LIETUVIŲ ONOMASTIKOS TYRINĖJIMAI

LIETUVIŲ KALBOTYROS KLAUSIMAI, XXI (1981)

JUOZAS ŠLIAVAS

PERSONAL NAMES OF THE ŽEIMELIS AREA IN THE 16TH CENTURY

On September 26, 1585, in the presence of high-ranking envoys of His Majesty, the King of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania, and the Duke of the Duchy of Courland, the boundary in the environs of Žeimelis between the Grand Duchy of Lithuania on one side and the Duchy of Courland and Semigallia on the other was being demarcated. Some of the lands of the Berstelė estate, owned by Hilbrantas and Dytrichas Grothusas, together with one part of the town of Žeimelis, which had formerly belonged to the Duchy of Courland and Semigallia, came under the jurisdiction of Jonas Hlebavičius of Dubrovna, who at the time held the office of elder of Upytė, and became part of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania. On this occasion, the part of the Berstelė estate that fell to Jonas Hlebavičius was inventoried. The inventories list about 120 local peasants, identified mostly by two personal names¹. Their distinguishing feature is that, since the region was separated from the Grand Duchy of Lithuania, its personal names almost entirely escaped the influence of the Slavic (Belarusian and Polish) languages, which at that time were used in Lithuania as the region’s official written state languages and as the languages of the ruling classes. The document was written in Belarusian.

I. FEATURES OF PERSONAL NAMES

1. Given names and surnames. As the document shows, in the second half of the 16th century peasants were most often identified by two personal names, e.g.: Якуб Балмуцис, Герман Мурникас, etc. Entries consisting of a personal name and an occupational byname are interesting, e.g.: Герман тъкачъ, Петръ ковал or Кагняс Ушкурыс (Gaunė Užkūrys). A byname could also be written after two personal names, e.g.: Томашъ Юстанис пивовар. The document also contains other kinds of three-part names: Кегыкгос Крыкгалюс Кекъ (there are at least several in the Kekų inventory), Янис Мелвитисъ Кеканес, Мелюнис Чапанас Лидумникос. However, there were also many cases at that time in which a person was identified by a single personal name, e.g.: Балчус, Кегрыюс, Микрялис, Станюс, etc.

At that time, there was not yet a distinction between given names and surnames as there is today, so personal names such as Балчус, Банис, Матюлис and others function in some cases as given names and in others as surnames. The personal names Кепышс, Сэраико, Стамбро, Кляванис, Петюлис, Петрыкасъ, on the other hand, appear in the document only as given names.

¹ Jablonskis K. Istorijos archyvas (XVI a.). – K., 1934, p. 265–274.

207

Only church names served exclusively as given names, such as Янос, Юркгис, Мартинъ, although they too could sometimes serve certain surname functions, e.g. Кляванис Юркгисъ. In their subsequent development, some also acquired suffixes characteristic of surnames, e.g. Дырьхъ Андреюнос, Амбросос Янинос, Банис Яникайтис. Descriptive, nickname-type names are interesting. For example: Алиусть Юркгис (Aluistas Jurgis).

The document records just one female personal name: вдова Юсеева (‘widow Yuseeva’). There are no female given names at all. Other documents from that period show that the more commonly used female names in the area at the time were Анна (1611)², Галена (1595)³, Катерина (1593)⁴. Among noblewomen, a place name could serve as a surname: Катерина изъ Кромошина (1593)⁵.

2. Phonetics. The personal names do not provide sufficient data for determining stress, but retracted stress is also apparent in the spelling of the root Антун- in the personal name Антунюнайтну (most likely: Antanaitis) < Антон-.

The name Муксъ may perhaps indicate the reduction of word endings, but the spelling of endings in other personal names shows that this process had not yet advanced as far as it has today, since in most cases it is still preserved in the personal names in this document, e.g.: Мукос, Сымонисъ, Баличус, etc. Given that stress in the dialect had already become retracted at that time, when reconstructing personal names, the endings -is and -ys are written identically as -is in this study, as they were already pronounced that way at the time (and still are today). Without knowing the nature of the stress (inherited or retracted), it is impossible to determine which personal names had the ending -is and which had -ys. The plural ending -iai (the personal names Клебочау, Круменеу, Застортэ) had not narrowed, as it has in Latvian today. The raising of short unstressed vowels i, u is shown by examples such as Волонгжис (Volūngis), Мелвид (Milvydas), Поркгинисъ (Pūrg inis), Пунану (Pūpiniui), Стамбря (Stūmbras).

