О балтийских следах в топонимике русских территорий

LIETUVIŲ KALBOTYROS KLAUSIMAI, II LIETUVOS TSR MOKSLŲ AKADEMIJA ON BALTIC TRACES IN THE TOPONYMY OF RUSSIAN TERRITORIES V. N. TOPOROV About sixty years ago, A. A. Kochubinsky’s article “The Territory of Prehistoric Lithuania” appeared (Journal of the Ministry of Public Education, Part 309, 1897, No. 1, pp. 60–94). It was the first serious attempt to identify Baltic elements in place names in territories lying to the east and southeast of present-day Lithuania. A. A. Kochubinsky succeeded in uncovering a substantial Baltic stratum in the local names of the Minsk, Vitebsk, Mogilev and (only exceptionally) Smolensk gubernias. This article initiated a whole series of attempts to identify further Baltic toponyms eastward. First of all, the exceptionally valuable studies by the Lithuanian linguist K. Būga devoted to East Slavic toponymy of Baltic origin should be noted1. He succeeded in collecting more than 150 examples of this kind, far exceeding the material assembled by his predecessors. In addition, the linguistic interpretation of these examples and their evidentiary force are more convincing than those of A. A. Kochubinsky, although K. Būga’s works, too, contain many dubious or simply erroneous examples (Гривка, Клѣтка, Метелка, Неропля, Нератовка, Перелом, Переволока, Полова, Струпица and others), and the question of the criteria for distinguishing Baltic toponyms from old Slavic ones does not always receive due attention. This is particularly surprising if we recall that K. Būga was precisely the scholar who successfully identified the main features of Slavic speech from the period when the Slavs came into contact with the Balts, Finns, and the ancient populations of the Balkans and the pre-Alpine regions. It is important to note that the Lithuanian scholar’s research area was mainly limited to the same territories studied by A. A. Kochubinsky, with the difference that the data on the toponymy of Smolensk gubernia were used somewhat more fully. A. L. Pogodin searched even farther east for traces of Baltic toponymy— 1 See K. Būga, Aistiškos kilmės Gudijos vietovardžiai, „Tauta ir Žodis“ 1, Kaunas, 1923, pp. 20–44; by the same author, Upių vardų studijos ir aisčių bei slavėnų senovė, ibid., 1, pp. 1–20; by the same author, Die Vorgeschichte der Aistischen (Baltischen) Stämme im Lichte der Ortsnamenforschung, Streitberg-Festgabe, Leipzig, 1924, pp. 22–35 (Lithuanian version: Aisčių praeitis vietų vardų šviesoje), and others. 55 godin, who held that the eastern boundary of the spread of the Baltic element ran through Tambov and Penza gubernias, where it mixed with Finno-Ugric and apparently even Iranian elements; A. I. Sobolevsky, who, however, provided no new toponymic material; and M. Vasmer, who compiled the most reliable (though limited) material relating to the toponymy of the Smolensk, Tver, Kaluga, Moscow, Chernigov and Oryol gubernias. Over the last quarter-century, interest in this problem has clearly declined; new studies appear extremely rarely and, as a rule, address specific details. Scholars’ attention has shifted to more westerly regions, where they seek traces of Baltic toponymy in Poland or establish connections between Baltic hydronymy and “Central European” hydronymy. While recognizing the paramount importance of such studies, one nevertheless cannot acknowledge ² См. А. Л. Погодин, Из истории славянских передвижений, СПб, 1901, стр. 92-93. ³ See A. I. Sobolevsky, Where Did Lithuania Live?—Proceedings of the Imperial Academy of Sciences for 1911, pp. 1051–1054. ⁴ See M. Vasmer, Beiträge zur historischen Völkerkunde Osteuropas, 1. — Die Ostgrenze der baltischen Stämme, SPAW, Phil.-hist. Klasse, XXIV, Berlin, 1932. ⁵ See E. Blesse, Beiträge zur Namenforschung, 4, 1953, pp. 289–291 (on the names Gzhat and Bologoye; the article proved inaccessible to us); P. Arumaa, Die ostslavische Gewässernamen mit l-epentheticum. Festschrift M. Vasmer, Wiesbaden, 1956, pp. 47–60 (this also contains Baltic material). The facts collected in T. Lehr-Splawiński’s book „O pochodzeniu i praojczyźnie Słowian“, Poznań, 1946 (see § 15. D. Nazwy Bałtyckie, pp. 65–67; see also pp. 175–177), are traditional. In J. Rozwadowski’s posthumously published study, Studia nad nazwami wód słowiańskich, Kraków, 1948, Baltic hydronyms, likewise generally treated traditionally, are considered from a perspective other than the one discussed here. ⁶ See