ВОПРОСЫ ОНОМАСТИКИ | PROBLEMS OF ONOMASTICS

Vladimir Vladimirovich Napolskikh
Institute for History and Archaeology, Ural Branch of the Russian Academy of Sciences; Ural Federal University, Ekaterinburg, Russia

ETHNONYMICS AS A HISTORICAL AND PHILOLOGICAL DISCIPLINE: GENERAL AND SPECIFIC SOLUTIONS, CHANCE AND PATTERN

For citation
Napolskikh, V. V. (2025). Ethnonymics as a Historical and Philological Discipline: General and Specific Solutions, Chance and Pattern. Voprosy onomastiki, 22(2), 9–30. https://doi.org/10.15826/vopr_onom.2025.22.2.014

Received on 23 January 2025
Accepted on 1 February 2025

Abstract: This article addresses key methodological issues in the study of ethnonymy, focusing on new hypotheses on the origins of Finno-Ugric ethnonyms. The singular nature of ethnonyms, and the apparent lack of opportunity for statistical validation of etymologies — as is more common in toponymy — has led, on the one hand, to a proliferation of speculative and arbitrary explanations, and on the other, to a reliance on the availability of historically verifiable data to support or reject such proposals. Despite widespread acknowledgement of this challenge, the article argues that ethnonymic analysis can function as a methodologically distinct branch of historical and philological research. It demonstrates that conclusions in this field can be systematically verified, provided four key conditions are met. These are as follows: 1) Linguistic accuracy in the proposed etymology, with close attention to both phonological and semantic detail, and to historical plausibility, including the need to identify the etymon as precisely as possible within a specific source language, rather than settling for generalized solutions. 2) Consideration of ethnonymic “universals” and the support of etymological proposals through typological analogies — while recognizing that such parallels are always shaped by specific ethnohistorical circumstances. 3) Awareness of the distinctive naming conventions present in the ethnonymic tradition under study, which themselves reflect particular historical conditions. 4) An understanding that both the application of universals and the functioning of naming traditions are context-dependent, and that any proposed etymology must either align with or help to revise the reconstructed ethnohistorical setting in which the ethnonym likely emerged. The article illustrates this approach through examples from Balto-Finnic, Sámi, Mordvin, Mari-Meryan, Permic, and Ugric ethnonymy. In comparative historical and typological terms, it also draws on ethnonymic material from Samoyedic, Siberian, European, and Amerindian languages.

Keywords: ethnonyms; methodology of ethnonymic studies; etymology; comparative linguistics; language contacts; ethnic history; Finno-Ugric languages

References

Anikin, A. E. (2007–). Russkii etimologicheskii slovar’ [Russian Etymological Dictionary] (Vols. 1–). Moscow: Rukopisnye pamiatniki Drevnei Rusi.

Atamanov, M. G. (2007). Eshche raz o proiskhozhdenii etnonima udmurt [Once Again on the Origin of the Ethnonym Udmurt]. Linguistica Uralica, 43(2), 90–97.

Batyanova, E. P., & Turaev, V. A. (Eds.). (2010). Narody Severo-Vostoka Sibiri [Peoples of the North-East of Siberia]. Moscow: Nauka.

Belykh, S. K., & Napolskikh, V. V. (1994). Etnonim udmurt: ischerpany li al’ternativy? [The Ethnonym Udmurt: Have All Alternatives Been Exhausted?]. Linguistica Uralica, 30(4), 278–288.

Benkő, L. (Ed.). (1992–1993). Etymologisches Wörterbuch des Ungarischen. Budapest: Akadémiai kiadó.

Gemuev, I. N., Molodin, V. I., & Sokolova, Z. P. (Eds.). (2005). Narody Zapadnoi Sibiri: Khanty. Mansi. Selkupy. Nentsy. Entsy. Nganasany. Kety [Peoples of Western Siberia: Khanty. Mansi. Selkups. Nenets. Enets. Nganasans. Kets]. Moscow: Nauka.

Gordeev, F. I. (1965). Irano-tiurkskie zaimstvovaniia v mariiskom iazyke [Iranian-Turkic Loanwords in the Mari Language]. In Tezisy nauchnoi sessii po etnogenezu mariiskogo naroda [Abstracts of the Scientific Session on the Ethnogenesis of the Mari People] (pp. 25–29). Yoshkar-Ola: MarNII.

Grünthal, R. (1997). Livvistä liiviin. Itämerensuomalaiset etnonyymit. Helsinki: Hakapaina Oy.

Haidú, P. (1985). Ural’skie iazyki i narody [Uralic Languages and Peoples]. Moscow: Progress.