The example Мелвид, already mentioned here (Mėlyvdas < Milvydas), shows that pitch accent was sometimes also the opposite of the present-day Lithuanian pitch accent at that time; cf. Lithuanian Milvydas⁶.

Nasal vowels are sometimes preserved in the document’s personal names, e.g.: Внъкус (Ūnkis), and sometimes not (this is especially clear in personal names with the suffix -ininkas), e.g.: Лидунинкос, Попежелънинкос, Жемининкос. The spelling of the surname Внъкус probably shows that the vowel a in a mixed diphthong had been raised in the dialect at that time, if Внъкус = Unkis (dial. Ūnk(i)s < Ankìs, cf. Ankėvičius). The consonants k, g before front vowels have generally remained unchanged: Лаканец (from Lith. lokỹs), Кегленас, Кагрдионас, Поркгинисъ, Смилгис, but there are also instances in which they have developed into c, dz, e.g.: Цыбрания (K 1., cf. Latvian kìras ‘axe’ or Lithuanian kyrùs?).

² Опись документов Виленского Центрального Архива древних актовых книг. — Вильна, 1912, т. 8, с. 446.

³ Ibid., p. 228.

⁴ Ibid., p. 214.

⁵ Ibid.

⁶ Kuzavinis K., Savukynas B. Etymological Dictionary of Lithuanian Names. — In: Names and Words. V., 1971, p. 119.

⁷ Endzelīns J. Latvijas PSR vietvārdi. — Rīgā, 1956, p. 169.

208

The pronunciation of the consonant clusters tj, dj is not very clear. In some cases they have developed into č, dž, e.g.: Пикциос, Блюдчюнас, Гирдчюнас; or cf. the name of a village in the same document: Либеча (genitive case). There are no clear cases in which they would have developed into š, ž, as they have in Latvian today. This is especially clear from the already mentioned place name Либеча, which is now pronounced Libieši in Latvian. However, the spelling of some other personal names in the document suggests that the consonant clusters tj, dj may in some cases still have remained intact, e.g.: Матюлис (Мотепс > Матъс > Матюлис), Петюлис (Пэтер > Пэтрыс > Петюлис), Одгюнаути.

The consonants s, z are pronounced š, ž: Жеминикос (cf. Latvian zemnieks), Жеймис (cf. Latvian ziem-). In the same document, the river name Švitinis in Lithuanian, Svitene in Latvian, is consistently written Швитыны (genitive case). However, in the personal name Застортэн the consonant z has most likely been retained (cf. Lithuanian žąstis).

There are many difficulties in ascertaining the retention of the Proto-Baltic vowels ā, ē. Slavic scribes generally use o for the Lithuanian vowel a and a for o. In this document, however, this practice is highly inconsistent. This is particularly evident in the spelling of the suffix Lithuanian -onis, Latvian -āns, e.g.: Романдис and Ромононис. Other sources are of some help here. For example, the 1594 court books of Upytė County record the river name Шовы (genitive case) near the place Кротошинъ⁸. In this document, the vowel o is consistently written in place of a; cf. Кротошинъ, Lithuanian Kratašinas, a former manor in the Žeimelis area. Thus, the stream mentioned earlier must at that time have been called Šava (< *Šāva), whose etymology is linked to Lithuanian šōva, Latvian sāva ‘a rotten furrow, a cavity’⁹. This shows that Proto-Baltic ā had still been retained at that time.

The situation with Proto-Baltic ē is even less clear. In documents written in Slavic languages, the Lithuanian suffix -ėnai is usually written -яны; cf. Плоняны ‘Plonėnai’, a former manor in the Žeimelis area. In this document, however, the Lithuanian suffix -ėnas, Latvian -ēns, is written with я only once: Калвяна (genitive case). In other instances it is written either with е (Кегрленас) or with ы (Пачынас). Regarding the latter instance, it should be noted that in the personal name Чынас — Чанос ‘Čėpas’, where Lithuanian and Latvian have an open e, the document also uses the letter ы. Conversely, the spelling of the diminutive suffix -ėlis in personal names, Микрялис, Шекитялис, indicates that this suffix, as in Latvian, was pronounced with a narrow ē.

