988: 78–79).

FUF 60 (2009)

Page 223: south-eastern contact area of finnic languages in the light of onomastics

191

The Linguistic Background of the Ancient Meshchera Tribe...

12 According to the toponyms the Muroma language and languages spoken in the western parts of Kostroma and Vologda oblast’s are very close to the languages in the areas of the Meryas (Rahkonen manuscript). On that account I use the term Merya languages in plural in the same way as the Saami languages are spoken of.

13 There are a significant number of other appellations of Merya origin in the Svir’ area (Kalima 1942; MAG; Mullonen 1997: XIX).

14 Rédei mentions this Erzya-Mordvin word in connection with the word PFP *simɜ-: “kann wegen des abweichenden anlautenden Konsonanten keine Entsprechung der oben angefürten Wörter sein” (UEW 759). Lytkin relates the Komi sim with the Erzya Mordvin čemen (Lytkin – Guljaev 1999: 258).

15 AJO is an abbreviation for the atlas named Atlas Jaroslavskoj oblasti (2002).16 On old maps, the name is in the form, Cassim gorode (Ortelius – Jenkinson 1571;

de Jode – Jenkinson 1593) and Cassima (Mercator 1595).

Appendix

Table for name material in the maps 2–4:The criterion used for the inclusion of hydronyms is generally that the appropriate Finno-Ugrian formant has the specifi c of a Finno-Ugrian name attached to it. Rus-specific of a Finno-Ugrian name attached to it. Rus- of a Finno-Ugrian name attached to it. Rus-sian adfixes have been demarcated from other elements by the sign |. The index coding for the name is indicated using the relevant page number in Smolickaja’s dictionary of toponyms GBO (1976).

il(e/V), ilm-

Ilam|ov GBO68 Il’ma ~ Il’mahta ~ Il’mohta

GBO208

Ilemel’ ~ Ileml’ GBO70 Il’m|enka GBO129, 225

Ilem|enka GBO95 Il’m|en GBO228, 253

Ilem|ka ~ Ilemna GBO193 Il’mžes GBO263

Ilemles GBO69 Il’m|inka GBO168

Ilemn|ikov GBO192

Ilenda GBO228

Ilimd|ina GBO269

FUF 60 (2009)

Page 224: south-eastern contact area of finnic languages in the light of onomastics

192

Pauli Rahkonen

Ilinda GBO193

Ilot’ GBO96

vel(e)-

Vele|nka GBO78, 100, 123

Vele|nec ~ Vele|ncovskoj

GBO138

Velegoži GBO109 Vele|nskoj GBO255

Velegoža GBO111 Velet’ma GBO263

Velež|evka GBO145 Veleuš|ka GBO111

Velej GBO128 Veleš|evskoj GBO266

Velej|ka GBO102, 123 Velešč’ GBO128

Velejna GBO35 Veloga GBO106

Velem|ka GBO180 Vel’evam|iha GBO223

vil-

Vila GBO79, 165 Vilovat|oj GBO229

Vilej|ka GBO267 Vilovat|oe GBO191, 225

Vilema GBO262 Vilin GBO185

Viliš|ka GBO171 Vili|nka GBO118, 174

Viliš|ka, Mal. GBO207

vol-

Volož|enka GBO140 Vološ|ino GBO262

FUF 60 (2009)

Page 225: south-eastern contact area of finnic languages in the light of onomastics

193

The Linguistic Background of the Ancient Meshchera Tribe...

Volokša GBO196 Vološ|inskoj GBO113

Volondel’ GBO230 Vološ|ka GBO195, 196, 207, 262, 270

al-

Alguž GBO258 Aloža GBO92

Aleksa GBO93 Alem|enka GBO95

ul-

Uleb|skoe GBO74 Uluntus GBO187

Ul|enka GBO118 Uluk|ovo GBO185

Ul|enka ~ Ul|inka GBO198 Uluk|oe GBO164

Ul|ina GBO233 Ulus ~ Ulas (ARO83Б1)

GBO184

Ul|ovka GBO160 Ulup|inka GBO117

Ulot GBO35 Uly|byš ARO77A4

von-

Vona GBO129 ?Vonduha ~ Vond-juha

GBO221

Vonven’e GBO120 ?Vondega ~ Vondoga GBO202

Vonhar GBO230

in-

Ineviž GBO227 In|ov GBO136

In|evka GBO96 Inokša; Bol. & Mal. GBO230

FUF 60 (2009)

Page 226: south-eastern contact area of finnic languages in the light of onomastics

194

Pauli Rahkonen

Inelej GBO267 Inor|ka GBO242

Inenkur GBO230 Inot|ynka GBO110

Inevež GBO219 Inoča GBO90, 91, 92, 102

Inevež|ka ~ Ineboš|ka

GBO205 Inoš|evskoj GBO165

Ineläj, Bol. & Mal. GBO218 Insar GBO254

In|ica GBO257 Insara GBO255

In|kuža GBO243 Insar|skaja GBO267

Inobež|ka ~ Inobeš|ka

GBO207 Inshra ~ Inskra GBO196

un-

Un|evka GBO117, 268 Un|ka GBO142, 155

Une|evka GBO255 Unkar GBO191

Unež|koj GBO45 Unkor GBO190, 232, 233, 262

Unža GBO191 Unkor|ka GBO192

Unža Gluhaja GBO192 Unoga GBO198

Unžel|ka GBO198 Unor|ka GBO193

Unz|ovo GBO269 Unuj GBO256

Uninka GBO118 Unca GBO160

vjaz-

Vjaz GBO197 Vjazič|ciha GBO88

FUF 60 (2009)

Page 227: south-eastern contact area of finnic languages in the light of onomastics

195

The Linguistic Background of the Ancient Meshchera Tribe...

