Along the Vahe river – «Shenkurtsy» (the lower course of the Vagi river), «Kuloitsy» (along the Kuloi river), «Kokshary» along the Kokshenga river (a tributary of the Vagi). Among the kokshars, the «Illezanу» stood out along the Ileza River.

In the North, ethnonyms in "-an» or "-yane» constitute a single, well-defined array. This massif has no direct connection with the common Slavic (Zhashinetsko- Komarovsky) massif. However, it repeats the path of development of the all-Slavic massif. Based on this, it can be assumed that its emergence belongs to the early period of the Zashchinets-Komarovo culture (16th century BC) with which it was a single whole. Later, after 10—7 centuries BC their connection was lost.

S. V. Sokolovskiy, speaking about topo- and hydronymy as indicators of ethnic areas, notes the need to use the category of toponyms-migrants, «marking the processes of ethnic settlement». As essential features of mass colonization toponyms, S.V. Sokolovsky calls the lack of connection of their etymologies with the names and nicknames of persons, as well as the areality of the topoformants that make up their composition. He notes that: «the last feature is the most significant, since it indicates the transfer of not an isolated name, but a toponymic system.» (Sokolovsky S.V. The role of onomastics data in historical and anthropological research. SE. 1985. No. 5.).

As V. Georgiev noted: «Geographical names are the most important source for determining the ethnogenesis of a given area. In terms of sustainability, these names are not the same: the most stable are the names of rivers, especially the more significant. Small rivers 20—50 km long are unstable. Rivers over 100 km long retain their ancient names. (Georgiev V. Studies in comparative historical linguistics. M. Izd. Foreign literature. 1958)

Let’s try to find a topoformant-indicator of ethnic areas, marking the process of ethnic settlement. V. N. Toporov and O. N. Trubachev point to the extreme conservatism of hydronymic suffixes. On the territory of the settlement of the Slavs, the most ancient names are those in which the suffixes "-n-», "-itsa» are present.

V. A. Nikonov writes: «From the formants that directly formed the nouns (and not adjectives), the ancient “-ets» and “-itsa»… But in toponymy they still differ in many respects… In the old Slavic territories, "-ets» (and "-shevets») forms more than 1/3 of all names of settlements (for example, in the region of Cakovec in northwestern Croatia). In the "-ats» form he is very strong in most of Serbia and Croatia… In Russia, the names with the suffix "-ets» are denser, the more ancient the Slavic settlement is. So, in Ivano-Frankivsk, Chernivtsi and Ternopil regions of Galicia, they now account for more than 3% of the names of settlements, in Vinnitsa and Khmelnytsky 1.5%, in Dnepropetrovsk, Kirovograd, Odessa, Nikolaev – a small fraction of a percent, in Kherson they are not at all. Among hydronyms, the trend is the same. In the Prut and Seret basins, names with the suffix "-ets» own 12% of the names of rivers, in the Upper Donets basin – 5%, in the Seversky Donets basin – 2.5%, in the Azov region less than 1%. In general, the distribution of the formant – “-itsa» is similar. Almost 25% of all hydronyms in Slovenia are formed with this suffix. In the basins of the Prut, Seret and the upper reaches of the Dniester, they account for more than 10% of hydronyms, in the Desna basin 4%, Seversky Donets – less than 2%, south of Khortytsya there are none at all. Among the names of settlements in southwestern Bulgaria (Blagoevgrad region) there are 15%, in Chernivtsi region more than 4%, in Poltava 0.6%. They were ametal in the Russian north-west, especially in Pskov and adjacent lands. (В. А. Никонов. Введение в топонимику. М. Наука. 1965).

On the territory of the Smolensk region, the word-formation suffix "-itsa» has more than two dozen river hydronyms, including Belitsa, Velitsa, Dolzhitsa, Ilzhitsa, Petritsa, Uzhitsa, Chernitsa, Shuytsa, etc.