In summary, it can be concluded that Proto-Baltic ē was retained in some cases, at least in the suffix -ėnas.

After the palatal consonant l, the vowel a apparently did not develop into e, as it did in Lithuanian, e.g.: Кляванис (cf. Latvian klava, Lithuanian klevas).

In some personal names, the diphthong au seems to have developed into al, e.g.: Алдрукеи (cf. Lithuanian áudra), Алдрукеи (cf. Lithuanian áusti, Latvian āust). This phenomenon also occurs in the place names of this region, e.g.: Lithuanian Aldruvė, Latvian Audruve, a river in the Joniškis—Eleja area.¹⁰

⁸ Опись документов, с. 163.

⁹ Būga K. Rinktiniai raštai. — V., 1959, t. 2, p. 588.

¹⁰ Būga K. Rinktiniai raštai. — V., 1961, t. 3, p. 257.

209

3. Two-stem, single-stem, and compound personal names. Only a few two-stem personal names, representing the oldest stratum of personal names, are recorded in the document — Мельвуд: mil- + vid-; Нарбутанис: nar- + but-; Нарбунонис: nar- + bun- and perhaps Застортэй (plural, Zostartis): zos- (Lith. žąsti?) + tart-. One two-stem personal name is most likely of German origin: Зыкеғалмос: sig- (Old High German sigu “victory”) + valt- (Old High German waltan “to rule”).

Most of the personal names recorded in the document, however, are single-stem. Their origins are highly varied.

a. Verbal: Бурба (cf. Lith. burbėti), Кгирдюнас (Lith. girdėti, Latv. dzirdēt), Сэдеконис (plural, Lith. sėdėti, Latv. sēdēt), Скробутис (cf. Latv. skrabināt “to gossip”), Скрибикас (cf. Latv. skribināt “to rustle”).

b. Adjectival: Алушто (Lith. aluistas), Балчюс (Lith. báltas, Latv. balts), Илкя- ниц (Lith. ilgas, Latv. ilgs), Юдис (Lith. juodas, Latv. jods “devil”), Коперелис (Lith. kairis or Latv. kairs “one who is led astray”), Кернис (Lith. keršas), Пикчюос (Lith. piktas, Latv. pikts), Жебалис (Lith. žebas¹¹).

c. Nominal. Personal names of this type could be highly varied: 1) ethnonyms: Лотвинос (Lith. lātvīs, Latv. latvis), Жеймоз (Lith. žiem-, Latv. ziem-<*zeim-); 2) animal names: Брэдис (Lith. brėdis, Latv. briedis), Кгацкалас (Lith. gaigalas, Latv. gaigala), Кеглубынос (Lith. gulbinas, Latv. gulbis), Лаканес (Lith. lokỹs, Latv. lācis), Мешкаутис (Lith. meška), Стамбро (Lith. stumbras), Волонгекцис (Lith. volungė); 3) plant names: Кербунос (Lith. grybas), Кляваниц (Lith. klevas, Latv. kļava), Круменец (plural, Lith. krūmas, Latv. krūms), Меиронис (Lith. meirūnas), Пупану (genitive case, Lith. pupà, Latv. pupa), Смилкгеиц (Lith. smilga, Latv. smilga); 4) object names: Алдрукеи (cf. Lith. áudra), Блавгдзюнас (Lith. blauzdà), Цыгаиня (genitive case, Livonian kīras “axe”), Килис (Lith. kylỹs, Latv. ķilis), Кулаканес (Lith. kulókas), Нянис (Finnish nenä “nose”), Шекиэтялис (Lith. šiekštas, Latv. sieksta), Шэреля (genitive case, Lith. šerys); 5) occupational names: Одьюнайти (plural, Lith. ódžius), Алдукеи (cf. Lith. áusti, Latv. aust), Блюдзюс (Lith. bliūdas, bliūdžius), Калвяна (genitive case, Lith. kálvis, Latv. kalvis), Кареля (genitive case, Lith. karỹs), Кекъ (Estonian köök “kitchen”, Finnish kokki “cook”), Лидимникос (Latv. līdumnieks “clearer of land”), Мурникась (Latv. mūrnieks “mason”), Пачы- нас (Lith. pãtis, Latv. pats), Тивунас (Lith. tijūnas), Ушкурис (Lith. užkurys), Жеминикос (Latv. zemnieks “peasant”); 6) locative names: Клонис (Lith. klónis), Ломенис (Lith. lomà, Latv. lāma), Пастолюс (Lith. pastalė).

