Tiina Laansalu
https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9034-5982 
Institute of the Estonian Language, Tallinn, Estonia

Peeter Päll
https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9681-2825 
Institute of the Estonian Language, Tallinn, Estonia

https://doi.org/10.4467/K7478.47/22.23.17728

Abstract
Artifact names are traditionally viewed as a sub-category of culture names, which include the names of features created by humans. The nature and categorization of artifacts in the modern world is increasingly difficult to comprehend because of their diversity and dynamic expansion. The names of populated places and cultivated objects are usually not included in the category of artifact names. In Estonia, farms are also considered to be populated places, hence they are not defined as artifacts. For example, in rural areas artifacts include barns, bridges, chapels, churches, mills, pubs, roads, schools, stables, and wells. In urban areas, all man-made features, i.e. entire cities, are by definition artifacts. Even if one were to exclude the names of urban areas (populated places), classifying the remaining features is a daunting task. Apparently, the main problem is understanding what can be defined as places within a city. Streets, squares, parks, ponds, houses, and public transport stops have traditionally structured names. But what about restaurants, cafes, bars, shops, commercial centers, kindergartens, schools, banks, organizations, hospitals? They all have names, but not necessarily typical place names. Thus, the principle could be the following: if institutions and similar establishments are landmarks, they also function as place names. The present paper will look at the possibility of defining artifact names in the broader international context of onomastic research.

Keywords
artifact names, toponyms, chrematonyms, ergonyms, urbanonyms