V. N. Toporov and O. N. Trubachev point out: «The suffix "-itsa» is a characteristic all -Slavic hydronymic format and is widely represented in all old Slavic territories. On the one hand, such ancient formations as Vislitsa…, on the other hand, such obviously late formations as Michalkitsa… The widespread use of the suffix "-itsa» for a long time, as well as other formants with the old "-k-" in hydronymy, is especially noteworthy, since for the old European hydronymy, excluding the Celtic territory, the use of the suffix "-k-" was not characteristic…

Speaking about the features of the geographical distribution of hydronyms on "-itsa» in the Upper Dnieper region, it should be specially noted that, in contrast to most of the cases considered so far, there is a clear predominance in relative terms of hydronyms of this type in the Berezina basin (slightly less than 1/6 …), in the Prytpyat basin (although in its upper reaches on the left side there are few names for "—itsa», but on its tributary Ptichi, just like on the Berezen, 1/6 of all names contain the suffix "—itsa»). In the area lying to the east of the main pivot of the Dnieper, the uppermost part of the Dnieper to Smolensk stands out with a large number of names for "-itsa», adjacent to the left tributaries of the Western Dvina, as well as the upper reaches of the Desna and Iput. Of course, there are a lot of names in "-itsa» on Sozh, however, here they do not constitute a noticeable component of hydronymy in comparison with other formations.

When considering the distribution of hydronyms to "—itsa» outside the Dnieper basin, two points should be emphasized: firstly, a large number of hydronyms in the upper part of the Western Dvina (… at least 30 …); secondly, these names are quite numerous along the Dniester and the Southern Bug, where there are about fifty of them.». (В. Н. Топоров, О. Н. Трубачев. Лингвистический анализ гидронимов Верхнего Поднепровья. Изд. АНССР. М.1962).

There is no word-formation suffix "-itsa» in Siberia.

You can compare the spread of hydronyms to "-itsa» and archaeological cultures. Until recently, this was almost impossible to do. There was no material for comparison on a sufficiently large territory, well studied archaeologically and with a representative sample of topo- and hydronyms. After the Glossary of Guides of Ukraine was published in 1979, including 44 thousand variants of the names of rivers and lakes, it became possible to make such a comparison. By mapping hydronyms with the suffix "-itsa» we compared the resulting area with a map of archaeological cultures for coincidence. And such a match was found. The area of hydronyms with the suffix "-itsa» coincided with the area of the Trzhynec-Komarov culture, moreover, the hydronymic map shows a break in a single massif along the borders of the Komarov and Trzhinets cultures. (Словник гідронімів Украіни. Киев. Наукова Думка. 1979).

Then, if B. A. Rybakov’s conclusion about the identity of the areas of ethnonyms in "-ane» or "-yane» and the Tshinetsko-Komarov culture, as well as our conclusion about the identity of the areas of hydronyms to "-itsa» and Trinecko-Komarov culture are true, then the areas of ethnonyms in -an or -yane and hydronyms in "-itsa» must coincide. And they match. The overlap of areas should also be observed in the Russian North.

We have analyzed about 32 thousand variants of hydronyms of the Russian North and adjacent territories for the presence of hydronyms for "-itsa». There are about 1300 such hydronyms. It should be noted that almost all hydronyms have a Slavic root base. As well as in the Vistula basin, there are hydronyms associated with names among them. This indicates either the continued participation in word formation of the suffix "-itsa», at least until the 18th century. Or about the rethinking of incomprehensible words by the local population. At least the variants of writing hydronyms in the scribal acts of the 15th century and in the 20th century testify in favor of this version.

Regarding the spread of hydronyms to "-itsa», one must take into account the fact that rivers crossed the boundaries of administrative entities and therefore, the real independent number of hydronyms in areas with a small number of identified ones is much less. In the Vyatka province, borders were drawn along watersheds, and if there are 70 hydronyms in the Oryol district with "-itsa», and in Slobodskoy district 53, then in Yaransky and Nolinsky there are 2 each, but in the Urzhum district they are not.

In addition, the hydronym Talitsa, formed from the term denoting a temporary watercourse that existed during the spring flood, but became permanent over time, is found almost everywhere (at least in a single amount).

The largest percentage of hydronyms for "-itsa» is observed in the following northern counties: Kadnikov 12%, Totema 12%, Nikolsk 11%, Velikoustyug 9%, Velsk 9%, Arkhangelsk 8%, Vologda 7%, Onezhsk 7%, Pritimanye 6%, Kargopol 5%. In the adjacent territories: Orlov 14%, Vyatka 9%, Slobodskoy 7%, Chukhloma 7%, Kirillov 6%, Kologriv 6%, Kotelnich 6%, Soligalich 6%, Kineshema 5%.

Thus, Posukhonye and middle Vyatka are comparable to the Prut and Seret basins, the rest of the territories are with Central Ukraine.

The Desna basin (4—5%) is comparable to the northern districts and territories: Gryazovets, Petrozavodsk, which were part of the Dvina district – Pechenga and Tersky coast. In the adjacent territories: Belozersk, Bui, Galich, Kostroma.