Itkonen, E. (1961). Suomalais-ugrilaisen kielen ja historiantutkimuksen alalta. Helsinki: Suomalaisen kirjallisuuden seura.

Itkonen, E., & Kulonen, U.-M. (Eds.). (2001). Suomen sanojen alkuperä. Etymologinen sanakirja (Vols. 1–3). Helsinki: Suomalaisen kirjallisuuden seura.

Ivanov, A. G. (1991). Udmurty — “lugovye liudi” (k etimologii etnonima) [Udmurts — “Meadow People” (On the Etymology of the Ethnonym)]. Linguistica Uralica, 27(3), 188–192.

Khaburgaev, G. A. (1979). Etnonimiia “Povesti vremennykh let” [Ethnonymy in the “Tale of Bygone Years”]. Moscow: Moscow University Press.

Mokshin, N. F. et al. (Eds.). (2000). Narody Povolzh’ia i Priural’ia: Komi-zyr’ane. Komi-perm’aki. Mariitsy. Mordva. Urdmurty [Peoples of the Volga and Pre-Ural Regions: Komi-Zyrians. Komi-Permyaks. Mari. Mordvins. Udmurts]. Moscow: Nauka.

Munkásci, B. (1896). A votyák nyelv szótára. Budapest: Magyar Tudományos Akadémia.

Napolskikh, V. V. (2007). Proiskhozhdenie samonazvaniia vepsov v kontekste etnicheskoi istorii Vostochnoi Pribaltiki [The Origin of the Veps Self-Designation in the Context of the Ethnic History of Eastern Baltic]. Voprosy onomastiki, 4, 28–33.

Napolskikh, V. V. (2024). K iranskoi etimologii etnonimov mari, meria, muroma [Toward an Iranian Etymology of the Ethnonyms Mari, Meria, Muroma]. Voprosy onomastiki, 21(1), 9–26. https://doi.org/10.15826/vopr_onom.2024.21.1.001

Napolskikh, V. V., & Savelyev, A. V. (2023). Mari, meria, muroma — istoriia etnonimov i rekonstruktsiia iazykov substratnoi toponimii [Mari, Meria, Muroma — the History of Ethnonyms and the Reconstruction of Substrate Toponymic Languages]. Voprosy onomastiki, 22(3), 9–30. https://doi.org/10.15826/vopr_onom.2023.20.3.029

Napolskikh, V. V., & Surikova, O. D. (2024). Eshche raz ob etimologii etnonima mordva [Once Again on the Etymology of the Ethnonym Mordva]. Voprosy onomastiki, 21(3), 9–40. https://doi.org/10.15826/vopr_onom.2024.21.3.029

Nissilä, V. (1959). Suomi-nimen ongelma. Virittäjä, 63, 292–305.

Popov, A. I. (1973). Nazvaniia narodov SSSR. Vvedenie v etnonimiku [Names of the Peoples of the USSR: An Introduction to Ethnonymics]. Leningrad: Nauka.

Prokofyev, G. N. (1935). Sel’kupskaia grammatika = Nauchno-issledovatel’skaia assotsiatsiia Instituta narodov Severa. Trudy po lingvistike. T. 4: Sel’kupskii (ostiako-samoedskii) iazyk [Selkup Grammar = Research Association of the Institute of the Peoples of the North. Linguistic Studies. Vol. 4: Selkup (Ostyak-Samoyed) Language]. Leningrad: In-t narodov Severa.

Radanovics, K. (1963). Über die Ursprung einiger finnisch-ugrischer Völkernamen. In G. Ortutay (Ed.), Congressus Internationalis Fenno-Ugristarum I (pp. 98–104). Budapest: Akadémiai kiadó.

Rédei, K. (Ed.). (1986–1991). Uralisches etymologisches Wörterbuch (Vols. 1–3). Budapest: Akadémiai kiadó.

Smirnov, O. V. (2013). K voprosu o permskom toponimicheskom substrate na territorii Marii El i v basseine srednego techeniia reki Viatki (v svete etnicheskoi interpretatsii arkheologicheskikh kul’tur) [On the Permic Toponymic Substrate in Mari El and the Middle Vyatka Basin (In Light of the Ethnic Interpretation of Archaeological Cultures)]. Voprosy onomastiki, 2, 7–58.

Trubachev, O. N. (1974). Rannie slavianskie etnonimy — svideteli migratsii slavian [Early Slavic Ethnonyms as Evidence of Slavic Migrations]. Voprosy jazykoznanija, 6, 48–67.

Zsirai, M. (1937). Finnugor rokonságunk. Budapest: Magyar Tudományos Akadémia.