The Impact of the Transylvanian Saxons on Current Place Names in the Romanian Carpathians

The global policy strategy of the European Union places, at its core, the field of culture as a means for promoting the diversity of the European way of life. The preservation of cultural identity, traditions and the specifics of each ethnic community – of how they influenced and organised the spaces in which they lived and still do, and of the impact they have on the ethnic majority – are elements of major importance in defining the policy priorities of the European Commission. The promotion of a Union of equal opportunities requires acknowledging and respecting diversity and identity – even when ethnic communities have diminished considerably or have almost completely assimilated. This also applies to the Transylvanian Saxons, an ethnic community of German origin, who lived for centuries in the Carpathian and Pericarpathian areas on the southeastern borders of the former Austro-Hungarian Empire.

Based on this starting point, our study aims to highlight the place-name heritage of this ethnic community in the Carpathian and Intracarpathian regions of Romania, given that Saxon names have all but disappeared locally. The research focuses on the locality names (oiconyms) in Southern and Northern Transylvania (Figure 1), which were founded, inhabited and developed by this ethnic community. The purpose is to highlight this place-name heritage that is on the verge of extinction; the authors regard it as important to know, preserve and pass on to future generations, particularly since this ethnic community has considerably decreased in prevalence and importance in the ethnic structure of the respective regions.

Figure 1.

Study area

Source: Sǎgeatǎ et al. 2017

From a theoretical point of view, we wish to depart from the paradigm substantiated by Romanian sociologist Chelcea (2001) of “ethnic flows and ebbs”, which is of particular importance for understanding the identity particularities of a territory, as these particularities are the basis of European regional identity. In this context, we believe that intercultural exchanges facilitated the process of assimilation of migrants (when the autochthonous ethnic population prevailed) or of the autochthonous population itself (when the incoming population turned out to be more numerous; however, more often than not, this occurred through its social-political organization (Săgeată 2019). In cases in which there were policies promoting the separate development of different ethnic communities, including their social segregation, with the limitation and even elimination of all contact between communities, ethnic enclaves came to be, some enduring to this very day, and becoming the root cause of tensions and conflicts (such as the events in the Yugoslav space or in the Caucasus) (Fall 2010).

The abrogation of the policies that contributed to the formation of ethnic enclaves, together with other circumstances – whether geopolitical (wars, deportations, ethnic persecution) or economic (the economic gaps between the territories of origin and those of residence) – have led to the complete resorption of some ethnic communities through return migrations to the countries of origin. This is the case of the Transylvanian Saxons; they massively migrated to Germany against the background of the geopolitical circumstances that marked the 20th century (especially after the First and Second World Wars) but also for economic reasons (the economic and social gaps between Romania and (West) Germany deepened considerably after the 1950s). The Saxon minority, which has coexisted for centuries on good and cooperating terms with the majority Romanian population in a multi-ethnic and multicultural Transylvania, left solid marks on the organization and arrangement of the geographical space, on architecture and, not least, on place names.

Our research on the Saxon place-name heritage is based on extensive field research, which was carried out between 2010 and 2022 in villages founded by Saxon settlers in Southern and Northern Transylvania, and on data and information gathered from bibliographic and cartographic sources. The analysis consisted of creating an inventory of Saxon place names, especially Saxon oiconyms, and comparing them to their German and Romanian equivalents, as well as highlighting their origin in relation to the local, topographical, economic and social characteristics, against the background of the demographic evolution and ethnic structure of said villages. At the same time, the evolution of Saxon toponymic heritage was taken into account by comparing the status quo at the beginning of the 20th century with the current situation, as reflected in the official place names of the respective localities.

The presence and evolution of the Saxon community in Transylvania is well documented in the rich scientific literature; many scientific and cultural elites have come from this ethnic community. Works on the Saxon community have also been written by representatives of the majority Romanian population, which attests to a decent coexistence and the sharing of knowledge between the two ethnic groups (Nägler 1997), and by Anglo-American authors, who have contributed to the formation of an external, impartial image of the Romanian-Saxon cohabitation.