There are also baptismal personal names: Андреюнос, Антинюнайти (plural), Янелис, Яникос, Яникаутис, Янкунос, Янинос, Янишко, Юргкеис, Юстянис, Матюлис, Мартинайтис, Маэлюнос, Никелис, Никинонос, Петюлис, Пет- рыкась, Романанисъ, Станос, Шьманис (Сымонисъ).

The origins of some of these single-stem personal names are now unclear, for example: Бухонове (plural), Макулис, Сераико, Жекегунись.

Some personal names recorded in this document later became village names (the location of the former personal names in the document and of the present-day villages in the area

¹¹ Būga K. Selected Writings. – V., 1958, vol. 1, p. 197.

210

corresponding or nearby): Ādžiūnai < Одьюнаити (Lat. since 1921), Blauzdžiūnai < Блавбдзюнас, Kairėliai < Корелис, Pāstališkiai < Пастолось (Lat. since 1921). The personal name Жемос in the document indicates that Žeimelis itself also has an anthroponymic origin. Жемос.

Several personal names in the document are compound, with one component being determinative: Балташаец (Lith. báltas, Latv. balts + Lith. šónas, Latv. sāna), Нинеженис (? + Lith. ženėklis ‘bridegroom’), Пипеженис (cf. Latv. pipe ‘spout of a vessel’ + Lith. ženėklis), Понежемоникос (? + Latv. ziemnieks ‘farmer’), Руножомникос (Latv. runa ‘speech’ + Latv. ziemnieks ‘farmer’).

4. Surname formation by endings and suffixes: Among the document’s surname-type personal names, there are few that lack a working format and coincide with a common noun: Брэдис, Кангкаласъ, Килис, Клонисъ Стамбор, Ушкурыс.

The working format is absent mainly only in baptismal names: Юргис, Петрос, Павилос, Ракас, Гансис, Германисъ, Матьс, Петрыс, Сымонисъ, Янус, Баннос, Ганус, etc.

A characteristic feature of local names of that period is their shortening, e.g.: Амбросос (Ambraziejus), Двырхъ (Dvytrichas), Керыкеос (Grigalius), Матьс (Motiejus), Миксъ (Mikalojus), Никелис (Nikolajus), Петръс (Peteris), Станис (Stanislo-vas), Чапос (Steponas), Томас (Tamošius).

a. Formation by endings (the number in parentheses indicates the number of personal names): -a, Latv. -a (1): Бурба; -ė, Latv. -e (1): Кагняс (K case); -is, Latv. -is (12): Балыс, Юдис, Керышь, Нянис, Пиктис, Смилгис, Волонгкелис; -(i)us, Latv. -us (8): Балюс, Керыбюс, Пикюс.

b. Suffixal formation. This is the largest group of personal names in the document. The following suffixes are used to form personal names: -ainis, Latv. -ain- (1): Цыраиня (K case); -aitis (6): Одьюнаити (plural), Антинюнаити (plural), Яникайтис, Мешкайтисъ, Скибилаити (plural); -aitis (or -otis) (1): Клебочаи (plural); -eika (1): Сэранко; -elis, Latv. -elis (9): Янелис, Корелис, Кареля (K case), Микрэлис, Никелис, Шэреля (K case), Шекиштис; -enis, Latv. -enis (3): Илкянис, Ломенис; -ėnas, Latv. -ēns (4): Кегрленас, Каляна (K case), Пачынас, Скуденъ; -ikas, -ikus (5): Блюниккасъ, Яникос, Петръкасъ, Скрыпикас, Яникус; -inas, Latv. -ins (2): Лотви-нос; -inis, Latv. -en-¹² (3): Крумленец (plural), Поркегинисъ; -ytis, Latv. -ītis (1): Мелештис; -nykas, Latv. -nieks (5): Лидимникос, Мурникасъ, Попежемъникос, Руножомникос, Жеминикос; -onis, Latv. -āns (23): Чукуиланис, Дзьюрканис, Юстнанис, Кляванис, Кулаканес, Лаканес, Мартинанисъ, Нарбутанис, Романанисъ, Шыманис, Довешконисъ, Кашкалонис, Юхнонис, Мешро-нисъ, Нарбунонисъ, Пежьононис, Сэдейкони (plural); -šta (1): Микшта; -ulis, Latv. -ulis (4): Матюлис, Макулис, Петюлисъ; -ūnas (15): Андреюнас, Блав-

¹² In Latvian place names, this suffix is -ene, e.g.: Svitene, Lith. Švitinis, the river in the Žeimelis–Pašvitinys area.