Vjazema, Bol. GBO114 Vjazma ~ Vjazem|ka GBO103

Vjazem|ka GBO194, 219, 253

Vjaz|ov GBO217

Vjazera GBO255 Vjaz|nik GBO113

Vjazič GBO37 Vjazyr’ GBO179

vež-, vešk-

Veža GBO106 Vežišče GBO128

Vežat’ GBO268 Vež|noe GBO193

Vežbola GBO209 Vež|ovka GBO37

Vežga GBO240 Veška GBO216

Vež|enka ~ Vež|nja~ Vežiš|nja

GBO66 Veškar|skoj GBO247

ič-

Iča GBO94 Ičerhi GBO232

Ičal|ka GBO264 Ič|inskoj GBO95

Ičelem|ovskoj GBO266 Ič|ka GBO108

Ič|enka GBO133

volg-

Volgan’ GBO127

Volgoma GBO272

Volguša GBO209, 211

FUF 60 (2009)

Page 228: south-eastern contact area of finnic languages in the light of onomastics

196

Pauli Rahkonen

aš-, ašc-, akš-

Ašalej|a GBO265 Ašic|skoj GBO177

Ašem|ovskoj GBO167 Ašč|epa GBO140

Aš|ina GBO257 Aščur|ka GBO130

Ašit|kov GBO150 Akša ~ Akšem|skoj GBO264

Aš|kinskoj GBO248 Akšemjaš|ev GBO239

Aš|kovo GBO127 Akš|enka GBO141

Ašlej GBO253 Akš|ovka GBO257

sim-

Simanga GBO196 Simiga GBO211

Simaha GBO209 Sim|inka GBO216

Simer|ic GBO233

cem-

Cemer|iha GBO113 Cemislej GBO256

Cemes|koj GBO266 Cemrav|skoj GBO117

References

Ahlqvist, Arja 2001: Kertomuksia Keski-Venäjältä III. Unžan jokivarrella. – Journal de la Société Finno-Ougrenne 89. Helsinki.

Afanasev 1996 = АФАНАСЬЕВ, А. П.: Tопонимия Республики Коми. Коми книжное издательство. Сыктывкар.

Ageeva 1990 = АГЕЕВА, Р. А.: Страны и народы: Произхождение названий. Мос-ква.

FUF 60 (2009)

Page 229: south-eastern contact area of finnic languages in the light of onomastics

197

The Linguistic Background of the Ancient Meshchera Tribe...

Alihova 1959 = АЛИХОВА, А. Е.: Из историй мордвы конца I – начала II тыс. н.э. Из древней и средневековой историй мордовского народа. Саранск.

Atamanov 1988 = АТАМАНОВ, М. Г.: Удмуртская Ономастика. «Удмуртия». Ижевск.

Balode, Laimute 2005: Latvian paikannimistä. ‒ Latvian historiaa ja kulttuuria. Rozentāls-seura. Otavan Kirjapaino Oy. Keuruu. 308‒329.

Bartens, Raija 1999: Mordvalaiskielten rakenne ja kehitys. Suomalais-Ugrilaisen Seuran toimituksia 232. Suomalais-Ugrilainen Seura. Helsinki.

— 2000: Permiläiskielten rakenne ja kehitys. Suomalais-Ugrilaisen Seuran toimituk-sia 238. Suomalais-Ugrilainen Seura. Helsinki.

Carpelan, Christian – Parpola, Asko 2001: Emergence, Contacts and Dispersal of Proto-Indo-European, Proto-Uralic and Proto-Aryan in Archaeological Perspec-tive. Early Contacts between Uralic and Indo-European: Linguistic and Archaeo-logical Considerations. Suomalais-Ugrilaisen Seuran toimituksia 242. Suomalais-Ugrilainen Seura. Helsinki. 55–150.

Dal 1880–82 = ДАЛЬ, ВЛАДИМИР: Толковый словарь живого великорусского языка. Москва.

GBO 1976 = СМОЛИЦКАЯ, Г. П.: Гидронимия бассейна Оки. Издательство Наука. Москва.

Gorodcov 1910 = ГОРОДЦОВ, В. А.: Бытовая археология. Москва.Halikov 1989 = ХАЛИКОВ, А. Х.: Татарский народ и его предки. Казань.— 1992: Vom Einfluss der Aselino-Ananjino-Kultur auf die Ethnogenese der Mari. ‒

Suomalais-Ugrilaisen Seuran Aikakauskirja 84. Suomalais-Ugrilainen Seura. Hel-sinki. 53‒64.

Helimski, Eugene 2006: The North-Western Group of Finno-Ugric Languages and its Heritage in the Place Names and Substratum Vocabulary of the Russian North. The Slavicization of the Russian North. Slavica Helsingensia 27. Helsinki.

Hirviluoto, A.-L. – Vormisto, T. 1984: En massgrav från yngre järnålder i Isokylä, Salo. ‒ Finskt Museum 1983. 21‒49.

Inževatov 1987 = ИНЖЕВАТОВ, И. К.: Топонимический словарь Мордовской АССР. Мордовское книжное издательство. Саранск.

Ivanov 1925 = ИВАНОВ, А.: Пустошенский могильник. Труды Владимирского го-сударственного областного музея. Вып. I. Владимир.

De Jode, Cornelius ‒ Jenkinson, Anthonius 1593: Theatrvm orbis terrarum, Russiæ, Moscoviæ et Tartariæ Descriptio. Amsterdam – London.

–– 1593: Speculum Orbis Terræ, Moscoviæ maximi amplissimi qve dvcatus. Antwer-pen.

Jukova, M. A. 2006: North-Western Russia before its Settling by Slavs (8th Century BC – 8th Century AD). ‒ The Slavicization of the Russian North. Slavica Helsin-gensia 27. Helsinki.

Kalima, Jalo 1927: Syrjänisches lehngut im russischen. Finnisch-Ugrische-For-schungen XVIII. Helsinki. 1–56.

― 1942: Karjalaiset ja merjalaiset. Uusi Suomi 19.7.1942. Helsinki.Kirkinen, Heikki 1990: Merjasta Mikkeliin. ‒ Inkerin teillä. Kalevalaseuran vuosi-

kirja 69–70. Suomalaisen Kirjallisuuden Seura. Helsinki. 242‒265.

FUF 60 (2009)

Page 230: south-eastern contact area of finnic languages in the light of onomastics

198

Pauli Rahkonen

Kiviniemi, Eero 1990: Perustietoa paikannimistä. Suomalaisen Kirjallisuuden Seura. Helsinki.

Klima, Lzsl 1995: The linguistic affinity of the Volgaic Finno-Ugrians and their Ethnogenesis. Budapest.

Korhonen, Mikko 1981: Johdatus lapin kielen historiaan. Suomalaisen Kirjallisuu-den Seura. Helsinki.

Krenke 1989 = КРЕНКЕ, Н. А.: Глиняная пластика и некоторые особенности поз-днедьаковских городищ Подмосковья. ‒ Советская Археология 1989/2. Мос-ква.

Lafreri, Antonio ‒ Gastaldi, Giacomo 1568: Geografia tavole moderne.., la prima parte della descrittione del Regno di Polonia.Venezia.