Relevant works on the evolution of the Saxon colonization in Transylvania up until the end of the 19th century are those of Zimmermann & Werner (1892), Seton-Watson (1925), Kötzschke & Ebert (1936), Müller (1941) and Nägler (1981, 1997). The historical studies on Transylvanian Saxons are rounded out by Göckenjan (1972), Gündisch (1998, 2001), Roth (2003), Cioroianu (2004), Kroner (2009) (whose study focuses on the Saxon communities in Northern Transylvania), Wagner (2000), Gruia (2012), Mărculeț & Mărculeț (2009), Săgeată, Buza & Crăcea (2017) and Klusch (2001).

The developments that took place after the First World War and the ethnic and toponymic situation in the interwar period are highlighted in the first encyclopaedia of Unified Romania (ed. Asociația Științifică pentru Enciclopedia României 1938). They are joined by large-scale works on the Saxon community in Transylvania, particularly useful for the analysis we propose in this paper, such as the Transylvanian Saxon Dictionary [Siebenbürgisch-Sächsisches Wörterbuch] (ed. Haldenwang, Maurer & Thudt 1998), the Historical Dictionary of Transylvanian Localities (Suciu 1969), and the atlas of the fortified churches of Transylvanian Saxons (Fabini 2008), which also contains valuable information on Saxon place names. Works devoted exclusively to German place names in Romania were written by Loth (1971), Wagner (1977) and Buza (1999), while Akeroyd (2006) approaches Saxon place names by means of the spatial planning systems of Saxon villages in Transylvania.

The dramatic consequences of the Second World War on the German communities in Romania and, in particular, on the Saxon community, were amply highlighted in works written mainly post-1990 by Șandru (1995), Poledna (2001), Böhm (2003), Rus (2007), Kloos-Ilea (2014) and Țimonea (2016, 2023). Additionally, there are two synthesis papers (Schreiber 1993; Gheorghiu 2015) on German emigration from Romania between 1945 and 1967 – an illustrative phenomenon for the dynamics of the Saxon community in Transylvania in the geopolitical and geoeconomic circumstances specific to post-war Europe. Among the recent works dedicated to the German language and culture in Romania during the interwar period, the large collective study coordinated by Corbea-Hoisie & Gräf (2023) is particularly noteworthy.

The significant wave (almost an exodus) of German emigration from Romania during the late Communist period, as well as immediately after the fall of Communism with its social consequences, has also been analysed in recent works (Cioroianu 2004; Mărculeț & Mărculeț 2009; Gruia 2012; Săgeată et al. 2017; Oltean et al. 1018; Cercel 2019).

In addition to researching the specialized literature, the analyses in this study are based on toponymic, demographic and statistical information extracted from censuses and maps. The population censuses of Transylvania were used to this end, both under Austro-Hungarian (1850, 1857, 1880, 1890, 1900 and 1910) and Romanian rule (1930, 1941, 1948, 1956, 1966, 1977, 1992, 2002, 2011 and 2021), as well as from older (1895, 1948) or more recent (2002, 2010) agricultural censuses, which also provide information on the toponymic background. The following cartographic sources were also used: the topographical maps of Southern Transylvania from 1769–1773 (at a scale of 1 : 28,800) and 1889–1890 (at a scale of 1:75 000) (Institute of Socio-Human Research 1889–90; Molnár, Timár & Biszak 2014), the Austrian maps of the Habsburg Empire from 1853–1858 and 1869–1870 (Timár et al. 2006), the topographic maps of the Sibiu area (1952, at a scale of 1:75 000) and of Romania (1973, at a scale of 1:50 000; and 1996, at a scale of 1:100 000), the pictorial map of the fortified churches of Southern Transylvania (2008, at a scale of 1:200 000) and the updated topographical map of the Sibiu (Hermannstadt) and Mediaș areas (2010, at a scale of 1:50,000). The results obtained, following the mapping activities, superimposed on the social phenomenon of a certain historical period, contribute to the toponymic stratification (Crețan 2000).