211

Džionas, Bluodžionas, Keirčionas, Яникūнос, Янūнос, Мацялюнос, Милюнос, Никнюнос, Полтошūнос, Векūнос; -unis, Latvian -uns (1): Жекаūnis; -utis, Latvian -ut- (2): Мелютис, Скробутис; -ušis (2): Балтуѕ̌ь; -uška (1): Янишко.

CONCLUSIONS

1. The phonetics of the 16th-century personal names of the environs of Žeimelis (the retention of tj, dj in some cases; the shift of tj, dj to č, dž; the pronunciation of consonants s, z as š, ž) shows that people in the environs of Žeimelis spoke Lithuanian at that time. Most of the old inhabitants of the area (perhaps the Semigallians) were either destroyed or withdrew from these environs during the German aggression in the 13th century and the subsequent sword-bearer–Lithuanian conflicts. The area was later colonized by Lithuanians.

2. The absence of purely Latvian features in personal names shows that some phonetic dialect features (retraction of stress, reduction of word endings, a stress pitch opposite to that of Lithuanian, Proto-Baltic vowels ā, ē, and retention of vowel a after the palatalized consonant l) are relics not of Latvian, but of the Semigallian substratum.

3. The spread of short vowels i, u in unstressed positions in the dialect is an old phenomenon.

4. Reduction of word endings, which had already begun in the Semigallian language in the 13th century¹³, was apparently considerably held back for a time by the later influx of Lithuanian, and began to progress more markedly again only from the end of the 16th century, after the dialect had finally retracted stress to the beginning of the word.

5. Some Semigallians nevertheless survived the German aggression and the wars in the area. This is confirmed by the survival of a Livonian substratum older than the Semigallians (Кеко̄, Нянис, Цыпа-ня (genitive case)). This surviving portion of Semigallian personal names does not show that Semigallian was a dialect of Latvian. On the contrary, in some cases it must have been even closer to Lithuanian. This is particularly clear from the suffixes of personal names in this document: they contain no suffixes that would not occur in Lithuanian or that would be rare in Lithuanian. In its phonetics (ā, ē, a after l, s, z) and vocabulary, by contrast, it was probably closer to Latvian.

6. The popularity in the dialect of the nominative singular endings -is and -us in masculine nouns should be considered a characteristic consequence of the Semigallian linguistic substratum. The use in the area of names with these endings does not indicate the contemporary ethnic affiliation or ethnic origin of their bearers, since the names Янuc and Янoc are recorded in the document for brothers in the same family (see section II, 1).

7. German personal names most likely came to the area with the spread of Lutheranism (the Lutheran–Evangelical church in Žeimelis was built in 1540¹⁴), since only a few other personal names of German origin are recorded in the document (Звиквал­мос, Мерыц).

8. The influence of Slavic languages on the personal names of the environs of Žeimelis was even smaller at that time.

¹³Šliavas J. The substratum in the personal-name inventory and dialect of the environs of Žeimelis. — In: Kraštotyra. V, 1970, p. 267.

¹⁴ Kallmeyer T. Die evangelischen Kirchen und Prediger Kurlands. — Riga, 1910, S. 202.

212

II. LIST OF PERSONAL NAMES

In the list presented here, personal names are arranged alphabetically by the second name, which functions as a surname. Family members living together (brothers, as noted in one instance) are listed together.