Lavento, Mika 2001: Textile Ceramics in Finland and on the Karelian isthmus. Suo-Suo-men Muinaismuistoyhdistyksen Aikakauskirja 109. Helsinki.

Lehtiranta, Juhani 2001: Yhteissaamelainen sanasto. Suomalais-Ugrilaisen Seuran toimituksia 200. Suomalais-Ugrilainen Seura. Helsinki.

Leontʼev, A. E. 1996: The Archaeology of the Merya (The Early History of North-Eastern Russia). Russian Monographs in Migration period and Medieval Archaeol-ogy. Edited by Gennadii E. Afanas’ev and Falko Daim in collaboration with Dafydd Kidd Volume 4. Russian Academy of sciences. Institute of Archaeology. Moscow. 316‒339.

Lytkin ‒ Guljaev 1999 = ЛЫТКИН, В. И. ‒ ГУЛЯЕВ, Е. С.: Краткий этимологи- этимологи-этимологи-ческий словарь коми языка. Переиздание с дополнением. Коми книжное изда-тельство. Сыктывкар.

Mačinskij ‒ Kulešov 2004 = МАЧИНСКИЙ, Д. А. ‒ КУЛЕШОВ, В. С.: Северные народы середины IV ‒ первой половины VI в. в ”Getica” Иордана. ‒ Ладога и Глеб Лебедев. Восьмые чтения памяти Анны Мачинской. Санкт-Петербург. 29‒74.

MAG 1997 = МУЛЛОНЕН, И. И. ‒ АЗАРОВА, И. В. ‒ ГЕРД, А. С.: Словарь гидронимов Юго-Восточного Приладожья. Бассейн реки Свирь. Издательство Санкт-Пе-тербургского университета. Ст. Петербург.

Markov, Aleksej 1998: Мещёра. www.dlc.fi/~Kokov/mesher/meshchera. Mesh-chera. www.dlc.fi/~kokov/mesher/index.html.

Matveev 1961 = МАТВЕЕВ, А. К.: Древнеуральская топонимика и её происхожде-ние. Вопросы археологии Урала. Свердловск. 133‒141.

— 1965: Есть ли древнепермская топонимика в Заволочье? ‒ Советское Финно-Угроведение №3.

Mercator, Gerard 1595: Atlas sive cosmographicae, Russia cum confinijs. Amster-dam.

Mitrofanov, Aleksej ‒ Doukelsky, Vladimir 2003: An old town of the ancient Meshchera. www.egoriesk.ru.

Moisio 1994 = МОЙСИО, АРТО: Марла – Финнла мутер. Марий книга савыктыш. Йошкар-Ола.

Mongajt 1961 = МОНГАЙТ, А. Л.: Рязанская земля. Москва.Mullonen 2002 = МУЛЛОНЕН, И. И.: Торонимия Присвирья. Проблемы этноя-

зыкового контактирования. Российская академия наук. Карельский научный центр. Институт языка, литературы и истории. Петрозаводск.

FUF 60 (2009)

Page 231: south-eastern contact area of finnic languages in the light of onomastics

199

The Linguistic Background of the Ancient Meshchera Tribe...

Murzaev 1984 = МУРЗАЕВ, Е. М.: Словарь народных географических терминов. Москва.

Nikitin ‒ Nikitina 2004 = НИКИТИН, В. В. ‒ НИКИТИНА, Т. Б.: К истокам ма-рийского искусства. Марийский научно-исследовательский институт языка, литературы и истории им. В. М. Васильева. Научно-производственный центр по охране и использованию памятников истории и културы. Министерства культуры, печати и по делам национальностей Республики Марий Эл. Йош-кар-Ола.

OAK 1899 = Отчеты Археологической комиссии. Санкт-Петербург. Петроград.Ortelius, Abraham ‒ Jenkinson Anthonius 1571: Theatrvm orbis terrarum,

Russiæ, Moscoviæ et Tartariæ Descriptio. Amsterdam ‒ London.Patruev, Valery 2000: The Early History of the Finno-Ugric Peoples of European

Russia. Societas Historiae Fenno-Ugricae. Oulu.PSRL = Полное собрание русских летописей 9-12. Москва. 1965.Požarickaja 2005 = ПОЖАРИЦКАЯ, С. К.: Русская диалектология. Академи-

ческий проект. Москва.Pronin, A. 2006: The lost World of Meshchera. Egorievsk Fine Arts and History Mu-

seum. www.egorievsk.ru.Punalippu 1973: Voitto tataareista. Punalippu № 6/1973. Petrozavodsk. 118‒120.Rahkonen, Pauli: Olhavan- ja Laukaanjoen vesistöaluiden suomalais-ugrilainen ni-

mistö – Itämerensuomalaista vai volgalaista? (Manuscript). ― Ylä-Volgan ja Okan alueen suomalais-ugrilaiset etnonyymit. (Manuscript). REW = Vasmer, Max 1950–58: Russisches Etymologisches Wörterbuch ‒

Этимологический словарь русского языка. Перевод с немечкого и дополнения академика РАН О. Н. Трубачева. 4-е издание, стереотипное. Астрел. Москва. 2003.

Rjabinin 1997 = РЯБИНИН, Е. А.: Финно-Угорские племена в составе древней Руси. Издательство Санкт-Петербургского университета. Санкт-Петербург.

Sammallahti, Pekka 1988: Historical phonology of Uralic languages. With special reference to Samoyed, Ugric and Permic. Denis Sinor (ed.) – Uralic languages. Description, history and foreign influences. Leiden – New York – København – Köln.: E. J. Brill.

Sedov 1987 = СЕДОВ, В. В.: Племена культури рязанско-окских могильников. Фенно-угры и балты в эпоху средневековья. Археология СССР. Москва.

Smirnov 1952 = СМИРНОВ, А. П.: Очерки древней и средневековой историй наро-дов Средного Поволжья и Прикамья. ‒ Материали и исследования по архео-логии СССР №28. Москва.

Smolickaja 1976 s. GBO Spicyn 1899 = СПИЦЫН, А. А.: Обозрезние некоторых губернии и областей России

в археологическом отношении. Записки Русского археологического общество. Т. XI. Вып. 1‒2.

— 1906: К истории заселения Верхного Поволжья русскими. ‒ Тверская област-ная археологическая съезда. Тверь.