In addition, historical and documentary data and information were extracted from archive documents – part of the collection prepared by Baier (2005) – and information on the current official German place names in Romania were extracted from the Decision of the Government of Romania no. 1,206 (2001), which includes the rules for applying the provisions for the right of citizens belonging to a national minority to use their mother tongue in local public administration.

The first settlements in Transylvania of populations hailing from the territories located in the basins of the Rhine and Moselle rivers were initiated by the Hungarian king Géza II (1141–1162) with the aim of defending the borders of Southern Transylvania.

It was only in 1206 that the name “Saxon” (Saxones) was documented, when King Andrew II of Hungary (1205–1235) granted special privileges and legal status to the Saxons from the villages of Cricău (Krakau), Ighiu (Krapundorf) and Romos (Rumes) (Țimonea 2023). While at the beginning of the settlement process this name was given to poor miners and convicts originating from Saxony (Gundisch 2001), over time, it became the lingo of the royal chancellery, so much so that the Germans in Transylvania were uniformly called “Saxons” (Vogel 2002).

In addition to Hungarian royalty, the Order of the Teutonic Knights played an important role in the process of the German settlement of Southern Transylvania in the 13th century. They settled in the Burzenland (Braşov Depression) in 1211 after the defeat of the Christian powers that took part in the Crusades with the aim of helping King Andrew II defend the Eastern borders of the Kingdom of Hungary from Cuman incursions and of strengthening the position of the Catholic Church (Nicolle 2007) in an area where the population was mostly Orthodox.

The Saxons occupied three areas:

• -

  the first and most extensive is in Southern Transylvania, in the region of Sibiu (Altland or “The Old Country”), an area colonized until the middle of the 12th century, almost simultaneously with the Sebeş-Orăştie area (Unterwald); it was later extended to the north on the interfluves between the two Târnave rivers (Weinland), between Hârtibaciu and Târnava Mare (Waldland), as well as in the Secaşelor Land (Zekeschgebiet), an area colonized by the settlers who came by way of the Mureș Valley, which later made up the Royal Lands, under the direct jurisdiction of the king (Figure 5A);

• -

  the second, in Burzenland (Braşov Depression), settled by means of the Teutonic Knights (Figure 5A);

• -

  the third, at the northern border of Transylvania, in the region of Bistriţa (Nösnerland) and around Reghin (Reener Ländchen), an area also colonized in several successive waves during the 12th and 13th centuries by the settlers who came to the Someș Valley (Figure 5B).

Figure 5.

Saxon population colonized in Transylvania. A. = Saxon in Southern Transylvania; B. = Saxon in Northen Transylvania

Source: Nägler (1981)

The Saxons were granted autonomy by King Andrew II of Hungary (ca. 1175–1235), so that the population kept their language and customs and were organized in 10 seats: Sibiu, Sebeş, Sighişoara, Cinc, Miercurea, Rupea, Nocrich, Orăştie, Mediaş and Şeica, as documented in the Diploma Andreanum (1224).

With the invasion of the Tatars in Transylvania in 1241, which led to the utter destruction of many villages, the first stage of the Saxon colonization was over (Nägler 1981, p. 198). As a result of the damage caused, King Béla IV (1235–1270) took economic, administrative and political measures with the aim of rebuilding the devastated territories. In these conditions, new groups of German settlers were called to Transylvania, especially miners from Central Europe, who enjoyed new royal privileges. Thus, in 1291, King Andrew III (1290–1301) granted privileges to the colonists settled in Dej, Turda and Rimetea (Zimmermann & Werner 1892, pp. 169–184), while, in 1315, Charles Robert of Anjou (1301/08–1342) granted the right of passage to the Saxons from the seats of Mediaş and Şeica and, in 1318, exempted the Saxons from Mediaş, Şeica Mare and Şeica Mică from military service; all these measures facilitated the establishment of over 200 villages in the areas inhabited by Saxons at the time (Suciu 1969).