V. N. Toporov, Two Notes on Baltic Toponymy. — Collection in Honor of Academician J. M. Endzelin, Riga, 1959 (the relevant literature is also cited here). ⁷ See H. Krahe, Illyrica, IV-V, IF,49, 1931, pp. 267–274 (V. Baltisch und Illyrisch, pp. 271–274); by the same author, Baltische Ortsnamen westlich der Weichsel, Alt-Preußen, 8, 1943, pp. 43–44; by the same author, Beiträge zur alteuropäischen Flußnamenforschung, Würzburger Jahrbuch, 1, 1946, pp. 79–97; by the same author, Alteuropäische Flußnamen, BzNf, 1, 1949–1950, pp. 24–51, 247–266; 2, 1950–1951, pp. 113–131, 217–237; 3, 1951–1952, pp. 1–18, 153–170, 225–243; 4, 1953, pp. 37–53, 105–122, 234–243; by the same author, Sprache und Vorzeit. Europäische Vorgeschichte nach dem Zeugnis der Sprache, Heidelberg, 1954 (especially 15. Das Verhältnis des Illyrischen zum Baltischen und Slavischen, pp. 108–114); by the same author, Die Sprache der Illyrier, 1 Teil: Die Quellen, Wiesbaden, 1955; by the same author, Zu einzelnen illyrischen Eigennamen, BzNf, 6, 1955, pp. 237–243; 7, 1956, pp. 217–224; by the same author, Balto-Illyrica. Festschrift M. Vasmer, pp. 245–252; by the same author, Fluß- (und Orts-) Namen auf -mana/-mina, BzNf, 8, 1957, pp. 1–27; by the same author, Bemerkungen zu alten Gewässernamen, BzNf, 8, 1957, pp. 144–148; and others; K. Kaspersons, Illyrica. — Filologu Biedrības Raksti, 18, 1938, pp. 52–65; 19, 1939, pp. 57–74; 20, 1940, pp. 188–204; G. Alessio, Un’oasi linguistica preindoeuropea nella regione baltica. Studi Etruschi, 19, 1946, pp. 141–176; R. Schmittlein, Notes de toponymie lituanienne, AASF, 51, 1941, pp. 59–60; by the same author, Études sur la nationalité des Aestii, 1, Toponymie lituanienne. 1948; by the same author, Sur quelques toponymes lituaniens, BzNf, 14, pp. 233–248; 15, pp. 51–71, 152–179; by the same author, The confluence Balto-Romane? Mélanges de linguistique et de littérature romanes, 2, 1953, pp. 251–267, and others. 56 It is unjustified to consign to oblivion the range of questions raised by K. Būga and M. Vasmer, especially since these questions are far from being fully resolved and are often viewed from entirely different perspectives. In this article—as far as its scope permits—we would like to point out what we consider the most important problems confronting researchers of Baltic toponymy in Russia today, and to offer some preliminary observations, accompanied by several new explanations. One of the essential tasks is to establish the boundaries of Baltic toponymy in Russia. It is interesting that its eastern boundary remains the most uncertain and vague, whereas the southern boundary runs very clearly along the Pripyat (toponymy of Yotvingian type)8, and the western boundary likewise raises no serious doubts (in this case, “Central European” connections are not taken into account). As for the northern boundary of Baltic toponymy, in essence, determining it poses no problem, since it is clear that Baltic tribes were never located north of the places where they live today. The question of the eastern boundaries of Baltic toponymy was raised only by M. Vasmer, who also attempted to define them in the most general terms. Yet there are in fact no grounds for speaking of a real boundary separating Baltic toponymy from Finnish, Iranian, or Slavic toponymy. The reason is not only that ancient non-Baltic-type place names are constantly found even within the area where Baltic traces are distributed. Perhaps more significant is the fact that place names which the overwhelming majority of scholars consider Baltic are also found beyond the eastern boundary delineated by M. Vasmer (cf., for example, Tsna—a left tributary of the Oka; Tsna—a left tributary of the Moksha9, etc.)10. If E. Blesse’s view that the name Bologoye is of Baltic origin is correct (Baltic *bal-g-, subsequently reinterpreted through folk etymology), this name, too, compels us to go beyond the limits delineated by M. Vasmer. But even if such names are excluded from the Baltic category (apparently, this is precisely how we should understand M. Vasmer’s disregard of them, since in other cases he always specifically notes doubtful examples), the eastern boundary of Baltic toponymy will nevertheless remain too approximate. In particular, this is explained by 8 See K. Būga, Upių vardų studijos...; idem, Jotvingių Žemės upių vardų galūnė-da. — “Tauta ir Žodis”, 1, p. 100. Some disagreement concerns only a small stretch of the southwestern boundary; as a rule, however, it is based not on differing interpretations of toponymic evidence, but on differing understandings of certain historical data. 9 Cf. also Tsna—the right tributary of the Tvertsa. 