The following northern districts are comparable with the Seversky Donets basin (2—4%, focal Old Slavic colonization): Vytegra, Mezen, Povenets, Solvychegodsk, Kholmogory, and Shenkursk. In the adjacent territories: Varnavin, Vetluga, Lyubim, Makariev, Poshekhonie, Ustyuzhna, Cherepovets.

There are practically no hydronyms for "-itsa» (up to 2% or less than 3 hydronyms) in the following northern districts and territories: Danilov, Kem, Kola (Imandra, Kola and Murmansk coast, Ponoy), Lodeynopolye, Mezen (Verkhnyaya Mezen), Olonets, Pechora, Pinega, Pudozh, Ust-Sysolsk, Yarensk. In the adjacent territories: Berezov, Verkhotursk, Glazov, Mologa, Nolinsk, Solikamsk, Turinsk, Urzhum, Cherdin, Yaransk.

Let us now consider the ratio of hydronyms to "-itsa» and ethnonyms to "– yane».

Arkhangelsk district (8%) – Dvinyane. Here you can also include the Tersky coast and Kholmogorsky district.

In the Kholmogorsk district, hydronyms are adjacent to Emtse (Emchane).

Veliky Ustyug district (9%) – Ustyuzhane.

Nikolsky district (11%) – Yuzhane. Vilezhane and Vychegzhane, most likely local groups of Ustyuzhan or Yuzhan, living in the area of Solvychegodsk and Lalsk.

Orlovsky (14%), Vyatsky, Kotelnichsky districts – Vyatchane.

Slobodskoy uyezd (7%) – Seriane and Gangane. It should be noted that in the northern part of the Komi-Permyak district, near Gain, most of the hydronyms with the suffix "-itsa» of the Cherdyn district are concentrated, their percentage reaches more than 5%.

Kologrivsky (7%), Galichsky, Chukhlomsky, Soligalichsky districts (in the 16th century were one region) – Galiciane.

Onega (7%), Kargopolsky, Kirillovsky districts (in the 16th century they constituted the Onega region) – Onezhane.

Kadnikovsky (12%), Vologda, Gryazovets districts (in the 16th century were one region) – Vologzhane.

Velsky uyezd (9%) – Vazhane (group – Ust’yane).

The local maximum of hydronyms for "-itsa» in the Olonets province has a correspondence in Zaonezhany – Russians of Zaonezhie (centered in Kizhi).

The situation with Pritman’e is not entirely clear; no Russian ethnonym has been recorded for this area, and according to cartographic material (V. Kord.

Materials on the history of Russian cartography. Kiev. 1899) it can be located both in Ugra and Pecher. Perhaps the ethnographic group of dvinian lived here. The ethnonym of the population of Totemsky district is also unclear. The inhabitants of Totma themselves are totmichi, but on all sides the district bordered on vologzhans, galitshans, vazhans, yuzhans and ustyuzhans.

As for areas comparable to the Seversky Donets basin, then the example of the Shenkursk district is typical. Occupying the lower reaches of the Vagi River, it, unlike the upper reaches of this river, has a minimum percentage of hydronyms with the suffix "-itsa», and the population is represented by the ethnonym – Shenkurts, in contrast to Vazhan in the Velsk district in the upper Vaga.

Of interest is the ethnonym Penezhan or Pinegzhan. In Pinezhsk (formerly Kevrola) uyezd, hydronyms for "-itsa» are less than 1%. Therefore, it can be assumed that the ethnonym Penezhane belonged to the population group of the upper Pinega in the Solvychegodsky district, which was part of the Ustyuzhan people.

In places of settlement of lopa, Korela, Vogulichi, samoyadi, Pertases, Vishera, and in Perm Velikaya (Chusovaya), there are practically no hydronyms for "-itsa».

In general, there is a coincidence of the areas of distribution of ethnonyms in "-an» or "-yana» and the areas of hydronyms with the suffix "-itsa». Based on the fact of their appearance and development during the Tszyniecko-Komarov culture (15—8 centuries BC) the presence of the Proto-Slavic (Old North Russian) population in the North of Russia in the same period can be considered established.

Given the presence in the Russian North of hydronyms with more ancient formants (for example, "-na») you can also assume that its Proto-Slavic population did not appear as a result of external colonization in that era, but was the local autochthonous population.

Hydronyms for "-itsa»