The settlement process resulted in the establishment of the cities of Sibiu (Hermannstadt) – 1191, Orăştie (Broos) – 1224, Braşov (Kronstadt) – 1234 and Sebeş (Mühlbach) – 1245, which later constituted polarizing nuclei for the settlement systems in the Saxon territories. The villages of Viscri (Deutsch-Weißkirch) – 1185, Cisnădioara (Michelsberg) – 1204, Mănărade (Donnersmarkt) – 1205, Bărcuţ (Bekokten), Felmer (Felmern), Seliştat (Seligstadt), Şoarş (Scharosch), Lovnic (Leblang) and Noiştat (Neustadt) – 1206, Ungra (Galt) – 1211, Cârţa (Kerz) and Cristian (Großau) – 1223, Drăuşeni (Draas) – 1224, Albeşti (Weißkirch) – 1231 and Şercaia (Schirkanyen) – 1235 (Suciu 1969) are also documented in the same period, being among the oldest settlements established by German settlers in Transylvania.

In 1228, the first Saxon settlements on the northern border of Transylvania were recorded: Reghin (Reen), Batoş (Bootsch) and Budacu de Jos (Budak), a territory which made up the Bistritzer District and which, in 1366, was granted privileges similar to those of the Seven Saxon Seats (Kroner 2009).

Thus, while at the end of the 13th century (1299) the system of human settlements in the territories colonized by the Saxons consisted of only 68 urban and rural centres, in the following century, 159 more settlements would be documented – that is, a total of about 95% of settlements in which the Saxon dialect was spoken (Suciu 1969; Nägler 1981, pp. 225–239).

The system of settlements founded by the Saxons was finalized at the end of the 15th century, with only one village attested in the 16th century (Tonciu, in 1587) and another at the beginning of the 19th century (Cuşma, in 1805), both in Bistriţa District.

The basis of the analysis in our study will be the place names of the 243 villages founded by the Saxon settlers in Transylvania mentioned in the Transylvanian Saxon Dictionary (eds. Haldenwang, Maurer & Thudt 1998), one of the cornerstone scientific works on the issue of Transylvanian Saxons. These are represented cartographically in figures 6–8.

Figure 6.

The Saxon place names of the settlements established by the Saxon settlers in Transylvania. A. = Saxon in Southern Transylvania; B. = Saxon in Northen Transylvania

Source: own study

Figure 7.

The German place names of the settlements established by the Saxon settlers in Transylvania.

A. = Saxon in Southern Transylvania; B. = Saxon in Northen Transylvania

Source: own study

Figure 8.

The Romanian/official place names of the settlements established by the Saxon settlers in Transylvania. A. = Saxon in Southern Transylvania; B. = Saxon in Northen Transylvania

Source: own study

The Saxons, together with the Szeklers, an ethnic community of Hungarian origin located in the Giurgeu-Ciuc Depression in Eastern Transylvania (the present-day counties of Harghita and Covasna) are ethnic minorities, loyal to the Hungarian administrations that ruled Transylvania prior to 1918, who were settled here with the aim of defending the Carpathian borders of the Austro-Hungarian Empire. Therefore, the location and, implicitly, the place names of these ethnic communities are closely related to the Carpathian Mountains. On the other hand, the origin of the Saxon names was influenced by the local peculiarities of the colonization process, as well as by the social and anthroponymic characteristics of the local communities.

