Monday, November 9, 2026

When Blankets Speak: Names, Colours and Cultural Identity among the Basotho – Onomastics Online, 12 November 2026

 Can a blanket tell us who someone is, where they belong, or even which political or musical group they support? And what happens when a national symbol of unity becomes a marker of division?

These fascinating questions will be explored in the next Onomastics Online lecture, organised by the International Council of Onomastic Sciences (ICOS), on Thursday, 12 November 2026, at 17:00 CET (UTC+1).

The invited speaker, Maleshoane Rapeane-Mathonsi, Associate Professor at Durban University of Technology, South Africa, will present:

“A socio-onomastic analysis of Basotho blanket names and colours: from representations of unity to turf wars”

The session will be moderated by Chrismi Loth (University of the Free State, South Africa).

When a Blanket Becomes a Name, a Symbol and an Identity

The traditional Basotho blanket is much more than an item of clothing. Deeply embedded in the cultural heritage of Lesotho, it represents national pride, collective memory and belonging. Its distinctive patterns and colours carry social meanings, while individual blankets receive names associated with their designs, symbolism or occasions of use.

These names form a fascinating onomastic system in which material culture, linguistic expression and social identity intersect.

Yet the same blanket that symbolises national unity can also communicate division.

In contemporary Basotho society, particular blanket colours have become associated with competing groups. Supporters of the rival accordion music groups Seakhi and Terene, for example, identify themselves through blue/black and yellow blankets, respectively. Political affiliations may likewise be expressed through distinctive blanket colours.

The result is a remarkable transformation: a shared cultural emblem becomes a visual marker of group membership, rivalry and social boundaries.

What Can Socio-Onomastics Reveal?

Drawing on information from Aranda and other blanket retailers, family collections and published literature, Rapeane-Mathonsi examines the names assigned to Basotho blankets and the cultural knowledge embedded in them.

Her research raises broader questions relevant to contemporary onomastics:

How do names attached to cultural objects acquire social meaning? How do naming practices express collective identities? And how can the same named object simultaneously represent solidarity and division?

By examining the relationships between names, colours, symbolism and group identity, the lecture demonstrates that onomastic research extends far beyond conventional personal names and place names.

It also offers a valuable perspective on the naming of material objects and the ways such names participate in social communication, cultural identification and the construction of group boundaries.

About the Speaker

Maleshoane Rapeane-Mathonsi is Associate Professor in Media, Language and Communication at Durban University of Technology, South Africa.

She earned her PhD at the University of Cape Town and previously worked at the National University of Lesotho. Her research interests include formal linguistics, socio-onomastics, and language and gender.

She has contributed to the Lesotho Sign Language Dictionary, works as a translator and serves as Deputy President of the Names Society of Southern Africa. She is also involved in the International Symposium on Place Names and co-founded academic conferences within DUT's Faculty of Arts and Humanities.

Event Details and Registration

  • Date: Thursday, 12 November 2026

  • Time: 17:00 CET (UTC+1) / 18:00 SAST (UTC+2)

  • Speaker: Maleshoane Rapeane-Mathonsi (Durban University of Technology, South Africa)

  • Moderator: Chrismi Loth (University of the Free State, South Africa)

  • Platform: Microsoft Teams

  • Organiser: International Council of Onomastic Sciences (ICOS)

Register for the Onomastics Online lecture

Preregistration is required. Registered participants will receive a meeting link by email, followed by an automatic reminder one hour before the event.

About Onomastics Online

Onomastics Online is an international lecture series organised by ICOS, bringing together scholars from different academic disciplines to discuss significant developments in names and naming research.

The series highlights the multidisciplinary character of onomastics and provides a forum for exchanging ideas across linguistic, cultural and geographical boundaries.

Further information about the lecture series and recordings of previous events can be found through:

ICOS – Onomastics Online

ICOS YouTube Channel

Du cadastre napoléonien à l’histoire des noms de lieux : conférence de SFO le 16 novembre 2026

Illustration IA – affiche non officielle
 Comment retrouver l’histoire d’une parcelle, suivre les transformations d’un paysage ou reconstituer l’évolution des lieux-dits à partir de documents cadastraux vieux de deux siècles ?

Le lundi 16 novembre 2026, à 17 h, la Société française d’onomastique (SFO) accueillera Solenn Tual, chercheuse postdoctorale au Centre Inria de l’Université Grenoble Alpes, pour une conférence intitulée :

« Analyse critique et traitement automatique du cadastre ancien pour décrire l’évolution des parcelles et des repères géographiques »

La conférence se tiendra aux Archives nationales à Paris et sera également accessible en ligne.

Quand les archives cadastrales racontent l’histoire des lieux

Établi à partir du début du XIXᵉ siècle, le cadastre napoléonien constitue une source exceptionnelle pour l’étude des paysages historiques. Derrière sa vocation première, essentiellement fiscale, se cache une véritable mémoire du territoire : plans parcellaires, états de section et matrices cadastrales permettent de retrouver d’anciens propriétaires, de suivre les transformations foncières et d'identifier des lieux parfois disparus.

Pour les onomasticiens, ces documents présentent un intérêt tout particulier. Ils conservent des microtoponymes, noms de lieux-dits et anciennes dénominations de voies, offrant ainsi la possibilité d’étudier non seulement les formes historiques des noms, mais aussi leurs relations avec l’évolution de l’espace géographique.

Cependant, exploiter ces sources à grande échelle soulève plusieurs difficultés : diversité des documents, changements de structure, informations fragmentaires et correspondances parfois incertaines entre les parcelles de différentes époques.

L’intelligence artificielle et la géohistoire au service de l’onomastique

La conférence de Solenn Tual présentera les possibilités et les limites du traitement automatique des registres cadastraux anciens.

Comment extraire les informations de ces documents ? Comment les structurer et établir des relations entre des parcelles, des propriétaires et des lieux nommés ? Et comment reconstituer, à partir de sources hétérogènes, la succession des transformations d’un territoire ?

L’un des enjeux essentiels réside dans la critique préalable des sources : avant toute automatisation, il faut comprendre la nature, l’organisation et les limites des documents historiques.