SSA 1992‒2000 = Suomen sanojen alkuperä. Etymologinen sanakirja. Päätoim. Erkki Itkonen, Ulla-Maija Kulonen. Suomalaisen Kirjallisuuden Seuran Toimituksia 556. Kotimaisten kielten tutkimuskeskuksen julkaisuja 62. Helsinki.

FUF 60 (2009)

Page 232: south-eastern contact area of finnic languages in the light of onomastics

200

Pauli Rahkonen

SSKD 1961 = Сравнительный словарь коми-зырянских диалектов. Ред. Сорваче-Ред. Сорваче-ва, В. А.; состав. Жилина, Т. И. & Сахарова, М. А. & Сорвачева, В. А. Коми книжное издательство. Сыктывкар.

UEW 1988‒91 = Kroly Rdei: Uralisches etymologisches Wörterbuch. Unter Mi-Unter Mi- Mi-Mi-tarbeit von Marianne Bakró-Nagy, Sándor Csúcs, István Erdély, László Honti, Éva Korenchy, K. Sal und Edit Vertés. Register. 1–3. Wiesbaden.

URS 1983 = Удмуртско-русский словарь – Удмурт-ӵуч словарь. Ред. Вахрушев, В. М. «Русский язык». Москва.

USS 2008 = Udmurttilais–suomalainen sanakirja. Sergei Maksimov, Vadim Danilov, Sirkka Saarinen. Turun yliopiston suomalaisen ja yleisen kielitieteen laitoksen jul-kaisuja 79. Turku.

Vasil’ev 1960 = ВАСИЛЬЕВ, Б. А.: Проблема буртасов и мордвы. ‒ Труды инсти-тута зтнография. Новая серия Т. XIII.

Voronceva ‒ Galkin 2002 = ВОРОНЦЕВА, О. П. ‒ ГАЛКИН, И. С.: Топонимика Республики Марий Эл. Издательство марийского полиграфкомбината. Йош-кар-Ола.

Maps

AJO 2002 = Атлас Ярославской области 1:100 000. Роскартография. Москва.ANO 2006 = Атлас: Новгородская область 1:200 000. ФГУП Новгородское Аеро-

геодезическое Предпрятие Новгород. ARK 2006 = Атлас Республика Коми 1:200 000, 1:500 000. ФГУП «Аерогеодезия».

Санкт Петербург. ARO 2006 = Атлас Рязанской области 1:100 000. Отв. ред. Косиков, А. Г. «Ультра

Экстент» Роскартография. Тверь. ASO 2008 = Атлас Смоленской области 1:100 000. Отв. ред. Косиков, А. Г. «Ультра

Экстент» Роскартография. Тверь. GT = GT2000 Tiekartasto. Karttakeskus. Vantaa. RAU 2003 = Региональный Атлас: Удмуртская республика 1:200 000. ВТУ ГШ.

Москва. RAV 2001 = Региональный Атлас: Вологодская область 1:200 000. ВТУ ГШ. Мос-

ква. TKKO 1997 = Топографическая карта: Костромская область 1:200 000. ВТУ ГШ.

Москва.

FUF 60 (2009)

Page 233: south-eastern contact area of finnic languages in the light of onomastics

Conclusions

I present my conclusions rather briefly, because I have widely illustrated the problems, arguments,

evaluations and my self-criticisms of each article in the Introduction. Therefore, I did not want to

repeat the same matters once again.

The Land between Finnic and Mordvin

As I have stated in the Introduction, the main aim of this research is to describe Uralic languages

spoken between the historical Finnic and Mordvin areas and their relations with other Uralic

languages, especially Finnic. This is carried out by examining toponyms, mainly hydronyms.

1. The contact zone of Finnic

In the northwestern and northern territory of Russia, the southern boundary of transparently Finnic

hydronyms runs from the northern edge of Lake Peipus to the Tixvin region, continues from there to

the Belozero area, further northeast to the upper course of the River Vaga, and from there to the

upper sources of the River Pinega (see Rahkonen 2011: 223–230) [map 1] . The above-mentioned

boundary was approximately the contact zone between Finnic and languages spoken by tribes then

living between the Finnic and Mordvin-speaking areas. Beyond the boundary lived several different

tribes presumably speaking different varieties of Uralic languages which can no longer be identified

in terms of more detailed characteristics.

map 1 The southern boundary of Finnic hydronyms

Page 234: south-eastern contact area of finnic languages in the light of onomastics

It must be alleged that there has been much overlapping between different Uralic varieties. Along

the northern side of the above-mentioned boundary there were peoples speaking both Finnic and

non-Finnic Uralic languages. This is true especially in the Russian North. Matveev (2001) applies

the concept of северо-финский язык “North-Finnic language” referring to an unknown Uralic

tongue. However, as Saarikivi (2006b: 53) has stated, these toponyms are very opaque. He notes

that in Arkhangelsk oblast there occur toponyms representing an archaic Uralic language in which

the Finnic sound shift š > h (ibid.) has not taken place. Mullonen (2002), Matveev (2001) and

Saarikivi (2004a) have noted layers of Saami toponyms in the Russian North. However, Saarikivi

criticizes the idea of a proper Saami layer (personal information). Furthermore, Matveev (2001)

analyses a Meryan toponymic layer in the Russian North. Mullonen (2002: 183, 212–214, 291)

discusses possible Meryan influence from the Upper Volga in the Svir catchment area and in the

region of Lake Onega. It is obvious that in the southern lakeland of Finland a layer of Saami

toponyms is found (e.g. Aikio 2007). In Finland there are a remarkable number of hydronyms with

an unknown etymological background (Ariste 1971; Kiviniemi 1980: 320–321; Kalima 1942;

Rahkonen 2013). Ante Aikio (2004) has presented a list of toponyms from Lapland that originate

from an unknown non-Uralic language. Saarikivi (2006b: 53; 2004b) assumes that there have been

speakers of some Paleo-European language both in Finland and in Arkhangelsk oblast.

