Search

Straipsnyje analizuojama vienos nedidelės vakarų baltų genties – galindų etninė istorija. Galindų migracijos Rytų ir Vakarų Europoje idėja buvo iškelta kalbininkų (K. Būga, V. Toporovas), istorikų (V. Vilinbachovas, N. Engovatovas). Vienintelis argumentas buvo žodžių, panašių į etnonimą galind-, aptikimas „nuo Atlanto vandenyno iki Pamaskvio miškų“. Nors galindų migracijų pėdsakų nefiksuoja nei istoriniai šaltiniai, nei archeologinė medžiaga, kalbininkų iškelta hipotezė susilaukė visiško pritarimo Lietuvos archeologo E. Jovaišos monografijose, mokykliniame vadovėlyje, mokslo populiarinimo literatūroje. Straipsnio autoriai, kritiškai išanalizavę V. Toporovo galindų migracijos idėją ir jos ištakas, daro išvadą, kad tai liaudies etimologija paremti prasimanymai ir akivaizdi klaida. Tai suklaidino ne vieną mokslininką ir dėl to iki šiol tarsi grandininė reakcija randasi naujų klaidų ir istorinių nesąmonių. The supposition that the Galindians could take part in the Migration Period are being accepted as the scientific truth in Lithuania and associated mainly with the name of the Russian scholar V. Toporov. Although traces of the Galindian migrations are not found, Toporov’s main concepts were completely adopted by E. Jovaisha in his books and school manuals. The article regards the history of this question and its argumentation. The main focus of the paper is the methodology used by V. Toporov, and a systemic examination of all relative facts. During 1977–1983, the scholar published two theses and three small articles, which were all devoted to the Galindians. Yet his handling of the subject was somewhat unexpected. Before that, in 1972, V. Toporov published two substantial works, devoted to the toponymy of the Moscow region: any traces of the Galindians were absent there. It is possible to state that all aspects of the Galindian problematics were adopted by V. Toporov from another substantial work, written by V. B. Vilinbachov and N. V. Engovatov (1963). In many aspects, it would later become a starting point of his crackpot ideas. Traditionally, scholars relate the Galindians to the archaeological Bogaczewo culture. Its remains are located in the vicinity of the Mazurian Lake District, where the West-Baltic tribe was placed by Ptolemy (c. 100– c. 170 AD) and Peter of Dusburg († after 1326). A mass migration of a small tribe is unbelievable due to its very restricted economic and human potential. In historical records, the name Galindians is absent except for the mentions above. The so-called Eastern Galindians (люди Голѧдь – the people Goliad’) are certainly mentioned in the Russian chronicles only once, on 1147. However, the word Голѧдь in this context possesses some other meaning, while the word people (люди) is never being used with any ethnonym. Attempts to establish a connection between the Moshchin culture with the Goliad’ on Protva of the Russian chronicles are also unacceptable. We can mark a significant chronological gap of about five centuries between them, and the absence of any obvious archaeological monuments of the Goliad’ at the beginning of the second millennium. The conceptions of the Galindians by V. Toporov are not homogeneous. The conclusions he came to contradict one another: in one article he postulates a Great Galindia from the Moscow region to the Prussian lands, in another – huge Galindian migrations over the whole of Europe. His declarations about the simultaneous Galindians migrations with the Visigoths, Vandals, Burgundians, Lombards, as well as their migration to the Moscow region are certainly improbable or even absurd. V. Toporov’s assumption of Galindians migration with the Visigoths was based purely on the presumption that there was a warrior named Galindo among the Goths. This assumption was found to be false, as studies of Gothic prosopography discovered that such a Gothic name was absent. The name Galindo appeared much later and originated in one Frankish region; moreover, Gin Galindo was a Vulgar Latin hypercorrection of the initial Germanic W-. Thus, the migration ideas of the Galindians by V. Toporov and his followers have no historic, archaeological or linguistic grounds. They are only based on the affluent and fantastic misinterpretations of the anthroponomical and toponymic forms, collected by him. In many respects these forms are completely different. They were taken from various languages; originate from various territories that are extremely distant from one another, and known from different times. They only partially and often very distantly resemble the ethnonym Galindian.