Des exemples issus du Val-de-Marne, du Finistère et des Hautes-Alpes illustreront notamment la reconstruction de l’évolution parcellaire, les transformations de l’occupation du sol, les changements affectant les lieux-dits et les voies, ainsi que la localisation de contribuables et de repères géographiques antérieurs au cadastre.

Cette approche ouvre des perspectives particulièrement intéressantes à l’intersection de la toponymie historique, de la géographie, de l’histoire foncière et des humanités numériques.

À propos de la conférencière

Docteure de l’Université Gustave Eiffel, Solenn Tual a soutenu en 2025 une thèse intitulée Reconstitution automatique de la généalogie des parcelles et des bâtiments à partir de sources historiques.

Actuellement chercheuse postdoctorale au Centre Inria de l’Université Grenoble Alpes, elle poursuit ses travaux dans le domaine de la structuration et de l’exploitation des connaissances issues de sources historiques.

Sa thèse peut être consultée sur theses.fr.

Informations pratiques

  • Date : lundi 16 novembre 2026

  • Heure : 17 h (heure de Paris)

  • Conférencière : Solenn Tual

  • Organisateur : Société française d’onomastique

  • Lieu : Archives nationales, CARAN – salle suspendue, 11 rue des Quatre-Fils, 75003 Paris

  • Participation : libre et gratuite, en présentiel ou en ligne

Rejoindre la conférence sur Zoom

Pour davantage d'informations : Société française d’onomastique.

Im Namen der Gemeinschaft: Online-Kolloquium zur soziokulturellen Bedeutung von Rufnamen am 16. November 2026

KI-generierte Illustration
(kein offizielles Veranstaltungsplakat)
.
 Wer entscheidet eigentlich, welchen Namen ein Mensch erhält? Und was verrät die Namengebung über das Verhältnis zwischen Individuum und Gemeinschaft?

Diesen grundlegenden Fragen der Anthroponomastik widmet sich das nächste Namenkundliche Kolloquium Online der Gesellschaft für Namenforschung (GfN), das am Montag, dem 16. November 2026, um 18:30 Uhr stattfindet.

Unter dem Titel „Im Namen der Gemeinschaft – Rufnamen und ihre soziokulturelle Gebundenheit“ untersucht Inga Siegfried-Schupp die Namengebung aus einer kulturvergleichenden Perspektive.

Einen Menschen beim Namen zu rufen, gehört zu den selbstverständlichsten Handlungen unseres sprachlichen Alltags. Einen Menschen zu benennen, ist dagegen ein Vorgang von weitreichender sozialer Bedeutung. Denn mit der Vergabe eines Namens wird ein Individuum nicht nur identifizierbar, sondern zugleich in ein Geflecht gesellschaftlicher Beziehungen, kultureller Erwartungen und gemeinschaftlichen Wissens eingebunden.

Im Mittelpunkt des Vortrags steht der Vergleich von Gemeinschaften, deren Vorstellungen von Person und Identität unterschiedlich geprägt sind. Während in manchen kulturellen Kontexten eher autonome Personenkonzepte vorherrschen, bei denen die Eigenständigkeit des Individuums betont wird, stehen in anderen relationale Personenkonzepte im Vordergrund, die den Menschen stärker über seine sozialen Beziehungen definieren.

Welche Auswirkungen haben diese unterschiedlichen Vorstellungen auf die Vergabe von Rufnamen? Wer besitzt die Autorität, einen Namen zu bestimmen? Welche Informationen, Zugehörigkeiten und Erwartungen werden durch die Benennung mit einer Person verknüpft?

Über diese kulturvergleichenden Fragen hinaus verfolgt der Vortrag ein grundlegendes theoretisches Anliegen: Lässt sich trotz der Vielfalt kultureller Namenpraktiken ein gemeinsames epistemisches Prinzip der Namengebung erkennen?

Damit berührt das Kolloquium zentrale Themen der modernen Namenforschung: die soziale Funktion von Eigennamen, das Verhältnis von Sprache und Identität sowie die Rolle gemeinschaftlichen Wissens bei der Konstitution von Personen.

Die Veranstaltung verspricht interessante Impulse für die Anthroponomastik, Soziolinguistik, linguistische Anthropologie und kulturvergleichende Namenforschung.

Veranstaltung auf einen Blick

  • Vortrag: „Im Namen der Gemeinschaft – Rufnamen und ihre soziokulturelle Gebundenheit“

  • Referentin: Inga Siegfried-Schupp

  • Termin: Montag, 16. November 2026

  • Uhrzeit: 18:30 Uhr

  • Format: Online-Kolloquium

  • Veranstalter: Gesellschaft für Namenforschung (GfN)

Anmeldung: Zum Online-Anmeldeformular

Die Anmeldung ist weiterhin möglich. Der Anmeldelink darf ausdrücklich auch an Studierende weitergegeben werden.

Sunday, November 8, 2026

One Name, Two Homes: A Cross-Cultural Guide to Biblical Names in Germany and the United States

Book
 Introducing One Name, Two Homes: A Cross-Cultural Guide to Biblical Names in Germany and the United States

Who was Noah?

Almost everyone knows the answer. Noah built the ark, survived the Flood and became one of the most recognisable figures in biblical history. But what if I told you that the Bible also mentions a woman named Noah? She was one of the five daughters of Zelophehad who challenged the inheritance customs of ancient Israel, arguing that their father's property should not disappear from the family simply because he had no sons (Numbers 27). The two names, although identical in English spelling, actually represent different Hebrew names with distinct linguistic origins.

This small discovery captures something that has always fascinated me as an onomastician: behind a familiar name, there may be an entirely unfamiliar story.

And this is precisely the world I wanted to explore in my book, One Name, Two Homes: A Cross-Cultural Guide to Biblical Names in Germany and the United States.

