Using toponymy to reconstruct past land use: a case study of ‘ brüsáda’ (burn) in southern Switzerland (original) (raw)
Related papers
Spatial Information Theory, 2013
Are the contents of toponyms meaningless, as it is often claimed in linguistic literature, or can the generic parts in toponyms, such as hill in Black Hill, be used to infer landscape descriptions? We investigate this question by, firstly, linking gazetteer data with topographic characteristics, and, secondly, by conducting analysis of how the use of landscape terms might have changed over time in a historic corpus. We thus aim at answering a linguistic, and ethnophysiographic, research question through digital input data and processing. Our study area is Switzerland and our main focus is on geographic eminences, and in particular on the use of the terms Spitze, Horn and Berg. We show that most prominent generic parts in toponyms show expected topographic characteristics. However, not all generic parts strictly follow this rule, as in the case of Berg. Some generic parts have lost their meaning in standard language over time (e.g. Horn). We therefore put a cautionary note on the use of generic parts in toponyms in landscape studies, but point out that the subtle details of these differences provide rich topics for future research.
Are the contents of toponyms meaningless, as it is often claimed in linguistic literature, or can the generic parts in toponyms, such as hill in Black Hill, be used to infer landscape descriptions? We investigate this question by, firstly, linking gazetteer data with topographic characteristics, and, secondly, by conducting analysis of how the use of landscape terms might have changed over time in a historic corpus. Our study area is Switzerland and our main focus is on geographic eminences, and in particular on the use of the terms Spitze, Horn and Berg. We show that most prominent generic parts in toponyms show expected topographic characteristics. However, not all generic parts strictly follow this rule, as in the case of Berg. Some generic parts have lost their meaning in standard language over time (e.g. Horn). We therefore put a cautionary note on the use of generic parts in toponyms in landscape studies, but point out that the subtle details of these differences provide rich topics for future research.
Toponyms as ‘ landscape indicators ’
2014
In this paper we explore the relationship between “place names” and “landscape” (considered a form of areal differentiation) from both theoretical and practical points of view. Based on specific toponymic examples drawn from Catalonia, most interpreted in accordance with field observations and etymological analyses (in particular, those of the most prominent Catalan onomastician, Joan Coromines), a series of reflections are made on the relation between geographical space and place names. The two main ideas that support our arguments are these: a) the landscape is a ‘key concept’ (at a range of different scales) for the interpretation of the original meaning of geographical proper names (or toponyms); b) an adequate training in the observation (or direct perception) of landscape (i.e. Sauer’s ideas and proposals regarding the “morphologic eye”) is an invaluable support for all scholars (not only philologists) concerned with studying the etymology of place names.
Spatial analysis of heath toponymy in relation to present-day heathland distribution
We explore the use of toponyms as an information source of land use changes in heathland landscapes of Galicia, an Atlantic region of Northwest Spain. Heathlands are prized for their condition of remarkable landscapes, biodiversity reservoirs and cultural heritage areas. A strong decline of heathland cover has taken place in Atlantic Europe during the last centuries, as land use changes towards more productive systems. Galicia retains a high proportion of heathland cover, but there is a trend of land use transformation to forest plantations and improved pastures. Place names rooted with vernacular names of heathers (Erica, Calluna and Daboecia genera, Ericaceae) were recorded in a geo-referenced database. We applied spatial statistics to account for correlation between heath toponym density and present-day heathland distribution. We did not find such correlation, but differences were found for altitudinal ranks, suggesting a wider habitat loss at lowlands than at mountain areas. We discuss the possibilities of a systematic use of toponymic databases in historical landscape reconstruction.
I. Nießen, Perspectives of the analysis of toponyms in the framework of settlement and environmental archaeology Methods and research practice at the Stubersheimer Alb (Swabian Alb, Southern Germany), in: J. Klápště (ed.) Agrarian technology in the medieval landscape, RURALIA X (Turnhout, Belgium 2016) 371-384. Summary This article deals with toponyms as a source in archaeological research. Among the use for historical linguistics, field names are analysed in a regional context, especially related to archaeological questions on landscapes and environment.. Field names are an important source for the investigation of agrarian societies. By now a methodological basis for the analysis of field names in an archaeological framework is still missing. Like every historical source toponyms also have some issues. The only way to obviate them is to collect field names up to a consistent sample. Through analysis in small and large scale field names can be used for archaeology. The use of GIS is very helpful in this context. Field names complete the understanding of a landscape, settlement development, land use and subsistence strategy. References to date field names are to be found in written sources and historical maps. The relation between field names can provide arguments for a relative chronology. This article reflects the methodology for using field names in landscape archaeology using distinct examples of a research project at the Stubersheimer Alb (Swabian Alb, Southern Germany).
Handling Intangible Data, reconstructing old landscapes by toponyms.
W. Börner, S. Uhlirz & L. Dollhofer (eds.), Proceedings of the 13th Vienna Conference on Heritage and New Technology, 2009
Archaeological data gives us a narrow window on the environment people lived in: only the small areas excavated give an insight of the landscape of the past. Historical research widens this vies, but still is limited since a lot of the ordinary every day lives of common people is not recorded. In order to get a better picture of the landscape of the past, influencing and (partly) formed by the people living in it we should turn to more sources. One of those sources is the way people described their surroundings, but most of it is not recorded contemporary. But people still ‘remember’ their old surroundings: folk lore and stories tell us a great deal on the environment people of old lived in. And in old toponyms there is a great source of (sometimes hidden) information on land-use, nature and soil type. But how can we incorporate this intangible heritage into modern, computerised research? In this paper I will give some examples of using this ‘new’ form of basic data in a GIS.