Straipsnyje aptariama Lietuvos vardo kilmė. Pabrėžiama, kad aiškinantis Lietuvos vardo kilmę nėra tas pats, ar lietuviai yra viena iš daugelio genčių, ar visai nauja, viršgentinė kokybė, liudijanti anksti prabudusią jau besiformuojančią valstybinę istorinę savimonę. Maža to, žodis 'Lietuva' galbūt liudija genetinę bendrystę su Indoeuropa, taip pat su Antikos pasauliu - juk senovės graikų 'leito' reiškia ne ką kita kaip valstybė, valdžia. Straipsnyje aptariama oficialioji (Dlugošo, Stryjkovskio, Kuzavinio) bei naujoji Lietuvos vardo kilmės aiškinimo tradicija, kuriai atstovauja istorikas Artūras Dubonis, nuo 1990 m. pradėjęs skelbti straipsnius apie vadinamuosius 'leičius' (leythey, leyty, leytten, litten) - 13 a. vidurio - 16 a. pirmosios pusės Lietuvos didžiojo kunigaikščio tarnybinių žmonių sluoksnio atstovus; taip pat Simas Karaliūnas, kuris 1995 m. paskelbė, kad lietuviams - kaip etnosui - vardą davė kariaunos, vadintos 'leita', 'lictuva', 'lietava', pavadinimas. Tačiau straipsnyje pagrindinis dėmesys skiriamas pogrindinei Lietuvos vardo kilmės versijai, pasak kurios Lietuvos vardas sietinas su senžodžiu 'lieta' - daiktas, dalykas, reikalas, valstybė, valdžia. 'Lieta' - pirminė socialinė-muitarinė aglomeracija, tam tikra rinktinių vyrų taryba, turėjusi, turbūt, nuolatinę rinkimosi vietą - po 'lietos' ąžuolu - aptarti bendriems reikalams - 'lietoms'. 'Lieta' ir bus buvęs tas pirminis pagrindas, būsimos Mindaugo valstybės provaizdis. 'Lietų' sankaupa (galūnė -uva reiškia sankaupą), sąjunga - 'lietuva'. Tad žodis 'Lietuva' yra tam tikros valstybingumo formos, valstybės sinonimas. The article discusses the origin of the name of Lithuania. It is emphasized that the interpretation of the origin of the name of Lithuania is not the same, whether Lithuania is one of the many tribes, or a brand new, over-tribe quality, evidencing of an early awaken, an already emerging national historical consciousness. Moreover, the word 'Lithuania' may show genetic communion with Indo-Europe, as well as with the ancient world, as 'leito' in the ancient Greek means none other than a state, a government. The article discusses the official (Dlugosz, Stryjkowski, Kuzavinis) and the new tradition of interpreting the origin of the name of Lithuanian, represented by the historian Artūras Dubonis, who, since 1990, has been publishing articles about the so-called 'leičiai' (leythey, leyty, leytten, litten), the representatives of service people of Grand Duke of Lithuania in mid-13th century and first half of the 16th century; and also Simas Karaliūnas, who in 1995 announced that the Lithuanians, as an ethnic group, were given their name after the name of the army, referred to as "leita", "lictuva", "lietava". However, the article focuses on the underground version of the origin of the name of Lithuania, according to which, Lithuania's name is attributable to the old word “lieta” – an object, a thing, a business, a state, a government. “Lieta” represents the original social agglomeration, kind of an exquisite men council, which had, probably, a permanent location of meeting and gathering, under the oak of “lieta”, to discuss common concerns, the “lietas”. “Lieta” will, sure, has been the primary basis for a pro-image of the future Mindaugas’ State. Collection of “lietas” (the ending -uva means cluster), the alliance – “Lithuania”. Consequently, the word “Lithuania” is synonymous to some form of statehood, the state.

Straipsnis skirtas semantinio lauko „asmenų pavadinimai pagal tautybę“ etnonimų grupei, atrinktai iš senųjų (XVI-XVIII a.) lietuviškų raštų. Aptariama etnonimų kilmė, aplietuvinimas ir išlikimas bendrinėje kalboje. Turinio atžvilgiu aptariamieji etnonimai yra lietuviams artimesnių Europos tautų pavadinimai. Pagal kilmę etnonimai (išskyrus pačių lietuvių savivardį) yra lietuvių kalbos skolintinės leksikos dalis. Etnonimai nevienodos kilmės: baltiški (lietuvis, latvis, prūsas), skoliniai iš sen. rus. (lenkas, vengras), iš vokiečių (liet. vokietis, lat. vācietis), naujesnieji gauti per kalbas tarpininkes. Didžioji senųjų etnonimų dalis išlaikyta dabartinėje lietuvių kalboje. Kai kurie senieji skolintiniai etnonimai tapo archaizmais ir dabar pakeisti naujesniais (unguras – vengras, pinas – suomis, Šatas – škotas). Tradicinis senųjų etnonimų inventorius nuolat pasipildo naujais etnonimais. Tai lemia Lietuvos ekonominiai ir kultūriniai santykiai su Europos ir pasaulio tautomis. This paper deals with a group of ethnonyms in the semantic field of the names of nationalities, taken from old Lithuanian writings (16-18th centuries). It discusses the origin of ethnonyms, their Lithuanisation and survival in the standard language. In respect of content, the ethnonyms discussed are names of European nationalities. According to origin, ethnonyms (except for the name of Lithuanians themselves) are part of the borrowed vocabulary of the Lithuanian language. The origin of ethnonyms differs: they are Baltic (lietuvis (Lithuanian), latvis (Latvian), prūsas (Prussian)), borrowings from the Old Slavonic (lenkas (Pole)), German language (Lith. vokietis, Lat. vācietis) or newer ethnonyms which came through intermediary languages. The majority of old ethnonyms have survived into modern Lithuanian. Some old borrowed ethnonyms became archaisms and were substituted with newer names (unguras - vengras (Hungarian), pinas - suomis (Finn), Šatas - škotas (Scot)). The traditional inventory of old ethnonyms is constantly being complemented with new ethnonyms. This is a reflection of economic and cultural relations between Lithuania and other European and world nations.