When Names Cross the Atlantic

Imagine two children born on the same day, one in Germany and the other in the United States. Their parents decide to give them a biblical name. The American child is called John; the German child, Johannes. Both names ultimately derive from the Hebrew Yôḥānān, traditionally interpreted as “God is gracious.” Both are connected to the same biblical tradition. Yet their pronunciation, historical development and patterns of popularity tell rather different cultural stories. The same fascinating relationship appears in other familiar pairs:

Mary and Maria. Jacob and Jakob. Rachel and Rahel. Leah and Lea. Elizabeth and Elisabeth.

Some names cross linguistic borders almost unchanged. Others undergo remarkable phonetic and orthographic transformations. Still others become fashionable in one country while remaining relatively uncommon in the other. Why should this happen? After all, Germans and Americans have inherited much of the same biblical tradition. Yet they have not inherited identical naming cultures. Religious history, migration, linguistic preferences, changing fashions and family traditions have all shaped the ways biblical names are adopted and transmitted. Names, in this sense, are cultural travellers. They carry their histories with them, but they also adapt to their new homes.

More Than Two Thousand Names, More Than Two Thousand Stories

The book brings together over 2,000 entries, covering the names of prominent biblical figures as well as individuals whose existence is recorded in little more than a single genealogical verse. Alongside familiar names such as Abraham, Sarah, David, Daniel, Esther, Mary and Paul, readers encounter names that rarely appear in contemporary naming discussions. Some belong to kings and prophets. Others identify soldiers, priests, servants, women, tribal leaders and otherwise little-known figures preserved in biblical genealogies.

These names raise an intriguing question: why do certain biblical names become part of the everyday vocabulary of entire cultures, while others remain almost completely forgotten? Consider Aaron, for example. The name has retained essentially the same spelling in English and German, but its pronunciation and contemporary frequency differ considerably. Or take Eve and Eva, two forms associated with the same foundational biblical narrative but shaped by different linguistic traditions. Then there is Jacob and Jakob, whose history also connects with the wider name family that includes James. Such examples remind us that a dictionary of biblical names is not merely a catalogue of ancient characters. It is also a record of how languages transform inherited cultural material.

From Ancient Scripture to Modern Statistics

One of my main objectives was to bring together two approaches that are often treated separately: historical onomastics and contemporary name statistics. For each name, the book explores its linguistic background and biblical context, while also examining its reception in Germany and the United States. The longer entries combine etymological explanations, biblical narratives, cultural interpretation, pronunciation guidance and demographic comparisons.

Historical popularity charts add another dimension by tracing naming trends across generations. The American comparisons draw primarily on Social Security Administration name statistics, while the German material relies on established German name-statistical resources, supplemented by cautious historical estimates where complete data are unavailable.

The result is an opportunity to observe a remarkable phenomenon: names originating in ancient Hebrew, Aramaic, Greek and Latin traditions continue to participate in contemporary naming fashions. A name may be thousands of years old and still experience a new period of popularity. Its history is ancient. Its social life is not.

A Personal Perspective: Karen, Karin, Anna and Elisabeth

I was particularly pleased that the book could begin with an essay by Karen Lodder, writer and creator of German Girl in America. Karen approaches biblical names not primarily through linguistic classification, but through personal and family experience. She reflects on growing up with a name that moves between the German and American pronunciation traditions: Karen and Karin. She also explores the significance of Anne, Anna, Hanna, Elisabeth and Elizabeth within her own family history.

Her reflections provide a valuable reminder that a name is never simply an entry in a dictionary. It may connect several generations, commemorate a beloved relative or preserve a family's relationship with a language that is no longer spoken every day. For immigrant families especially, choosing a name can mean negotiating between two cultural worlds. A name must sometimes feel equally at home in two languages. That observation inspired the central metaphor of the book's title: one name, two homes.

What Can Biblical Names Tell Us About Ourselves?

It would be easy to regard biblical names as a subject belonging primarily to religious history. But their influence reaches far beyond the boundaries of religious communities. Biblical names have become part of secular naming traditions, international migration histories, literary cultures and modern demographic developments. Many parents who choose names such as Noah, Sarah, Elias or David may be attracted principally by their sound, familiarity or perceived timelessness rather than by their biblical associations.

And yet the older linguistic and cultural histories remain. This is what makes biblical anthroponymy such a rewarding field of study. A single name can connect an ancient manuscript to a modern birth register, a Hebrew etymology to a German pronunciation, or an American family tradition to centuries of European migration. The same form may carry different associations across cultures, while two visibly different forms may preserve an identical historical origin. The relationship between names and identities is therefore neither simple nor static. It is a continuing conversation between the past and the present.

An Invitation to Explore

One Name, Two Homes is intended for more than one kind of reader.

For onomasticians and linguists, it offers comparative material on name forms, etymology and cultural adaptation. For genealogists and historians, it provides a way of following familiar family names into their earlier linguistic and biblical contexts. For readers interested in religion, it brings together well-known and overlooked figures from biblical narratives. And for parents considering a name for their child, it offers something beyond lists of fashionable choices: an opportunity to discover the stories that names carry. Ultimately, the book grew from a simple conviction that has guided much of my onomastic research:

Names are small linguistic forms with extraordinarily long biographies.

They survive migrations, religious transformations, changes of alphabet, shifting fashions and the passing of generations. They may change their spelling, pronunciation or popularity, but they continue to connect people to histories they do not always realise they share. And sometimes, as with Noah, the most familiar name turns out to have a story we have never heard before.


About the Book

Title: One Name, Two Homes: A Cross-Cultural Guide to Biblical Names in Germany and the United States

Series: Biblical Names Encyclopedia

Author: Dr. Eugen Schochenmaier

Opening essay: Karen Lodder, writer and creator of German Girl in America

First edition: July 2026

Contents: Over 2,000 biblical-name entries, with English–German comparisons, etymologies, pronunciation guidance, biblical and cultural background, illustrations and comparative name statistics.

For further discussion: Which biblical names have travelled most successfully between languages and cultures - and which have remained unmistakably local?