10 It is worth noting A. L. Pogodin’s interesting observation: in the Pripyat basin there are the rivers Tsna and Shchatska; on the other hand, on the Tsna, a tributary of the Moksha, stands the town of Shchatsk (cf. the name of the river Shat, Shat—the right tributary of the Upa), cited work, p. 92. For our part, we would point to the river Šatė in the Kretinga and Mažeikiai districts of Lithuania. 57 by the fact that the German scholar, being extremely cautious in his observations and conclusions, cited only a few of the most reliable (one might even say indisputable) reference points in the form of place names, thereby substantially limiting the task he set himself, as we know from the title of his work. The very small number of toponyms (23 reliable cases in the Tver, Moscow, Kaluga, Oryol, and Chernigov governorates; the 19 hydronyms from the Smolensk governorate must be set aside, since they are not the easternmost examples) across such vast territories does not allow us to determine any details of the eastern boundary of Baltic toponymy. Nevertheless, even now there seems to be some basis for refining particular stretches of this boundary, or at least certain approaches are becoming clear that could lead to the establishment of more precise boundaries in the near future. In particular, the disputed question of Baltic toponymic traces in the southern and even southeastern parts of Moscow Region and in the eastern part of Tula Region might be illuminated in a new way by taking into account indisputable traces of Baltic toponymy beyond the specified areas. These traces—whether we take them very broadly, at the cost of rigor, or, conversely, very narrowly, but without risking error—unequivocally show that north of the disputed area that must be excluded, the boundary of Baltic toponymy runs from northwest to southeast. It is equally indisputable that south of the specified area, the boundary runs from northeast to southwest. The natural continuation of these two lines would form something like a wedge extending eastward, coinciding precisely with the area disputed as to whether it contains Baltic traces. It would be more difficult to suppose that in the specified parts of Moscow and Tula regions the boundary, hitherto fairly consistently aligned, changes direction sharply both to the south and to the north. Admittedly, the arguments presented are tenuous (among other reasons, because the question of boundaries must be linked to chronological characterization), but they could to some extent be corroborated by examples from the disputed area that many consider Baltic; by the less consistent distribution of Finnish toponymy in this area compared with the territory north of Moscow at the same longitudes; and by a whole series of place names containing the ethnic names of Finnish tribes (Moksha, Mordvas, etc.), which constitutes a negative argument in favor of the boundary of this linguistic territory (cf. names with the root *slov-: *slav- or *ven-: *vent-: *vend- on the fringes of the Slavic world). Another important task in studying Baltic traces in Russian toponymy is to identify, as far as possible, all examples of Baltic type. We may suppose that, if we maintain the same standard of proof as K. Būga, the number of examples could probably be increased by a very considerable amount. Even now, some new examples of Baltic topo- 58 toponymy in Russian lands. Thus, in the name of the river Gzhat (a right tributary of the Vazuza), we believe one should see a well-known Baltic root, found in Prussian gudde ‘shrub’, ‘forest’ (and, as some believe, ‘swamp’), in Lithuanian words gūdkar klis, gūdnotrėlė, gūdobelė, and others, as well as in a large number of toponyms in Prussia, Lithuania, and Latvia¹¹. In this case, Gzhat <*Gbžātъ <*gudi-ati- finds its closest analogy in the names Gdańsk(o) <*Gbd-an-bsk- <*gud-ān-isk- and Gdynia <*Gbd-ynjā <*gud-ūnjā at the other end of the Baltic world¹². However, another explanation is also possible (though less likely); cf. p. 63 of this article. The name of the left tributary of the Ugra, Gordota, calls to mind numerous Baltic toponyms containing the root gard-, some examples of which have already been noted in Slavic territory (see Gardejiški). The