2. Novgorodian Čudes (Article 2011)

In Novgorod and Tver oblasts I have defined two different types of hydronyms, both of which

originate from an unknown Uralic language. I call these “Western and Eastern Novgorod Čude”

(Rahkonen 2011: 241–242, map 8). The boundary between them is roughly the Msta River. On the

right (north/eastern) bank, the word ‘lake’ occurring in names of lakes is *jädra/ä, close to Meryan

*jäγra/ä < West Uralic [WU] *jäkra. On the left (south/western) bank, the word *järi ‘lake’ seems

to be dominant. Historically, the development could be *järi < *järγ < WU variant *järka/ä. The

WU variant *jäkrä may be a loanword from Proto-Indo-European * r- (Mallory & Adams

1997: 636) and the variant *järkä is possibly based on a metathesis of the consonant cluster. The

reason for the metathesis *jäkra/ä > *järka/ä might be the more natural pronunciation of the

combination *-rk- compared with *-kr- (< PIE *-Hr-) for Uralic speakers.1

1 Ante Aikio points out that if the original form was *järkä (metathesis), then the derived word should be järgä with

voiced g not k in Mordvin (Aikio: personal comment). However, the development may have been: *järkä >* jär

(cf. Mari) > *jär + derivational suffix -kä in Mordvin.

Page 235: south-eastern contact area of finnic languages in the light of onomastics

In the southeastern parts of Tver oblast, in the surroundings of the city of Tver, there occur

hydronyms that seem to originate from a language close to Mordvin (Rahkonen 2011: 253; 2012:

27–28), e.g. the river In|juxa (cf. Mordvin ńä ‘big’, jov ‘river’ < *joγa < *juka) and its smaller

tributary V ška (cf. Mordvin v ška/v ška ‘little, small’).2 Surprisingly, some stray Finnic names

occur in the same area, but in Novgorod and Tver oblasts they most probably originate from the

Karelian migration of the 17th century, a more recent layer (see Rahkonen 2011, sections 4 and 6).

The principal question is, why could the Uralic substrate language spoken in Novgorod oblast not

be Finnic? Firstly, there are phonological reasons: the affricate č was found in the language

(cf. hydronyms Č r( )ma-, Čagoda, Č čo|ra) as well as the sibilant š (cf. hydronyms oz. Šabo|dro

< WU *šab(V) ‘aspen’; Š ja < ? WU *ś j or *š j ‘long bay in the estuary of a river’).3 If the Uralic

language were Finnic, then the sound shifts *š > h and *č > t should be attested (Sammallahti 1999:

76; Kallio 2007: 233). Of course, one should take account of the possibility of a secondary č. There

exist only a few non-Slavic hydronyms with initial h . These seem to be of Karelian origin, e.g.

Xobol’|ka < Karelian dial. hoaba ‘aspen, Xuba and Xubka < Karelian dial. huaba ‘aspen’. If the

Uralic language spoken in Novgorod oblast were Finnic, there should be plenty of hydronyms with

initial h. Secondly, even more convincing evidence against the Finnic origin of the hydronyms in

Novgorod oblast is the absence of all the most common Finnic specifics and generics occurring

widely in substrate names in the Russian North (Matveev 2001; 2004; Saarikivi 2006b). The

conclusion is that the Novgorodian Čudes were most probably not a Finnic-speaking tribe.

3. Meryan-Muroma language (Article 2012)

We assume that the Meryans and Muromas differed from each other to some extent in their material

culture (Rjabinin 1997: 153–156, 197–207). Nevertheless, there are similarities as well, such as

certain horse-shaped pendants (type XVII in Rjabinin’s categorization) mentioned by Makarov

(2006: 277, Fig. 4). The languages of the Merya and Muroma people were probably closely related

with some phonetic peculiarities of their own: e.g. Mer. *veksa ~ Mur. *v k a ‘river connecting two

bodies of water’, Mer. *uhta ~ Mur. *vohta ‘neck of land’ and Mer. *joga ~ Mur. *juga ‘river’.

The Muroma toponyms may have been influenced by the Permian Meščera language (see Rahkonen

2009), because they lived partially overlapping in the same regions (Rjabinin 1997: 214). These two

2 The original Proto-Mordvin *joγa could become юха [j xa] under Russian adaptation; cf. Finnic -oja (brook, river) in

several Russian adaptations as -уя [- ja] (Mullonen 2002: 127, map 8). 3 The North and Central Russian Š ja rivers usually have a long bay in their estuary. If the Saami word saI č ájá ‘long

and narrow bay, a river pouring waters into it’ (Sammallahti & Morottaja 1993: 10) is somehow linked with this,

then *ś j may be the correct original; cf. *ś > *ć > č in Saami. However, in that case the < á > in the first syllable is

difficult to explain.

Page 236: south-eastern contact area of finnic languages in the light of onomastics

languages, Meryan and Muroma, shared the phonetic development *a >o, (word initial) vo. Both

languages show, for instance, the words *jäγra/ä ‘lake’ > RuAdapt. яхр-,*enä big’ > RuAdapt. вон-

(see Mullonen 2002: 274), *väzä ‘small, little’ > RuAdapt. вяз-, p č /ä ‘pine’ > RuAdapt. печ- and

the formant -гда, -хта [-gda/-hta].

The Merya-Muroma hydronyms have more than one core area. The principal area is the region of

Yaroslavl oblast and the western part of Kostroma oblast.4 We can call this territory “the traditional

Merya”, or as I have termed it (2012: 20–27, maps 2–4), “Rostov–Kostroma Merya”. It appears that

the modern Yaroslavl oblast, which originated already in the medieval Rostov-Suzdal Principality,

was formed on the basis of the Meryan Land. The second core area is the modern Vladimir oblast,

which seems to have originated mostly in the ancient Muroma Land.

The third region of the Meryan type of hydronyms is the Moscow-centric core area of the Early Iron

Age Djakovo culture (circa 800 BC–200 AD). It is possible that the language here was Proto-

Meryan. Most probably the Merya language was no longer spoken in this region when the Slavs

began to move into the Moscow territory, because there is no reference the language or the tribe in

the old Russian chronicles. Furthermore, the formant -ksa/-kša which occurs widely in Yaroslavl

and Vladimir oblasts is not attested here, but instead we find the formant -ša which, on the basis of

its larger distribution compared with -ksa, -kša, seems to be older considering the development *-ša

> -kša.

The Meryan type of hydronyms occur also in the lakeland of the Russian North, in the western part

of Vologda oblast. The name Vologda itself is originally a river name composed of two elements:

the Meryan word volo- ‘lower’ and the Meryan formant -gda. Here in the lakeland occur such

Meryan hydronym stems as Uht-, Veks-, Vol(o)-, Ile-, Jaχr- (< *jäγra/ä), ver(e)-. I have called the

language behind these hydronyms “Northern Meryan”.