Friday, November 6, 2026

Call for Papers: Birth-Order Name Series across Languages and Cultures – SLE 2027

non official poster / AI-illustration
A proposed workshop entitled “Birth-Order Name Series across Languages and Cultures” is planned for the 2027 conference of the Societas Linguistica Europaea (SLE), taking place on 25–28 August 2027 in Košice, Slovakia. The workshop seeks to advance the cross-linguistic study of naming systems in which children receive names or labels according to their order of birth.

The deadline for preliminary abstracts is 10 November 2026.

Birth-Order Names: Towards a Cross-Linguistic Typology

In numerous linguistic communities worldwide, personal names are not assigned solely according to individual or family preferences. Instead, some languages employ systematic sets of names determined by a child's position among siblings. Known as birth-order names (BONs) or kin numeratives, these naming systems have been documented across North America, Sub-Saharan Africa, Southeast Asia, New Guinea and Australia.

Despite their geographical diversity, birth-order name series remain relatively understudied in linguistic typology and morphosyntax. The proposed workshop aims to develop a comparative framework for understanding their structural, semantic and anthropological characteristics, bringing together research in onomastics, linguistic anthropology, morphology and cross-linguistic semantics.

Key Research Questions

The workshop welcomes contributions exploring four principal dimensions:

  • Morphological strategies: How are birth-order names formed? Are they derived from numerals, comparative expressions or kinship terms, or do they constitute independent lexical paradigms?

  • Gender distinctions: Do languages employ gender-neutral names, separate male and female series, or systems combining shared roots with gender markers?

  • Series size and composition: How many birth-order names can a system contain, and what happens when the number of children exceeds the available names? How does language contact influence these systems?

  • Anthropological functions: How do birth-order names relate to kinship structures, age hierarchies, inheritance, lineage and forms of address?

The organisers particularly encourage comparative contributions covering different language families and geographical areas, including Siouan languages of North America, Atlantic, Mande and Gur languages of West Africa, languages of the Nuba Mountains, Southeast Asian language families, languages of New Guinea and Pama-Nyungan languages of Australia.

By integrating evidence from diverse linguistic traditions, the workshop aims to establish birth-order names as a distinct category in nominal typology and stimulate further interdisciplinary research.

Submission Guidelines

Researchers are invited to submit a preliminary abstract of no more than 100 words by 10 November 2026. Submissions should include four to five keywords, institutional affiliation and email address.

If the workshop proposal is accepted, contributors will be invited to submit an extended 500-word abstract by 15 January 2027.

The working language of the workshop is English. Contributions addressing individual languages, language families or broader theoretical and comparative questions are welcome, with preference given to studies offering a wider typological perspective.

Important Dates

  • Preliminary abstract deadline: 10 November 2026

  • Extended abstract deadline (if accepted): 15 January 2027

  • SLE 2027 Conference: 25–28 August 2027

  • Location: Košice, Slovakia

Submission and Contact

Preliminary abstracts should be sent to both workshop convenors:

Call for Papers: African Naming Knowledge, Digital Humanities and Cultural Memory – LSA 2027

AI-illustration / no official poster
 The 11th Annual Lagos Studies Association (LSA) Conference, taking place on 15–19 June 2027 at Trinity University, Lagos, Nigeria, and online via Zoom, will feature a panel entitled “African Naming Knowledge: Digital Humanities and Cultural Memory.” The deadline for abstract submissions is 8 December 2026.

Organised by Abdussalam Ọláwálé Àmọ́ọ́ (Federal University, Wukari, Nigeria) and Uzoma Elizabeth Egwu Okoro (Pan-Atlantic University, Lagos, Nigeria), the panel explores the intersection of African onomastics, digital humanities, indigenous knowledge systems and cultural heritage preservation.

Exploring African Names as Repositories of Cultural Memory

Personal names, place names and other African naming traditions preserve historical experiences, social relationships, indigenous knowledge and collective identities. However, their documentation and transmission have been influenced by colonial legacies, linguistic marginalisation and technological change.

In line with the conference's overarching theme, “(Re)generation in African Studies: Scholarship, Pedagogy, and Activism,” the panel invites researchers to reconsider African naming practices as dynamic systems of knowledge and explore how digital technologies can support their documentation, interpretation and preservation.

Particular attention will be given to the ethical and epistemological challenges of digitising naming traditions, including questions of cultural ownership, community participation and the representation of indigenous knowledge.

Suggested Topics

The organisers welcome interdisciplinary contributions addressing, among others:

  • African personal names, identity and cultural memory

  • Indigenous toponymy, geographical knowledge and GIS mapping

  • Digital archives and repositories of African names

  • Colonial renaming, decolonisation and historical memory

  • African names, artificial intelligence and language technologies

  • Naming practices, language contact and sociolinguistic change

  • Environmental knowledge and ecolinguistics in African place names

  • Oral traditions and intergenerational transmission of naming knowledge

  • Data sovereignty and community ownership of digital cultural heritage

  • Digital onomastics, education and public scholarship

The panel welcomes contributions from established and early-career scholars, postgraduate researchers, linguists, historians, geographers, digital humanities specialists and heritage professionals, particularly those working with African communities and indigenous knowledge systems.

Submission Guidelines

Prospective participants are invited to submit an abstract of no more than 250 words, outlining the proposed paper's title, central argument, methodology and relevance to the panel theme.

Submissions should also include the author's full name, institutional affiliation, email address, telephone or WhatsApp contact, and a short academic biography of no more than 100 words.

Important Dates and Information

  • Abstract deadline: 8 December 2026

  • Conference: 15–19 June 2027

  • Venue: Trinity University, Sabo/Yaba, Lagos, Nigeria, and Zoom

  • Panel organisers: Abdussalam Ọláwálé Àmọ́ọ́ and Uzoma Elizabeth Egwu Okoro

Submit abstracts to:

Email subject line: LSA 2027 Panel Abstract: African Naming Knowledge: Digital Humanities and Cultural Memory

An Open Letter to the International Community on Respecting the Cultural Value of Place Naming

 October 5, 2026 SIGN HERE

We, the undersigned geographers, cartographers, anthropologists, linguists, and other scholars from around the world, call upon the international community to reaffirm its commitment to respecting the cultural value of place names in shaping geographical imaginations and the world map. We urge governments, international organizations, mapping authorities and corporations, educational institutions, media, and the wider public to recognize place names not simply as arbitrary labels on a map, but as forms of intangible cultural heritage with profound historical, geographical, and cultural significance. While some institutions recognize these responsibilities, more work remains to translate this recognition into meaningful and sustained practice.