In this context, we believe that the Saxon oiconyms in the analysed sample can be grouped into six categories:

• 1)

  Oiconyms derived from oronyms and their derivatives (from hydronyms, which, in turn, derive from oronyms; from hileonyms, which, in turn, derive from oronyms; from hodonyms, which, in turn, derive from oronyms; etc.);

• 2)

  Oiconyms, whose origins can be traced back to hydronyms, indicating the characteristics of running water and its banks, around which villages were formed;

• 3)

  Oiconyms that stem from the characteristics of the colonization process;

• 4)

  Oiconyms that express different social and professional aspects of the Saxon communities;

• 5)

  Oiconyms, whose origins can be traced back to hagionyms, the Saxon population having a strong connection with the Church;

• 6)

  Oiconyms with origins in anthroponyms, most often derived from the name of the village founder.

From the point of view of the nature of the geological substratum and the soil, place names may offer certain indications, especially in terms of lithology, often with finely nuanced meanings, transposed by means of a vast lexical richness (Ungureanu & Boamfă 2006, p. 29). Hence, Schuarsch/Šuerš (Romanian: Soarș) and Kellenk (Romanian: Câlnic) mean muddy places, akin to marshlands, located along various tributary valleys of the Olt from the Făgăraș and Brașov depressions; conversely, Hanjdertbächeln/Hangderbäxeln (Romanian: Movile) has the meaning of “one hundred mounds”, since it is located in an area with a high degree of relief fragmentation in the Târnavelor Plateau, while the city of Cisnădie (Hielt/Hilt/Helt) is named after the word for “slope”. In other situations, the oiconyms refer to local geomorphological phenomena: Rätsch (Romanian: Reciu) means a place where frequent landslides are recorded – a village located on hilly terrain with a clay substrate and a steep slope, or Hamlesch/Hamleš (Romanian: Amnaș), which means “fault”, the result of a subsidence, a geomorphological process specific to depression areas at the foot of the Cindrel Mountains. The meaning of the oicononym Mebrich/Męburx/Mebrix also refers to the characteristics of the lithological substrate, meaning “clay fortress” (Romanian: Beia).

Some villages located on small tributary valleys of the Olt owe their names to the particularities of these valleys: Ängenduel/Monʼenduel (Romanian: Mighindoala) has the meaning of narrow valley; Longenduel means “long valley”, a name also borrowed in Romanian (Valea Lungă), and Lachenz (Romanian: Lechința) means “dry stream”, indicating a watercourse that frequently dries up.

The altitude and the local topographical characteristics influence the structure of the vegetation cover, which is reflected in place names, as seen in the numerous oiconyms stemming from the names of plant formations (hileonyms). Among these are the following: Tsäkmantel (Romanian: Țigmandru), which means “Gabelföhre” (Föhre an der Straßengabelung) or “pine at the fork in the road”, according to Grimms’ dictionary “Deutsches Wörterbuch”, 1854; Birk (Romanian: Petelea), which means “birch”; Hoisoyen/Hôšôzn (Romanian: Hășag), or “area with linden trees” or it may derive from the name of a river (Orend 1927); Urbijen äm Angderwald/Urbijen/Urbijn, which means “willow” (Romanian: Gârbova); Arbejän/Arbäjn – “area with alder trees” (Romanian: Agârbiciu); Meschn/Maešn – “tree moss”; Alzen/Âltsen “area with alder trees”; Manjersch “area covered in hazel trees” (Romanian: Măgheruș), and Kiertš (Romanian: Curciu), which reflects the anthropic impact on the spontaneous vegetation, indicating a “fallow area”. Some oiconyms come from zoonyms: Katzendorf (Romanian: Cața) means “the cat’s village”; Hunebich/Hunebix means “rooster’s creek” (Romanian: Hamba); Bekokten means “lambs’ well” (Romanian: Bărcuț), and Schirkojen/Širkenʼen (Romanian: Șercaia) means “dragon”, while Wormloch/Vurmlix means “dragon’s lair”. What is significant is that the Romanian name of this last village has a completely different meaning: Valea Viilor comes from the vineyards spread around the area of the village, which indicates an almost total replacement of both the ethnic background, as well as the structure of the land fund from the time when the village was founded (1263) to modern day.

