Toponymy has traditionally been understood as a part of linguistics, but historians and archaeologists have been interested in it, as well.
Linguistic studies tend to focus particularly on lexical, phonetic, and morphological characteristics and structures of toponyms.
Historians concentrate on distributions of different toponymic material compared with related historical documents and archaeological material.
Archaeologists try to synchronize archaeological data with the results of Toponymy. It is often archeologists who have found ancient inscriptions containing toponyms.
Because of the disciplines’ differences in research foci and methods, their possibilities for obtaining results also vary.
Toponymy is valid in determining the linguistic background of toponyms, but its weakness is often in dating the material.
Archaeologists, on the other hand, have proper instruments for classifying and dating material cultures, but not much possibility to independently say anything about linguistic or ethnic groups.
One should also remember that ancient literary documents are often not fully reliable from a historical perspective. Historians need the aid of other disciplines in order to evaluate their sources.
In any event, if archaeological evidence and the results of Toponymy agree with each other, the archaeological evidence might be considered a relevant proof, especially for dating purposes. In such cases, results of these two disciplines support each other.
Leave a Reply