hypothesis that Gordota is of Baltic origin becomes particularly plausible if one takes into account the clearly Baltic toponymy of this area and notes the suffix. Considerations of this kind also prompt us to see a Baltic element in the name of the right tributary of the Vazuza, Salita, and in the tributary of the Rzhat, Chichate (there is also a lake of the same name). It is worth examining from a Baltic perspective hydronyms such as Lob (in the northwestern corner of Moscow Oblast; cf. the Prussian lake Lobyn and the Lithuanian river Lobinis, from Lithuanian lōbas ‘channel’, ‘hollow’), Derzha (in Rzhevsky District; cf. Lithuanian diržus, diržingas ‘viscous’), Lusyaka (a right tributary of the Moskva west of Mozhaisk; the village of Lusos is also located here)¹³, perhaps Svedva (a right tributary of the Oka; cf. Lithuanian Smaid-riai, Prussian Smedeyn, Smedythen, Smydyn, Smaydegarbs, etc.), and others. We shall investigate the Baltic elements in Russian toponymy more fully and in greater detail elsewhere. Only the compilation of a sufficiently detailed map of Baltic toponyms in Russian territories would make it possible to take a differentiated approach to the data gathered across the vast territories of Belarus, western Russia, and, in part, central Russia. In any event, analysis would help identify at least the dominant word-formation patterns across this entire area. In turn, this (like purely lexical data) would make it possible to raise another highly significant question: the dialect affiliation of the Baltic toponymy of these regions, which, by tradition, many consider Lithuanian or (more broadly) East Baltic. In our firm conviction, based not only on the study of toponymy but also on a number of more general considerations (dat- ¹¹ См. G. Gerullis, Die altpreußischen Ortsnamen, Berlin-Leipzig, 1922, стр. 47, 87, 95; И. Я. Спрогис, Географический Словарь древней Жомойтской земли 16 столетия, Вильна, 1888, стр. 86; J. Endzelin, Latvijas PSR vietvārdi, Rīgā, 1956, стр. 336-337 и др. ¹² As regards the etymology of the names Gdańsk and Gdynia, we share the views of J. Endzelin and E. Fraenkel (see Die baltischen Sprachen, Heidelberg, 1950, pp. 63–66) and reject the view that these names refer to the Goths (E. Hermann, R. Ekblom, and others). ¹³ See G. Gerullis, op. cit., pp. 91–93; cf. also the numerous East Baltic toponyms containing this same root. 59 ta from ancient Baltic dialectology, the absence of so-called transitional Slavic–East Baltic dialects, the clear demarcation of the known Balto-Slavic boundaries, certain data on the chronology of Slavic borrowings in Lithuanian and Latvian,14 etc.), the Baltic toponymy of the regions under consideration belongs more probably to the West Baltic dialects than to the East Baltic ones (of course, all this is valid only if a distinction exists between the two branches of Baltic dialects). To some extent, the chronicle accounts of the Galindians (Goljad’) and toponymic examples containing the root *galind- might support this hypothesis. However, after M. Vasmer’s critical analysis of A. I. Sobolevsky’s work, mentioned earlier, such arguments would be too unconvincing. It is therefore better to take a different path—an exclusively linguistic one. One of the most convincing arguments for the West Baltic affiliation of the toponyms in the territory under consideration is provided by names containing an element meaning ‘river’. As is well known, in terms of the phonetic form of the root of this word, East Baltic dialects contrast with West Baltic: Lithuanian ùpė, Latvian upe: Prussian ape (attested in the Elbing Vocabulary, 62, and in a whole series of toponyms from Prussian territory). The word ape is concealed in the name of the right tributary of the Volga, Zhukopa, which suggests Baltic žukape ‘fish river’ (characteristically, the first part of this word, too, points to the Prussian area; cf. Prussian suckis ‘fish’, compared with Lithuanian žùvis and Latvian žuvs, zivs15). This same word occurs in the name of the river Uzhepa, which flows through Yukhnovsky District in Smolensk Oblast (e rather than o from *a is explained by the influence of the sound ž16). Finally, the name of a right tributary of the upper Dnieper—the Vop’—although theoretically it could reflect either ape or ùpė, more probably presupposes the Prussian word17. For a number of reasons, we do not include Nepryad in this group, although J. Rozwadowski sees in its name the aforementioned Prussian word18. The interpretation of the name of the most significant river containing a root meaning ‘water’ presents serious difficulties. We have in mind the Upa (cf. its 14 In addition to the older works, cf. V. Kiparsky’s more recent studies, in which questions of chronology play a particularly important role: Chronologie des relations slavobaltiques et slavofinnoises, RÉSL, 24, 1948, pp. 29–47; The Earliest Contacts of the Russian with the Finns and Balts.