Антропонимы бурят в исторической динамике

Introduction. The issue of preserving Russia’s national languages — including Buryat — is urgent enough, and personal name proves an important part of language and culture. Despite the undertaken measures, surveys reveal a decline in the use of the Buryat language. However, the increasing prevalence of ethnic anthroponyms causes no concern. Goals. The paper studies the historical dynamics of Buryat anthroponyms to identify specific features of ethnic processes in the contexts of modernization and globalization. Materials. The article deals with archival, field, manuscript, and literary sources. The anthroponyms analyzed comprise diachronous layers characterizing the specific dynamics of ethnohistorical processes, and are examined in diachronic (19th – 21st centuries) and synchronic (Cisbaikalia and Transbaikalia) perspectives. Results. Linguistic aspects of Buryat anthroponymy have been studied since the 1970s, and two articles have been published by ethnographers. Our analysis shows that due to constant transformation and modernization of the community anthroponyms of the Buryats are essentially historical, with a persistent layer of original Buryat names. Names of 19th-century Cisbaikalia-based Buryats are vividly ethnic which is evident from present-day family names of descendants. Russian names used to be rare enough, and even the few ones were significantly modified to Buryat spelling norms. Names of Transbaikalia-based Buryats experienced a dramatic inflow of Tibetan Buddhist anthroponyms soon recognized as Buryat Buddhist ones. The tradition to take surnames by personal names of fathers resulted in that Buddhist-stemmed family names have become common in the area in the 20th – 21st centuries. These processes have led to that personal name and surname acquire an ethno-discriminating function among the people. The mid-20th century (Soviet era) onwards witnessed a spread of Russian names, and the latter still constitute quite a share in the late 20th – early 21st centuries but prestige of Buryat names does increase, the list being replenished with modern sonorous anthroponyms. The cross-border location of Buryats determines certain specific features in the shaping of anthroponymic clusters: those comprise elements of Mongolian (nomadic), Russian (Orthodox Christian), and Indo-Tibetan (Buddhist) cultures — with a sufficient central core of Buryat traditional (shamanistic) elements. The paper reveals the historical dynamics describing the Buryats both as part of the universal Mongolic world, and — in social developmental perspectives — as part of Russian and Soviet structures (Russian Empire, USSR, and Russian Federation). Conclusions. The study of Buryat name-giving trends shows (chronologically and territorially) anthroponyms mirror key global and local facts of ethnic history, transformed value paradigms. The Buryats retain a layer of original ancient Buryat names, the rest (Russian, Buryat Buddhist, modern Buryat, revived archaic Buryat ones) having been formed as results of the dynamic historical process.