The naming of places is an act of world-making. Place names connect landscapes to stories, languages, memories, and histories. From continents and oceans to cities, villages, mountains, rivers, streets, and neighbourhoods, the names on maps shape how people see and understand the world. Embedded in everyday life, place names also communicate powerful messages about who belongs, whose histories and memories are remembered, and whose presence in the cultural landscape matters. Decisions about naming places therefore have important consequences for communities and people’s senses of place.

Place naming has never been separate from relations of power. The world’s toponymic landscape bears the imprint of colonialism, nationalism, conquest, revolution, and struggles over belonging. Place names can recognize communities and preserve memories, but they can also exclude, erase, and assert political dominance. Socially responsible naming practices must acknowledge this relationship between naming and power. They should broaden, rather than narrow, the range of communities represented in the landscape and create meaningful opportunities for those communities to participate in naming decisions. Renaming places can also contribute to wider processes of reckoning with and healing from histories of oppression.

Recognizing the cultural significance of place naming does not mean that names should never change. There may be compelling reasons to reconsider names associated with colonialism, dispossession, racism, or oppression, to restore Indigenous place names, or to adopt names that better acknowledge historically marginalized communities and forms of knowledge.

The world is continually being made and remade, and place naming is an integral part of that process. What matters is how, why, and by whom this world-making occurs. Renaming should be grounded in careful historical and geographical research, meaningful public participation, and consultation with communities most directly affected, particularly Indigenous peoples or minorities whose histories and voices have previously been marginalized or erased from the map.

At the same time, the renaming of places should not become an instrument for proclaiming the supremacy of one nation or culture over others, glorifying political leaders, or asserting exclusive claims to shared geographical spaces. This principle is especially important for seas, oceans, rivers, mountain ranges, and other geographical features that extend across political boundaries or are shared among different peoples. No single state, leader, or institution should presume that the unilateral assertion of authority over naming confers cultural ownership of a shared geographical feature. 

Respecting the names associated with shared geographical spaces is one way of acknowledging the interdependence of countries and peoples. Attempts to appropriate or weaponize the naming of shared features risk turning the world map into an arena for political rivalry rather than a space in which multiple histories and geographical perspectives can coexist. 

We therefore call for a renewed commitment to five fundamental principles of place naming:

First, recognize place names as cultural heritage and a shared public responsibility. Place names should be understood as culturally significant forms of intangible heritage and shared resources whose stewardship carries responsibilities extending beyond the interests of any particular government, leader, institution, or generation. Naming decisions can have lasting consequences for historical memory, identity, education, and how people understand the world. 

Second, ensure meaningful public participation in naming and renaming places. Communities and concerned groups should have genuine opportunities to participate in place naming decisions. Such decisions should occur through transparent and accountable processes informed by research, consultation, and public deliberation rather than unilateral political intervention. Place names that are changed arbitrarily and without due process should not be recognized by the international community.

Third, reject the use of place naming as an instrument of political or territorial dominance. Place names should not be used to proclaim cultural superiority, advance territorial ambitions, or assert exclusive national ownership over geographical spaces shared among different peoples. In such places, name changes should not proceed without international dialogue among affected countries and communities. 

Fourth, approach commemorative place naming with integrity and avoid renaming for self-aggrandizement.  Places should generally not be named after living people. Those who exercise political, economic, or institutional power should resist using place naming to commemorate themselves or pursue personal glorification and self-aggrandizement. Place naming should serve the public interest rather than the personal legacies of those responsible for naming decisions.

Fifth, recognize toponymic plurality as a cultural value rather than a problem to be eliminated. Where multiple names coexist for the same geographical feature, plurality should not automatically be treated as a problem requiring a single authoritative solution. Multiple names can bear witness to the layered histories, languages, and attachments through which places acquire meaning. A shared geography need not always have a single name.

The world map does not belong solely to any single government, nation, culture, leader, or generation. It represents a world inhabited, understood, and named by many peoples across generations. We therefore call upon the international community to resist the use of place naming as an instrument of unilateral political power and to embrace a more inclusive and responsible naming practice based upon cultural respect, historical understanding, and meaningful consultation.

Respecting the cultural value of place names requires a commitment to plurality over supremacy, dialogue over unilateralism, and shared geographical understanding over nationalistic exclusivity. The names on the world map matter: collectively, they constitute an irreplaceable part of the world’s cultural heritage.

Note: The signatures below do not constitute or imply an endorsement, position, or statement of support by employers, institutions, organizations, or any other affiliation of the authors or co-signatories.

Lead authors

UNESCO Chair in Inclusive Toponymy, “Naming the World,” Professor Frédéric Giraut, Chair Holder, University of Geneva, Switzerland

Derek H. Alderman, Chancellor’s Professor, Department of Geography and Sustainability, University of Tennessee, United States

Anne-Laure Amilhat Szary, Professor of Geography, Institut d’urbanisme et de géographie alpine, University Grenoble Alpes, France

Myriam Houssay-Holzschuch, Professor of Geography, Institut d’urbanisme et de géographie alpine, University Grenoble Alpes, France

Peter Bille Larsen, Senior Lecturer of Anthropology, University of Geneva, Switzerland

Emily Lethbridge, Research Professor of Onomastics, The Árni Magnússon Institute for Icelandic Studies, Iceland

Reuben Rose-Redwood, Professor of Geography, University of Victoria, Canada

–

If you would like your name to be added as a co-signatory of the above letter, please complete and submit the form below.

By signing and submitting this form, you are expressing your personal support for the open letter as an individual. Your signature does not constitute or imply an endorsement, position, or statement of support by your employer, institution, organization, or any other affiliation listed with your name.