— Oxford Slavonic Papers, 3, 1952, pp. 67–79; Ein angeblich altpreussisches Lehnwort im Litauischen.— Studi baltici, 9, 1952, pp. 238–243; Sur la chronologie de quelques altérations phonétiques en slave.— Scando-Slavica, 1, 1954, pp. 19–21; О хронологии славяно-финских лексических отношений.— Scando-Slavica, 4, 1958, pp. 127–136, and others. 15 As for the element žuk- in such Lithuanian words as žukmistras, žuksparnis, žuklỹs, it seems necessary here to consider either borrowing or a very rare dialectal example. 16 See M. Vasmer, op. cit., p. 22. It is noteworthy that in this word, too, the first part is most readily etymologized using Prussian. 17 This is the view of M. Vasmer, op. cit., p. 23, and T. Lehr-Splawinski, op. cit., p. 65 (E. F. Karsky’s etymology, from вопить ‘to cry out’, is clearly erroneous). 18 J. Rozwadowski, op. cit., p. 9. 60 the tributary of the Upert, usually ignored by researchers, as well as the somewhat unclear names of rivers in the same area, Vypra, Vyporeyka (cf. the name of the Lithuanian lake Ūpartas in Zarasai District?). M. Vasmer and some other scholars expressed doubts about the traditional comparison with Lithuanian ūrė and Latvian upe for phonetic reasons (the indicated East Baltic words would have yielded *Vorʹ; on the other hand, it is difficult to assume that the Russians borrowed this name very late; in any case, historical data on the colonization of these lands by Slavic tribes would conflict with the chronology of the known phonetic processes). Recently, however, T. Lehr-Splawiński returned to the old explanation (op. cit., pp. 65, 176), citing the shift у to ц- (before a consonant) in the dialects of this area, noted by N. S. Trubetzkoy (ZfslPh. 14, 1937, pp. 353–354). Nevertheless, certain chronological considerations prevent us from regarding the question of the origin of the name Uly as definitively settled. Likewise, it seems risky to assert that the name of the river Kasplya in Smolensk Region contains the element ūrė>*рѣ. Another important toponymic type revealing a West Baltic origin is represented by names such as Paneya (a river in Bezhetsk District), Ponia (in Kaluga Region), and perhaps some hydronyms of the Dnieper basin that have undergone reinterpretation and suffixal alteration: Panika, Panik, Panivka, etc. 19 These names undoubtedly conceal the same root as the Prussian word rappean “mo-sebruch” (Elbing Vocabulary, 288), compared with Gothic fani “mud,” Old Saxon feni “swamp,” Old Indic paṅka “mud,” “swamp,” Old Irish an “water,” etc. 20 In East Baltic dialects, the corresponding word is either entirely absent or is a Yatvingian loan (cf. Lithuanian dialectal raniaubė “a kind of mushroom that grows in swamps and other damp places”21). It is noteworthy that as a toponym this root occurs only in the area where West Baltic dialects were spoken—cf. Rapchen in Order documents dating from 1267, the Polish name of a tributary of the Kirsna (also a West Baltic hydronym), Ponie, from Yatvingian *Paniā, etc. One of the most convincing arguments for the presence of West Baltic-type hydronyms in western Russia is provided by the names, hitherto noted by no one, Stabna (Stabenka)—a right-bank tributary of the Dnieper near Smolensk; Stabnya—a left-bank tributary of the Dnieper; and Stabnitsa—a right-bank tributary of the Brodnya (itself a right-bank tributary of the Berezina)22. In them we see 19 См. П. Маштаков, Список рек Днепровского бассейна, СПб, 1913, стр. 5, 31, 206, 215, 228. 20 See also fig. Pannonia. 21 See K. Būga, Kann man Keltenspuren auf baltischem Gebiet nachweisen? — Rocznik Slawistyczny, 6, 1913, p. 37; Aistiškos kilmės Gudijos vietovardžiai, pp. 35–36. It is difficult to say anything definite about the isolated Lithuanian pane. 22 See P. Mashtakov, op. cit., pp. 29, 97; I. Orlovsky, Kratkaya geografiya Smolenskoy gubernii, Smolensk, 1908, p. 21. 