It appears that the Merya language had a dialect, or more probably a close cognate language, which

was spoken in the uppermost Volga, in the Msta and the Mologa catchment areas; i.e. in Tver oblast

and in the eastern parts of Novgorod oblast. I have called this “Eastern Čude”. The ethnonym

mer(e)/ner(e) ‘Meryan’ is attested in the area, as are the stems ile- ‘upper’, volo- ‘lower’ and a word

*jädra/ä ‘lake’ that can be derived from the proto-form *jäkra/ä similar to the Meryan word

4 The boundary runs approximately along the River Unža.

Page 237: south-eastern contact area of finnic languages in the light of onomastics

*jäγra/ä. A sound shift *k (g) > *d has occurred, possibly under the influence of Russian (Sokolova

1962: 74–75) or a Čudian substrate (Rahkonen 2011: 231). In Karelia, in the catchment area of the

Svir and in the westernmost regions of Arkhangelsk oblast, some Meryan type hydronyms also

occur. This has been noted also by Mullonen (MAG 1997: XIX; 2002: 183, 214, 290–291),

although she did not analyze them in more detail.

4. Ancient Mordvin hydronyms (Article 2012)

There is a big difference between the distribution of common Mordvin stems, based on the words

ńä ‘big’, v šk, v šk, v ž- ‘little’, aš(V), akš(V)- ‘white’, č m- ‘black, (earlier) rusty’, v ľ- ‘upper’,

al(V)- ‘lower’ and the modern Mordvin generics - ŕk ‘lake’ and -lej/-läj. Generics based on the

word ŕk ‘lake’ stretch remarkably further west than the modern Mordvin-speaking area, almost as

far as the town of Ryazan. It is interesting that generics based on the Mordvin word lej/läj ‘river’

occur only slightly west of the modern Mordvin-speaking area, whereas the stems mentioned above

stretch some hundreds of kilometers further to the town of Kaluga. There are several possible

explanations for these differences:

1) The word l j/läj is a relatively recent innovation (borrowing?) in Mordvin or occurred

originally only in the easternmost dialects. There are words even in modern Mordvin for

‘river’ that occur with some Mordvin specifics in the west; Č m|rav| koj < č m- ‘black,

rusty’, rav ‘river’ close to Moscow and In|j xa < ńä ‘big’, Proto-Mordvin *joγa

‘river’ > possibly through Russian adoption j xa.

2) The word ŕk ‘lake’ probably had the Proto-Mordvin form *järkä. However, this type does

not exist in the more western areas in Moscow or Kaluga oblasts. The reason may be that

there are very few lakes located west of Ryazan and, consequently the word does not occur

in hydronyms in the Ryazan–Moscow–Kaluga triangle.

3) The westernmost Mordvin-looking stems may originate from Proto-Mordvin or from an

unknown language close to Mordvin proper.

There is a wedge of Mordvin hydronyms that extends from the Lower Oka reaching the left bank of

the Volga between the estuaries of the rivers Kostroma and Unža. In the southern parts of Kostroma

oblast such names as Andoba (AKO122) < Erz. Mord. ando|ms ‘to feed’, Kile|nka (AKO170)

Page 238: south-eastern contact area of finnic languages in the light of onomastics

< Erz. Mord. kilej ‘birch’ and In |ška (AKO150) < Erz. Mord. ń ‘big’ can be plausibly compared

with nouns attested in Mordvin (see Rahkonen 2012: 28, map 6).5

5. Etymologically opaque hydronyms in Finland (Article 2013)

According to the authors of the lexicon of Finnish place names Suomalainen Paikannimikirja

(SPK), at least 25% of the 85 biggest lakes in Finland do not have etymologically transparent

names. There exist some stems of opaque hydronyms whose meanings can be determined on the

grounds of their geographical regularity. Such types of names include stems with Uhta-, V(u)ohta-,

Ohta- ‘neck of land’ and Vieks-, Viiks-, Vääks- ‘connecting river between two bodies of water’. In

addition, there exist some stems whose distribution is very similar to the above-mentioned stems.

These include Sont/d-, Suont-, which can possibly be compared with the Karelian word sonto

‘curved’, and the stem Kem(V)- that can be compared with the Finnish dialectal word kymi ‘stream,

big river’ and Udmurt kam id. < ? Proto-Finno-Permian *käme.6 Many of the Kem(V)-rivers are

rather large, but some smaller ones exist as well. There also occurs a formant -ari, -äri, -ere that

maybe connected with words for ‘lake’ allegedly deriving from WU *jäkra/ä ~ *järka/ä ‘lake’. The

stems of these hydronyms with the exception of Koit(V), seem to be of neither Finnish nor Saami

origin (SPK s.v. Inari): In|ari ~ Indijager (documented 1799) ~ Ind|er|iaur (documented 1593),

*Ätsäri ~ Ähtäri (late variant) and Koit|ere (note the name of the river Koita connected with the

lake). Nevertheless, this formant presumably is of West Uralic origin. This leads one to consider an

alternative that in Finland, alongside with non-Uralic-speaking people, there lived an Uralic-

speaking population that was linked neither with the Proto-Finns nor Proto-Saami.

Such stems as Uht-, Oht-, Vuoht- cannot be derived from Proto-Uralic * k ‘track’ (PS 536) with

cognates in Finnic or Saami without difficulties of phonetic details and/or areal distribution. An

original initial *u-, for instance, cannot correspond to vuo- in Finnic or Saami. The theoretical

Proto-Saami [PSa] development should have been PU * k > PSa *ok . Even though the initial

vowel PSa *o is possible to explain (cf. Oht(V)-hydronyms), the consonant cluster -kt- would be

much more difficult, because everywhere in the Russian North and in Finland only the cluster -ht- is

attested in hydronyms (i.e. Oht-) and never -kt-. Obviously *-kt- > -ht- is possible to explain as a

Finnic adaptation from a (Proto-)Saami original; e.g. PSa *l |k | ‘bay’ and a Finnish adaptation of

5 Andoba cannot be a Meryan hydronym because of the Meryan sound shift (word initial) *a > vo. 6 If the proto-form is *käm , then Finnish kym is supposedly an adaptation or a loanword from some unknown Uralic

language *k m / .