Your email address is collected solely for the purpose of verifying your signature and providing updates on the letter, but will not be publicly displayed or included in the published list of signatories.

––

L'importance des noms de lieux: lettre ouverte à la communauté internationale pour le respect de la valeur culturelle de la dénomination des lieux

5 octobre 2026

Nous, géographes, cartographes, anthropologues, linguistes et autres chercheurs et chercheuses du monde entier, signataires de la présente, appelons la communauté internationale à réaffirmer son engagement à respecter la valeur culturelle des noms de lieux, qui façonnent l’imaginaire géographique et la carte du monde. Nous exhortons les gouvernements, les organisations internationales, les autorités  publiques et les entreprises impliquées dans la cartographie, les établissements d’enseignement, les médias et le grand public à reconnaître les noms de lieux non pas simplement comme des étiquettes arbitraires sur une carte, mais comme des formes de patrimoine culturel immatériel revêtant une profonde signification historique, géographique et culturelle. Si certaines institutions reconnaissent cette responsabilité, il reste encore beaucoup à faire pour traduire cette reconnaissance en une pratique significative et durable.

La dénomination des lieux est un acte de construction du monde. Les noms de lieux relient les paysages aux récits, aux langues, aux mémoires, aux savoirs et aux histoires. Des continents et des océans aux villes, villages, montagnes, rivières, rues et quartiers, les noms figurant sur les cartes façonnent la manière dont les gens perçoivent et comprennent le monde. Ancrés dans la vie quotidienne, les noms de lieux transmettent des messages puissants sur les appartenances et les présences de celles et ceux qui comptent dans le paysage culturel. Les décisions relatives à la dénomination des lieux ont donc des conséquences importantes pour les collectifs humains et le sentiment d’appartenance des individus.

La dénomination des lieux n’a jamais été dissociée des rapports de pouvoir. Le paysage toponymique mondial porte l’empreinte du colonialisme, du nationalisme, de la conquête, de la révolution et des luttes pour l’appartenance. Les noms de lieux peuvent reconnaître des collectifs et préserver des mémoires, mais ils peuvent aussi exclure, effacer et affirmer une domination politique. Des pratiques de dénomination socialement responsables doivent reconnaître ce lien entre la dénomination et le pouvoir. Elles devraient élargir, plutôt que restreindre, l’éventail des communautés représentées dans le paysage et créer des opportunités significatives pour que ces communautés participent aux décisions de dénomination. Le changement de nom de lieux peut également contribuer à des processus plus larges de prise en compte et de réparation face à des oppressions subies.

Reconnaître l’importance culturelle de la dénomination des lieux ne signifie pas que les noms ne doivent jamais changer. Il peut exister des raisons impérieuses de reconsidérer les noms associés au colonialisme, à la dépossession, au racisme ou aux oppressions, de rétablir les noms de lieux autochtones, ou d’adopter des noms qui reconnaissent davantage les différents collectifs et les formes de savoir historiquement marginalisées.

Le monde est sans cesse en train de se reconstruire, et la dénomination des lieux fait partie intégrante de ce processus. Comment, pourquoi et par qui cette construction du monde s’effectue sont importants. Le changement de nom doit s’appuyer sur des recherches historiques et géographiques rigoureuses, une participation publique significative et la consultation des groupes les plus directement concernés, en particulier les peuples autochtones ou les minorités dont l’histoire et la voix ont pu être marginalisées ou effacées de la carte.

Dans le même temps, le changement de nom des lieux ne doit pas devenir un instrument visant à proclamer la suprématie d’une nation ou d’une culture sur les autres, à glorifier des dirigeants politiques ou à revendiquer de manière exclusive des espaces géographiques partagés. Ce principe revêt une importance particulière pour les mers, les océans, les fleuves, les chaînes de montagnes et autres éléments géographiques qui s’étendent au-delà des frontières politiques ou sont partagés entre différents peuples. Aucun État, dirigeant ou institution ne devrait présumer que l’affirmation unilatérale de son autorité en matière de dénomination confère la propriété culturelle d’une entité géographique partagée. 

Le respect des noms associés aux espaces géographiques partagés est une manière de reconnaître l’interdépendance des pays et des peuples. Les tentatives visant à s’approprier ou à instrumentaliser la dénomination d’entités partagées risquent de transformer la carte du monde en une arène de rivalités politiques plutôt qu’en un espace où peuvent coexister des histoires et des perspectives géographiques multiples.

Nous appelons donc à un engagement renouvelé envers cinq principes fondamentaux en matière de dénomination des lieux:

Premièrement, reconnaître les noms de lieux comme un patrimoine culturel et une responsabilité publique partagée. Les noms de lieux doivent être considérés comme des formes culturelles significatives de patrimoine intangible et comme des ressources partagées dont la gestion implique des responsabilités qui dépassent les intérêts d’un gouvernement, d’un dirigeant, d’une institution ou d’une génération en particulier. Les décisions relatives à la dénomination des lieux peuvent avoir des conséquences durables sur les mémoires historiques, les identités, l’éducation et la manière dont on appréhende le monde.

Deuxièmement, garantir une participation publique à la dénomination et au changement des noms des lieux. Les communautés et les groupes concernés devraient disposer de réelles possibilités de participer aux décisions relatives à la dénomination des lieux. Ces décisions devraient être prises dans le cadre de processus transparents et responsables, fondés sur la recherche, la consultation et la délibération publique, plutôt que sur une intervention politique unilatérale. Les noms de lieux modifiés de manière arbitraire et sans procédure régulière ne devraient pas être reconnus par la communauté internationale.

Troisièmement, rejeter l’utilisation de la dénomination des lieux comme instrument de domination politique ou territoriale. Les noms de lieux ne doivent pas servir à proclamer une supériorité culturelle, à promouvoir des ambitions territoriales ou à revendiquer une propriété nationale exclusive sur des espaces géographiques partagés entre différents peuples. Dans de tels cas, les changements de nom ne doivent pas être mis en œuvre sans un dialogue international entre les pays et les communautés concernés.

