The Question of the Prospects of Indo-Iranian (Aryan) Tradition in the Interpretation of Hydronymy of Eastern Europe (as Exemplified by the Semantic Family of Words “Water”, “River”)

Abstract

The article examines the prospects of hydronymic research in Eastern Europe in the context of linguistic, cultural, epic, mythological, and historical traditions of the Indo-Iranian (Aryan) people, using the example of the semantic family of words “water”, “river”. The thesis about the East European homeland of the Indo-Iranian peoples, gaining ever greater support in modern historical science, naturally requires comprehensive verification by a specific onomastic material. In this sense, the conclusions of hydronymic research, taking into account the source specifics of this onomastic category, should be considered among the decisive arguments for a convincing solution to the “Indo-European problem”, the reproduction of the early history of Indo-Iranian peoples, and the reconstruction of ethnocultural processes in Eastern Europe in the old days. The data considered in the article undoubtedly confirm the presence of a number of Indo-Iranian and, more narrowly, Indo-Aryan terms for the designation of water and river in the hydronymy of Eastern Europe, that is ap (apsu), danu, sindhu, jala, pani, uda (udra), nadi, vār, ambu, dub, nar, etc. This fact, based on the semantic typology of hydronymic names, gives grounds to consider this part of the hydronymicon one of the most archaic layers of the Eastern European hydronymy that dates back to the period of the Indo-European linguistic and cultural community. This, in turn, causes the methodological need for revising the traditional concept of pan-Iranism in the approaches to the interpretation of Eastern European (in particular, Scythian-Sarmatian) onomastics toward wider Indo-Iranian (Aryan) interpretations; extends the prospects of interpreting Eastern European hydronymics at the expense of the Indo-Aryan language and cultural tradition; refutes a series of unreasonable etymologies of domestic onomastics, offering instead new, more convincing interpretations of numerous East European water names. The author believes that further onomastic studies in the field of East European hydronymy (in particular, its consideration through the prism of other semantic families), will additionally substantiate such a scientific position.