1. Янис, Балчюс, Петюлисъ, Якубос, Янос Одьюнайти

2. Матеи Алдрукеи

3. Янос Алдукеи

4. Дырыхъ Андреюнос

5. Мата, Петуляс Антунонайти

6. Юханись Балчыс

7. Балчус

8. Юстас, Томаш Балташанес

9. Ганус Балтушыс

10. Якуб Балтущыс

11. Баня (K case)

12. Юркгис Банисъ

13. Ян Блавдзюнас

14. Ота Блавдзюнас

15. Миксь Блюдюнас

16. Щепан Блюникась

17. Юркги Брэдис

18. Матюлис, Янос, Мартинос, Яникос, Чыпас, Бухонове

19. Петръ Бурба

20. Яна Цырная (K case)

21. Петюл, Томаш, Юркгисъ, Андреос, Каспор Чукуиланис, братья

22. Янелис Довешконисъ

23. Енисъ Дзьюркганис

24. Кершис Кгаикгалонис

25. Кавнас Ушкурыс

26. Мартинъ Кределнас

27. Чапас Киргдюнас

28. Крыбюс

29. Томас Кгулбыносъ

30. Герман тъкачъ

31. Martynas Ilgūnas

32. Jonas, Jurgis Jankūnas

33. Ambrozijus Janušas

34. Janikas

35. Banys Janikaitis

36. Simonas, Petras, Jurgis Janikaičiai

37. Makulis Juchnonis

38. Tomas Judis

39. Aluštys Jurgis

40. Klevanis Jurgis

41. widow Juseva

42. Tomas Justanis, brewer

43. Ambrozijus Korelis

44. Piktys Korelis

45. Januško, Janik, Korelis

46. Dyrycha Kalvėna (K-case)

47. Никелис Каретkis

48. Якубъ Кекъ

49. Крыкюс Крыгаллос Кекъ

50. Андреос Кекис

51. Янис Мелвитись Кек(а)нес

52. Янос Килис

53. Янас, Ганис Клебочаи

54. Матюлис Клонись

55. Гануса Кареля (K linksnis)

56. Павел, Сэранко Круменеи

57. Юндилас Кулаканес

58. Матеос Лотвинос

59. Мелютис Чапанас Лидимникос

60. Янас, Крыкгась Лаканес

61. Кгаикгалась Ломенись

62. Лукаш Ломенис

63. Пупану Матъяло (N linksnis)

64. Пятэр Мартинянас

65. Юхно Мацялюнос

66. Юсть Мейронись

67. Блюдзюс Мерць

68. Юркгис, Банис Мешкакайтись

69. Микрялис

70. Андреос Милюнос

71. Микос Милюнос

72. Юркгис Мелвитис

73. Герман Мурникась

74. Стасис, Матеюс, Чапос, Мелвид Нарбунонисъ

75. Банис Нарбутанис

76. Петрыкас Неманис

77. Пятер Эннис

78. Юркгис Никнюнас

79. Lavryn Niknonos

80. Petr Nineežanis

81. Janas Pačynas

82. Jakub Poltošunonas

83. Ganes, son of Mic, Popežemianikosas

84. Justas Pastolos

85. Petr Koval

86. Jurgis Pežynonis

87. Pavel Pikčius

88. Janus Piktis

89. Tenis Pipėženis

213

90. Stanis Porkginis

91. Jurgis Romanonis

92. Matiulis Romananes

93. Martynas Romananis

94. Matis Romananis

95. Petras Romananis

96. Germanis Runozhomnikos

97. Petras, Rakas Sedeikionis

98. Stanislovas, Matiul Skibilaitis

99. Petris Skroutis

100. Jakubas Skribikas

101. Jurgis Skūdenis

102. Justas Skūdinis

103. Stanis, Jurgis Smilgis

104. Stanas

105. Mateos Spusis

106. Яна Шпереля (К linksnis)

107. Янас Шекштэлис

108. (...) Шыманис

109. Юркгис Тивунюс

110. Янос Вънкис

111. Кгавняс Ушкурис

112. Янос Векунюс

113. Якубос Волонъгкис

114. (...) Зыгквалтос

115. Андреюс, Петрыкасъ Засторгэн

116. Микшта Жыбалис

117. Станис Жебалис

118. Павилос Жекгунисъ

119. Пэтэр Жеймо́с

120. Кгрыкосъ, Янис, Стамьро Жеминникос

ANTHROPONYMY OF THE SURROUNDINGS OF ŽEIMELIS IN THE 16TH CENTURY

Summary

The anthroponyms in the 1585 Žeimelis inventory are analyzed in detail. They are examined from phonetic, word-formation, and lexical perspectives. Based on the phonetic analysis of the anthroponyms, several conclusions are drawn about the Žeimelis dialect of the 16th century. An attempt is made to identify relics of the Semigallian substratum in the anthroponymy of this region of Lithuania.