Hydronymic Markers of Certain Water-Portage Routes of the Ancient Balts in the Area of the Novgorod-Pskov Lands

This article primarily examines the routes used by the ancient Baltic population along rivers, lakes and portages in the historical Novgorod-Pskov lands during the period preceding Slavic colonization. A detailed analysis of Baltic communication routes is preceded by a brief review of the principal water-portage routes employed by medieval Novgorodians. In reconstructing the Slavic travel routes, the following factors are considered: (1) the conditions of the hydrographic network that favored the establishment of water-portage routes; (2) medieval written accounts of water communications; and (3) toponymic evidence. In contrast, reconstructing the ancient Baltic water-land routes is more challenging. With written records no longer available, hydronymy becomes the primary source of evidence, making reliable etymological interpretations of Baltic water names essential. The water routes used by the Balts are indicated by the following markers: (1) the duplication of names for neighbouring yet hydrologically disconnected (different-basin) water features; (2) a chain-like distribution of Baltic hydronyms that is clearly distinct from later Slavic toponymy; and (3) the water-communication semantics inherent in Balticisms. Drawing on the etymologies of substrate names and taking these indicators into account, the author substantiates the existence of a water-portage route Runa — Mizgutnya — Runa, along which the Balts from the Upper Volga lakes area entered the basin of the Pola River. A branch of the Runa route was a path linking the different-basin rivers Polovizma (Polovizna) and Polovizna (Polovizn’). Another Baltic route ran along the contiguous rivers and lakes Pylets — Pylka — Tsevlo — Tsevlа — Polisto — Polista. The Balts also utilized the large rivers Lovat and Shelon, as indicated by the etymology of these hydroonyms. An indirect route along the Netesma River (< Baltic *Netiesum(-a, -as), meaning ‘indirect distance’) enabled the Balts to travel from the Western Dvina to the Volga, offering an alternative to the direct route via Lake Okhvat. Finally, the Balticisms Tisva and Tesova point to movement along straits, equating in meaning to the Slavic hydronym Prost’ and the term prost’ ‘direct route.’