Page 239: south-eastern contact area of finnic languages in the light of onomastics

the toponym Lohtaja.7 However, the regularity of the cluster -ht- in the Russian North, as well as

the fact that no words derived from theoretic PSa *ok occur in any modern Saami language, leads

one to doubt this explanation. In the names with uht- the initial vowel matches the Finnic

development, but not the second-syllable *- or *-ti which should become -si; i.e. theoretically

PU * k > Finnic uksi : uhden.8 Even though the PU original was *ukta and thus the assumed lost

Finnic word *uhta, the areal distribution does not correspond with the historically known Finnic

core area in southern coastal Finland and in Estonia. Toponyms with uhta ‘neck of land’ do not

occur in the ancient historical Finnic area and thus the distribution is totally unsuitable for a word

that should be of Finnic origin. Furthermore, the word *uhta does not occur in any Finnic language.

The areal distribution of these selected opaque hydronyms is almost equal with that of the Textile

Ceramics (circa 1900–800 BC). This may provide the above-mentioned names with an approximate

timeframe . It seems that the most reasonable conclusion is to assume that in Finland, Karelia and

the lakeland of the Russian North, a language was spoken which cannot be derived directly from

Proto-Finnic or Proto-Saami. I have labeled this language the x-tongue. It may be based on the

northern dialect of some ancient West Uralic language that spread from the Upper Volga area to the

Northwest. The later Meryan-Muroma seem display some similarities with it as well; cf. the Meryan

words *uhta, *veksa.

6. Meščera (Article 2009)

We maintain that the layer of hydronyms occurring in the traditional Meščera area, defined by

ethnonyms and archaeological data, is of Permian origin. The central site of the Meščera was

apparently M šč r k j Gorodec, close to the confluence of the Mokša and Oka on the left bank of

the Oka. In a more detailed survey one encounters such pairs of hydronym stems as Un-/Ič- and Vil-

/Ul- < Udmurt uno ‘big’, č ‘little’, v l- ‘upper’ and ulo ‘lower’. Furthermore, there occur a large

number of hydronym stems and formants that have correspondences in Udmurtia. Possibly the

ethnonym M šč ra itself was of Permian origin; cf. Komi möśör ‘isthmus’. The principal area of

Meščera settlement was located on the isthmus between the rivers Kljaz’ma and Oka–Moskva.

7 Of course Loh aja can also be derived from such a Saami dialect (or language) in which PSa *l k ē > loh (V).

8 Sammallahti (1988: 536) [PS] reconstructs PU * k , Aikio (2012: 230) *(V)k and Rédei (UEW 540) * ka.

Page 240: south-eastern contact area of finnic languages in the light of onomastics

It is possible that certain ethnographic products such as so-called Permian belts, produced by the

population of the Lomovatovo culture (600–700 AD) in the Kama region (e.g. Patrushev 2000: 162,

169–171), were transported by Permian Meščeras to the west. In that case they served as an

intermediating link between the Kama region and the Finland–Baltic area. Such belts have been

found in different sites, e.g. Pappilanmäki in southwest Finland (Carpelan 2006: 88), the Ilmen

lakeland close to Novgorod (Juškova 2006: 150) and Staraja Ladoga (Uino 2006: 365–366). Not far

from Novgorod there exists a toponym M šč r kaja Kromka (ANO35V5), which seems to prove

that people (merchants?) from Meščera visited the Novgorod region. In Tver oblast an oikonym

M šč ra (ATO81B2) is found close to the historically important town of Bežeck. It is unlikely that

the Meščeras had any linguistic influence on Finnic languages.

7. The ancient West-Uralic languages9

We allege that it is possible to draw a map (map 2) illustrating the principal settlements of the

above-mentioned Uralic tribes on the basis of hydronyms. As stated earlier, there was much

overlapping between different linguistic areas and therefore the map cannot be accurate. The

estimated timeframe is approximately 0–800 AD.

The phonetic developments in this area outline certain linguistic isoglosses. There is a rather clear

boundary of the words for ‘lake’: WU1 *jäkra/ä > Mer. jäγra/ä, Proto-Saami *jāvrē, East

Čude *jädra/ä and WU2 *järkä > Moksha Mordvin *(j)äŔkä, West Čudian *järi, Late Proto-Finnic

*järve. Another boundary which is similar is the phonetic change of *a > Meryan *o, word-initial

*vo-, East Čudian *o, word-initial *vo-, (Early) Proto-Saami * , word-initial*v -; but *a > Mordvin

and Finnic a. In West Čudian, possibly *a stayed a as well. This would be true if, for example, the

stem *čag(V) of the river Čag|oda is related to Proto-Saami *c kē ? < *čaka ‘shallow’ (water).

Otherwise the material is too narrow to be able to determine the process *a underwent in West

Čudian (see Introduction).

The whole distribution of the hydronym stems based on the proto-forms PFP *ukti ‘neck of land’

and *veksi or *viksi ‘river connecting two bodies of water’ is presented in map 2. The distribution

resembles to a large degree the distribution of the Textile Ceramics. The area of the *ukti-/*viksi-

stems matches quite well with the territory of the sound shift *a > o, initial vo- and the word ‘lake’

derived from *jäkra/ä (map 2). Mordvin, Meryan, Saami, East and West Čudian Finnic and

9 The concept of western Uralic was first introduced by Jaakko Häkkinen (2009).

Page 241: south-eastern contact area of finnic languages in the light of onomastics

possibly the “x-language” most likely belonged to the same West Uralic entity which is sometimes

called Proto-Finno-Mordvin (e.g. Kallio 2009) or by the old school Proto-Finno-Volgaic

(e.g. UEW). The position of Mari remains obscure, but it cannot be straightforwardly linked with

the same WU entity.

map 2. Approximate linguistic situation of WU languages circa 0–800 AD.

Page 242: south-eastern contact area of finnic languages in the light of onomastics

Literature

AIKIO, ANTE 2004: An essay on substrate studies and the origin of Saami. Etymologie, Entlehnungen und

Entwicklungen. Festschrift für Jorma Koivulehto zum 70. Geburtstag ‒ Irma Hyvärinen, Petri Kallio

& Jarmo Korhonen (ed.). Mémoires de la Société Néophilologique de Helsinki 63. Helsinki: Société

Néophilologique. 5–34.

― 2007: The Study of Saami Substrate Toponyms in Finland. Onomastica Uralica 4. Debrecen.

157-197.

AJO = Атлас Ярославской области 2002. Роскартография. Москва. 1:100 000.

AKO = Атлас Костромской области 2009. Роскартография. Тверь. 1:100 000.

ANO = Атлас – Новгородская область 2006: Новгород: ФГУП Новгородское

Аэрогеодезическое Предприятие. 1:200 000.

ATO = Атлас Тверской области 2005: Москва: Роскартография. 1:100 000.