61 the Baltic root stab-, which retained the meaning “stone” only in the West Baltic area (cf. Prussian stabis, Elbing Vocabulary, 32), and which is used as a toponym only here (cf. Stabaras, Staba-yen, Stabego de, Stabelauken (Lithuanian has Stablaukis), Stabelow, Stabin-gen, Stabynotilte, Stabuniten²³). Characteristically, a number of Prussian names, like the Prussian appellative stabni- “stove” (from *stabine), directly point to the form underlying the Smolensk Region hydronyms cited above: *Stab-in-ā>*Stabьna>Stabna. Более спорно свидетельство таких топонимических названий, как Съжа, теперь Сож (левый приток Днепра), находящих соответствие из всех балтийских языков лишь в прусском suge „дождь“ (если это слово сравнивать, как делалось раньше с др.-в.-нем sîgan и т. д.²⁴); или Лукты — деревня в Дорогобужском районе, название которой скорее согласуется с прусским Lukte, чем с литовским Lukštas или латышским Lukste²⁵, и др. Undoubtedly, further research will help identify new West Baltic elements in Russian toponymy. The final question on which we would like to focus concerns the chronology of the borrowing of Baltic toponyms by the Russians. The existence of doublets such as Luchesa-Lukesa, full-vowel forms alongside non-full-vowel forms, examples with tautosyllabic nasal consonants and with regular East Slavic reflexes of “vowel + nasal consonant” sequences, as well as cases that allow us to test the representation of ū; k’ and g’; tj and dj, etc., in Baltic names borrowed by the Slavs, make it possible to establish at least a preliminary chronological differentiation among these toponyms. Moreover, these phenomena may serve as landmarks by which we can reconstruct the phonetic state of the Slavic language in the period when the Slavs encountered Baltic tribes in Belarus and western Russia. This state was characterized by the continued existence of diphthongs and diphthongal combinations with nasal consonants; sequences such as tort and tj, dj remained unchanged; ū had not yet shifted to у. All of this can readily be verified through Baltic toponymic loans in Slavic. This stage in the evolution of the Slavic phonological system, extremely close to Baltic, together with the fact that a vast proportion of the Baltic and Slavic root lexicons coincides, considerably complicates the identification of all traces of Baltic toponymy in Russian territories. 23 See G. Gerullis, Die altpreußischen Ortsnamen, pp. 171–172. See also V. N. Toporov, op. cit. (on toponyms with the root stab- and their geographic relationship to toponyms with the root akmen-). 24 If k here is a graphic variant of j (as in cugis; cf. Lithuanian kūjis, Slavic куjb), then it would perhaps be appropriate to compare the hydronym Suya with Prussian suj-. It has recently been convincingly demonstrated that Prussian suge should be understood as sūjē See Eric P. Hamp, OPruss. Soye “rain”, KZ 74, 1956, pp. 127–128. The form soye is noted in E. Hermann, Eine unbeachtete Überlieferung des preussischen Vokabulars Simon Grunaus, Göttingen, 1949. 25 Another, admittedly less likely, explanation of the name Lukty remains possible here. See M. Vasmer, op. cit., p. 21. 62 and in many cases makes it difficult to establish any firm criteria for distinguishing Baltic from Slavic names. Indeed, how, for example, can one decide the linguistic affiliation of the name of the river Ржать (in the Rzhev district), when even the old names Ржева (Ржева, Ржова, Ржевка и т.д.) or toponyms of the type Ржава, Ржавка can yield nothing more than the hypothetical original form *radi- (> *rъžь-), which may equally well be Baltic or Slavic? Likewise, the root gud- mentioned above is attested not only in the Baltic languages but also in the Slavic languages (cf. Serbo-Croatian Gacko (polje) from *gud- — bsk26). Ignoring this circumstance led K. Būga to collect a considerable number of toponyms that are just as readily explained from a Baltic perspective as from a Slavic one. In this case, a serious methodological error was made, comparable to what would arise if we were to etymologize the toponymy of present-day Lithuania from a Proto-Slavic perspective (purely theoretically, this would be entirely possible for a considerable number of names). Therefore, in conclusion, I would like once again to emphasize the paramount importance of the question of the limits of what is possible when identifying Baltic elements in Russian toponymy. 26 See S. Rospond, Stratygrafia toponimiczna, — “Z polskich studiów slawistycznych”, Warszawa, 1958, p. 182.