The topographical peculiarities are also reflected in the names of the roads, which have ensured, for centuries, the communication required for a community to develop homogeneously. One such example may be Streitfert/Štreitʼtfert – “the ford where a misunderstanding took place” (Romanian: Mercheașa), which is crossed nowadays by an important road that ensures the connection between Odorheiu Secuiesc and Brașov. This toponym may also have been derived from “strut, struot” (according to Lexer’s dictionary “Mittelhochdeutsches Wörterbuch”: “Gebüsch, Buschwald, Dickicht” or “bushes, bush forest, thicket”) and “furt” (“a shallow place to cross water” or “flache Stelle zur Überschreitung eines Gewässers”).

Since most of the villages in the Carpathian and Sub-Carpathian regions were located along the hydrographic arteries, which provided both a water source and the main means of communication (roads were also built along these arteries), many oiconyms have their origins in hydronyms, reflecting their particularities, but also how the land adjacent to them was used. Some relevant place names in this sense are Rirbich/Rîrbix (Romanian: Rodbav) – “reed stream”; Riseln/Rîzeln/Rizln (Romanian: Ruja) – “valley of roses”; Schuel/Šuel (Romanian: Șoala) – “stony river”; Roiderbrich/Rudjebich/Rüdebix (Romanian: Rotbav) – “the stream in the pasture”; Hamruden (Romanian: Homorod) – “rushing waters”, recalling the rushing Homoroade waters that converge in this location, only to flow into the Olt; Schinen (Romanian: Șona) – “beautiful meadow/valley” and Lachenz (Romanian: Lechința) meaning “the dry stream”, recalling a waterway that often dries up. Along the same lines is the place name of Durles (Romanian: Dârlos), which means “dry area settlement”, as it lies out of the way of floods.

The characteristics of the colonisation process are reflected in the place names that recall the origin of the first settlers, such as Baidref – “the village of the Bavarians” (Romanian: Crainimăt) or other multi-ethnic villages where Saxons cohabitated with other Slavic peoples (especially Russians); Reisfref – “Russian village” (Romanian: Cund); or Reissmuert – “Russian fair/the fair of Slavonic-speaking peoples”. What is significant is that the current Romanian name of the town Miercurea Sibiului, which means “the Wednesday fair of the Sibiu area”, preserves the commercial function specifics of the settlement, but also recalls the day when it was organized; it does not reflect the ethnic origin of the community that initiated the fair. Likewise, the evolution of the colonization process can also be documented through toponyms such as Naerscht – “the new city” (Romanian: Noiștat).

The social characteristics of the Saxon rural communities are reflected in place names such as Netschessen/Njetesen/Netʼezn – “unsightly, poor houses” (Romanian: Netuș) or Waldhâdjn/Vâldhädjn – “the huts in the forest” (Romanian: Valchid), which refer to poor communities that later on became villages. Conversely, other place names point to the wealth of various communities: Sailijescht/Zělijeršt/Zeliješt – “the happy city” (Romanian: Seliștat) or Stulzembrich/Stűltsembrix – “the proud city” (Romanian: Slimnic).

The professional structure of the coloniser groups that founded the villages also shows close correlations with the characteristics of the natural environment: Malemkref/Malemkrox – “round apple tree forest” (Romanian: Mărânglav) and Griszpult/Pult/Everstpold – “the big, apple village” (Romanian: Apoldu de Sus) point to the fruit-growing background of the depression areas at the foot of the northern slopes of the Cindrel Mountains; Zeöedan/Zuidn/Tsâdn – “the beekeeper” (Romanian: Codlea) and Huntschprich – “honey hill” (Romanian: Hărman) point to beekeeping activities, while Lihwleng/Lieflengk, meaning “hunting” (Romanian: Lovnic), refers to this activity, as well as to the existence of a rich hunting fauna. The breeding of horses is attested by the place name Detschpien/Pîn/Pin – “horse area”, which most likely comes from Medieval German (Romanian: Pianu de Jos).