Quatrièmement, aborder la dénomination commémorative des lieux avec intégrité et éviter de renommer des lieux à des fins d’autoglorification. En règle générale, les lieux ne devraient pas porter le nom de personnes vivantes. Ceux qui exercent un pouvoir politique, économique ou institutionnel devraient s’abstenir d’utiliser la dénomination des lieux pour se commémorer eux-mêmes ou rechercher la glorification personnelle et l’autoglorification. La dénomination des lieux devrait servir l’intérêt général plutôt que l’héritage personnel de celles ou ceux qui sont chargé.es de prendre ces décisions.

Cinquièmement, reconnaître la pluralité toponymique comme une ressource culturelle plutôt que comme un problème à éliminer. Lorsque plusieurs noms coexistent pour une même entité géographique, cette pluralité ne doit pas être automatiquement considérée comme un problème nécessitant une solution unique et faisant autorité. La multiplicité des noms peut témoigner des histoires, des langues et des attachements qui, se superposant, confèrent du sens aux lieux. Une géographie partagée n’a pas nécessairement besoin d’un nom unique.

La carte du monde n’appartient pas à un seul gouvernement, à une seule nation, à une seule culture, à un seul dirigeant ou à une seule génération. Elle représente un monde habité, compris et nommé par de nombreux peuples à travers les générations. Nous appelons donc la communauté internationale à s’opposer à l’utilisation de la dénomination des lieux comme instrument de pouvoir politique unilatéral et à adopter une pratique de dénomination plus inclusive et responsable, fondée sur le respect culturel, la compréhension historique et une consultation constructive.

Respecter la valeur culturelle des noms de lieux exige de privilégier la pluralité plutôt que la suprématie, le dialogue plutôt que l’unilatéralisme, et des appréhensions géographiques partagées plutôt que l’exclusivité nationaliste. Les noms figurant sur la carte du monde ont leur importance: collectivement, ils constituent une partie irremplaçable du patrimoine culturel mondial.

Remarque : Les signatures ci-dessous ne constituent ni n’impliquent une approbation, une prise de position ou une déclaration de soutien de la part des employeurs, établissements, organisations ou de toute autre affiliation des auteurs ou des cosignataires.

Auteurs principaux

UNESCO Chair in Inclusive Toponymy, “Naming the World,” Professor Frédéric Giraut, Chair Holder, University of Geneva, Switzerland

Derek H. Alderman, Chancellor’s Professor, Department of Geography and Sustainability, University of Tennessee, United States

Anne-Laure Amilhat Szary, Professor of Geography, Institut d’urbanisme et de géographie alpine, University Grenoble Alpes, France

Myriam Houssay-Holzschuch, Professor of Geography, Institut d’urbanisme et de géographie alpine, University Grenoble Alpes, France

Peter Bille Larsen, Senior Lecturer of Anthropology, University of Geneva, Switzerland

Emily Lethbridge, Research Professor of Onomastics, The Árni Magnússon Institute for Icelandic Studies, Iceland

Reuben Rose-Redwood, Professor of Geography, University of Victoria, Canada

SPNS Autumn Conference 2026: Exploring Place-Names, Landscapes and Gaelic Heritage

The Scottish Place-Name Society (SPNS) will hold its Autumn Conference online on 7 November 2026, bringing together researchers to explore the historical, linguistic and cultural dimensions of place-names.

The programme features eight presentations covering Scottish Gaelic and Pictish toponymy, Irish literary landscapes, historical cartography, fieldwork methodology and the preservation of linguistic heritage.

Conference Programme

The conference opens at 10:00 with a welcome by Morag Redford (University of the Highlands and Islands), followed by the following presentations:

  • 10:05–10:35 – Phil Ó hEochaidh: Place-names of Carrickfergus.

  • 10:35–11:05 – Liam Crouse: Three etiological legends for the Eriskay placename ‘Glaic na Còmhraig’, examining competing oral traditions associated with a Scottish Gaelic place-name.

  • 11:30–12:00 – Rebecca Madlener: Diverging Landscapes. Interpreting differences between fieldwork data and place-name data, exploring the semantics of Gaelic landscape vocabulary.

  • 12:00–12:30 – Sarah Künzler: A Handbook for (Top)onomastic Researchers, introducing a forthcoming two-volume methodological guide developed with Barbara Aehnlich.

  • 13:30–14:00 – Fiona Campbell-Howes: The meaning of carden revisited: Pictish royal hunting grounds, proposing a new interpretation of a historical place-name element.

  • 14:00–14:30 – Scott Lloyd: Hidden Boundaries: Ordnance Survey Boundary Remark Books as a Source for Place-Name Research, highlighting an underused archival resource.

  • 14:45–15:15 – Larissa Toal: Named Places and Wilderness in Tóruigheacht Dhiarmada agus Ghráinne: An Ecocritical Look, investigating the narrative functions of place-names in Irish literature.

  • 15:15–15:45 – Alina Brust: Reflections of Gaelic heritage in the street names of Girvan, examining traces of Gaelic linguistic heritage in urban naming.

The programme includes breaks at 11:05 and 14:30, a lunch interval from 12:30 to 13:30, and concluding remarks at 15:45–16:00.

The conference offers an opportunity for onomasticians, linguists, historians and researchers interested in cultural landscapes to exchange perspectives on the relationship between names, language, memory and place.

Date: 7 November 2026
Format: Online
Registration: Register for the SPNS Autumn Conference

The complete programme and presentation abstracts are available on the SPNS conference website.

Thursday, November 5, 2026

Four Decades of PatRom: A Monumental Project in Romance Anthroponymy Reaches Its End

 Today, 5 November 2026, one of the longest-running collaborative projects in European onomastics reaches its formal conclusion. At the University of Oviedo, the final day of the XLIV International Congress of Asturian Philology and Culture (CIFCA) is devoted to the closing of Patronymica Romanica (PatRom) and to the presentation of the last part of its monumental Dictionnaire historique de l’anthroponymie romane.