ARISTE, PAUL 1971: Die ältesten Substrate in den ostseefinnischen Sprachen. Soveckoe finno-ugrovedenie

7: 251–258.

CARPELAN, CHRISTIAN 2006: On Archaeological Aspects of Uralic, Finno-Ugric and Finnic Societies

before AD 800. The Slavicization of the Russian North. Juhani Nuorluoto (ed.). Slavica Helsingensia 27.

Helsinki: Department of Slavonic and Baltic Languages and Literatures at Helsinki University. 78–92.

HÄKKINEN, JAAKKO 2009: Kantauralin ajoitus ja paikannus: perustelut puntarissa. Suomalais-Ugrilaisen

Seuran Aikakauskirja 92: 9–56.

JUŠKOVA, M. A. 2006: North-Western Russia before its Settling by Slavs (8th Century BC– 8th Century

AD). The Slavicization of the Russian North. Juhani Nuorluoto (ed.). Slavica Helsingiensia 27. Helsinki:

Department of Slavonic and Baltic Languages and Literatures at Helsinki University. 140–153.

KALIMA, JALO 1942: Karjalaiset ja merjalaiset. Uusi Suomi-lehti 19.7.1942

KALLIO, PETRI 2007: Kantasuomen konsonanttihistoriaa. Jussi Ylikoski ja Ante Aikio (eds). Sámit, sánit,

sátnehamit. Riepmočála Pekka Sammallahtii miessemánu 21. beaivve 2007. Suomalais-Ugrilaisen Seuran

Toimituksia 253. Helsinki: Suomalais-Ugrilainen Seura. 229–249.

― 2009: Stratigraphy of Indo-European Loanwords in Saami. The Roots of Saami Ethnicities, Societies and

Space/Places. Tiina Äikäs (ed.). Publications of the Giellagas Institute. Oulu. 30–45.

KIVINIEMI, EERO 1980: Nimistö Suomen esihistorian tutkimuksen aineistona. Virittäjä 84: 319–338.

MAG = Муллонен И. И. ‒ Азарова И. В. ‒ Герд А. С. 1997: Словарь гидронимов юго-восточного

Приладожья басейн реки Свирь. Ст. Петербург.

Page 243: south-eastern contact area of finnic languages in the light of onomastics

MAKAROV, N. A. 2006: Cultural Identity of the Russian North Settlers in the 10th–13th Centuries:

Archaeological Evidence and Written Sources. The Slavicization of the Russian North. Juhani

Nuorluoto (ed.). Slavica Helsingensia 27. Helsinki: Department of Slavonic and Baltic Languages and

Literatures at Helsinki University. 259–281.

MALLORY & ADAMS 1997: Encyclopedia of Indo-European Culture. J. P. Mallory and D. Q. Adams (eds.).

London: Fitzroy Dearborn Publishers.

MATVEEV = Матвеев, А. К. 2001, 2004, 2007: Субстратная топонимия Русского Севера I–III.

Екатеринбург: Издательство Уральского университета.

MULLONEN = Муллонен, И. И. 2002: Топонимия Присвирья. Проблемы этноязыкого

контактирования. Петрозаводск: Российская академия наук, карельский научный центр:

Институт языка, литературы и истории.

PATRUSHEV, VALERY 2000: The Early History of the Finno-Ugric Peoples of European Russia. Oulu:

Societas Historiae Fenno-Ugricae.

PS = Sammallahti, Pekka 1988: Historical phonology of Uralic languages. With special reference to

Samoyed, Ugric and Permic. Uralic Languages. Denis Sinor (ed.). Description, history and foreign

influences. Leiden – New York – København – Köln.: E. J. Brill. 478–554.

RAHKONEN, PAULI 2009: The linguistic background of Meshchera tribe and Principal areas of

Settlement. Finnisch-Ugrische Forschungen 60: 162–202.

― 2011: Finno-Ugric Hydronyms of the River Volkhov and Luga catchment areas. Suomalais-Ugrilaisen

Seuran Aikakauskirja 93: 205–266.

― 2012a: Границы распространения меряно-муромских и древнемордовских гидронимов в

верховьях Волги и бассейне реки Оки. Вопросы Ономастики 1/2012. Екатеринбург. 5–41.

― 2012b: Suomen etymologisesti hämärä vesistönimistö. Virittäjä 3/2012 (in print).

RJABININ = Рябинин, Е. А. 1997: Финно-угорские племена в составе древней Руси. Санкт-Петербург:

Издательство Санкт Петербургского университа.

SAARIKIVI, JANNE 2004a: Über die saamischen Substratennamen des Nordrusslands und Finnlands.

Finnisch-Ugrische Forschungen 58: 162–234. Helsinki.

― 2004b: Is there Paleo-European substratum interference in western branches of Uralic? Journal de la

Société Finno-Ougrienne 90: 187–214. Helsinki: Suomalais-Ugrilainen Seura.

― 2006b: On the Uralic substrate toponymy of Arkhangelsk region: problems of research methodology

and ethnohistorical interpretation. Onomastica Uralica 4. Debrecen. 1–64

Page 244: south-eastern contact area of finnic languages in the light of onomastics

SAMMALLAHTI, PEKKA 1999: Saamen kielen ja saamelaisten alkuperästä. Pohjan poluilla. Suomalaisten

juuret nykytutkimuksen mukaan (toim.) Paul Fogelberg. Bidrag till kännedom av Finlands natur och folk 153.

Societas Scientiarum Fennica. 70–90.

SAMMALLAHTI, PEKKA & MOROTTAJA, MATTI 1993: Säämi-Suomâ sänikirje. Inarinsaamelais

suomalainen sanakirja. Ohcejohka: Girjegiisá Oy.

SOKOLOVA = Соколова, М. А. 1962: Очерки по исторической грамматике русского языка. Москва.

SPK = Suomalainen paikannimikirja 2007: Sirkka Paikkala (ed.). Jyväskylä: Karttakeskus, Kotimaisten

kielten tutkimuskeskus.

UEW = Redei, Karoly (ed.) 1986-91: Uralisches Etymologisches Wörterbuch. Budapest.

UINO, PIRJO 2006: The Background of the Early Medieval Finnic Population in the Region of the Volkhov

River: Archaeological Aspects. The Slavicization of the Russian North. Juhani Nuorluoto (ed.). Slavica

Helsingensia 27. Helsinki: Department of Slavonic and Baltic Languages and Literatures at Helsinki

University. 355–373.