The services are consecrated through place names that attest the origin of those who provided certain services to wider communities, such as Griuszpriustref – “the bishop’s grand village” (Romanian: Proștea Mare/Târnava), Klipriusterf – “the bishop’s little village” (Romanian: Proștea Mică/Târnăvioara) or Priusterf/Pristref – “the bishop’s village” (Romanian: Stejărișu). Tsendersch (Romanian: Senereuș) was “the judge’s village”, Appesterf/Apestref was “the abbot’s village” (Romanian: Apoș and Țapu), while Talmesch (the Saxon/German name for Tălmaciu town) means “the interpreter’s village” – that is, the person ensuring the good communication between the Saxon community and the majority, which was made up of the Romanian population.

Other place names, such as Gris-Schink – “the great tavern/the great inn” or Kli-Schink/Klišink – “the little tavern/the little inn” (Romanian: Cincu Mare and Cincșor) come from the establishment around which the villages were formed, defining, in an indirect manner, the habits of their first inhabitants. The place name Wengertsckirch/Wengerskirch – “the vineyard/the church’s vineyard” (Romanian: Vingard) is also part of this list.

The commercial role that led to the foundation of some villages is documented by place names such as Donnerschmuert – “the Thursday fair” (Romanian: Mânărade) or Reissmuert – “the fair of the Russians” (the present-day Miercurea Sibiului), which we have already mentioned.

Oiconyms stemming from hagionyms are numerous in the lands inhabited by the Saxons, which point to their deep attachment to the values of the Roman Catholic and, later, the Lutheran Church. The practice of naming human settlements after saints began towards the end of the 6th century, as a saint first became the patron of a settlement and, most often, ended up lending their name to the settlement itself (Nicolae & Suditu 2008, p. 254). This phenomenon was characteristic for the early feudal period, when most Saxon villages were founded and when religious elements played an important role in the humanization and development of a geographical area. This included villages such as Agnitlen – “Saint Agatha” (present-day Agnita), Franderf/Frândref/Franderf – “village of the Holy Virgin” (Romanian: Frâna, present-day Axente Sever), Grisz-Lasseln/Lasln and Sächsisch-Lasseln – these two villages were named after Saint Ladislau (Romanian: Laslea and Laslău Mic) –, and Bartlemis (Romanian: Bartolomeu), which means Saint Bartholomew. Additionally, there are place names consisting of the words “church” (Löschkirk/Laeschkirik/Leškirich – “the new church”, Romanian: Nocrich; Weiskirich/Veiskirix/Veeskirx – “the white Saxon church”, Romanian: Viscri; Kirchberg – “church hill”, Romanian: Chirpăr; Wengertskirch/Wengerskirch – “the church’s vineyard”, Romanian: Vingard), or “candle” (Kierz/Kiets, Romanian: Cârța), “monk” (Pretoa/Pretai/Preta/Pretâ, Romanian: Brăteiu), “cross” (Deutschkrets/Krets, Romanian: Criț), and those that reference ecclesiastical activities, as previously mentioned in the segment dedicated to the occupations that influenced place names.

Place names going back to anthroponyms are also widespread in the Saxon-inhabited lands, as they most often designate the founder of the village (Table 1).

In addition, there are the oiconyms indirectly based either on anthroponyms or on ononyms (e.g. Solibrig – “Sigi’s hill”, Romanian: Jibert; Pittersbarch/Pittersbarx – “Peter’s hill”, Romanian: Sânpetru; Mirtesbärch/Mĕtesberx/Miertesbarx – “Martin’s hill”, Romanian: Șomartin; Schällembrich – “Schell’s hill”, Romanian: Șelimbăr) or hydronyms (e.g. Märjeln/Maerjln – “Mary’s village”, Romanian: Merghindeal or Giresa/Girezâ/Gereza/Girelsa – “Gerhadi’s Valley”, Romanian: Bradu) (Romanian Academy 2008, 2009).