The occasion marks the end of approximately four decades of collaborative research into the historical anthroponymy of the Romance-speaking world. The official CIFCA programme describes the event explicitly as the Piesllu del proyeutu PatRom - the closing of the PatRom project - and stresses the important role played by the University of Oviedo and the Academia de la Llingua Asturiana throughout its history. The three scholars most closely associated with the final dictionary - Dieter Kremer, Jean Germain, and Ana María Cano González - are together in Oviedo for the conclusion. It is difficult to imagine a more appropriate place for PatRom to finish.



It began in Trier in 1987

PatRom was conceived in 1986–1987 at the University of Trier under the direction of Dieter Kremer. Its decisive starting point was the first international PatRom colloquium, held in Trier on 10–13 December 1987. Gérard Taverdet later recalled how Kremer brought together scholars who had largely been studying the anthroponymy of their own countries and linguistic regions and challenged them to imagine a single comparative project covering the Romance world.

The initial title was Dictionnaire historique des noms de famille romans. The ambition was enormous: instead of producing another national surname dictionary, PatRom would reconstruct the shared historical foundations of Romance anthroponymy.

By 1997, when the project published its major methodological presentation volume, PatRom comprised 18 research groups from the Romance countries of Europe together with the coordinating centre at Trier. The original expectation had been that the dictionary might be completed around the year 2000. It took considerably longer. But this delay is also a measure of what PatRom attempted.

Not an ordinary surname dictionary

The most important thing to understand about PatRom is that it is not simply an alphabetical dictionary of surnames. Its organising principle is genetic and historical. The dictionary begins with an etymon, usually a Latin or inherited Romance lexical item, and follows the personal names and surnames that developed from it across different Romance languages and regions.

In this respect, PatRom deliberately adopted the intellectual architecture of the great Romance etymological dictionaries such as the Romanisches etymologisches Wörterbuch (REW), the Französisches Etymologisches Wörterbuch (FEW), and the Lessico Etimologico Italiano (LEI). Jean Germain describes the project as a form of European onomastic lexicography, combining onomastics, historical linguistics and lexicology.

A PatRom article therefore asks more than: What does this surname mean? It asks:

From which lexical etymon did this anthroponymic family develop? When do its forms first appear? How did they change phonologically and morphologically? In which Romance regions do they occur? How are the medieval forms related to modern surnames?

That shift in perspective was fundamental. The 1997 presentation volume, for example, showed how one historical lexical base could generate a network of forms across different Romance domains rather than a collection of isolated national surname entries.

Historical documents meet modern surname geography

Another major innovation was methodological. PatRom combined two kinds of evidence.

The first was historical: medieval and early modern documents containing named individuals - tax registers, censuses, charters, necrologies, population lists and similar sources. 

The second was contemporary: modern inventories of surnames, electoral registers, telephone data and national population records that made it possible to study geographical distribution.

This combination allowed researchers to move from the medieval nickname or descriptive designation to its later surname descendants while also considering their modern geography. The scale of the documentation was remarkable for a project conceived before the modern digital-humanities era.

The archived PatRom documentation records around 170,000 historical entries at the Oviedo centre alone. Louvain had approximately 140,000 entries, alongside access to Belgium's complete national surname inventory. Madrid worked with an official register containing more than six million individuals, while other centres used regional electoral lists and historical corpora.

In retrospect, PatRom looks strikingly modern.

Long before “big data” became a normal phrase in humanities research, its scholars were already combining digitised historical records, present-day surname distributions, regional databases, cartography and comparative linguistic analysis.

A genuinely European network

The organisational structure was equally ambitious.

At different stages, institutions involved in PatRom included centres in Lisbon, Santiago de Compostela, Oviedo, Santander, Madrid, Seville, Zaragoza, Barcelona, Valencia, Mallorca, Nancy, Louvain-la-Neuve, Pisa, Florence, Rome, Udine, Bucharest, Chișinău and Trier, together with independent collaborators elsewhere in Europe and North America.

This was not simply international cooperation in the superficial sense of contributors sending chapters to an editor. Each centre was responsible for historical documentation, regional linguistic expertise, modern surname evidence and eventually regional syntheses. These were then brought together by pan-Romance editors, who had to resolve discrepancies between regional analyses and construct a coherent account for the whole Romance territory.

The project was therefore both decentralised and highly standardised. Individual centres retained the expertise necessary to interpret their own linguistic territories, while the dictionary imposed common principles of transcription, classification, citation, morphology and etymological argumentation. That balance may be one of PatRom’s most important methodological legacies.

Trier, Louvain and Oviedo

Although PatRom involved many centres, three places became particularly important to its long-term coordination.

Trier, through Dieter Kremer, was the initiating centre and remained responsible for general coordination, editorial work and much of the pan-Romance material.

Louvain-la-Neuve, represented especially by Jean Germain, became crucial for Galloromance synthesis, historical documentation, bibliography and cartography.

And Oviedo, under Ana María Cano González, gradually assumed a central coordinating and secretarial role. The Asturian centre carried out extensive historical data collection, regional synthesis and cartographic work and organised the IX PatRom Colloquium in Oviedo in 1995.

Cano had directed the Oviedo PatRom centre from 1991 and joined Kremer and Germain in the project's Bureau in 1995. The three subsequently became the principal editors through whom the published Dictionnaire historique de l’anthroponymie romane is best known. The decision to bring the project formally to an end in Oviedo is therefore deeply symbolic.

What PatRom deliberately did not attempt

One of PatRom’s strengths was also its willingness to define limits. The project did not try to explain every surname found anywhere in the Romance-speaking world. Its central concern was anthroponyms of lexical origin - names derived from elements of ordinary vocabulary that had become personal designations and, eventually, hereditary surnames. Names derived directly from geographical names or from baptismal/given names were largely outside the principal lexicographical programme. Moreover, an etymon generally had to demonstrate anthroponymic productivity across more than one major Romance domain to justify pan-Romance treatment. The project distinguished four broad areas: Iberoromania, Galloromania, Italoromania and Romanian.

The publishers themselves acknowledge that not every etymon originally envisaged could ultimately be treated. That is important when evaluating the project. PatRom is monumental, but it was never intended to be an exhaustive census of every Romance surname. It is a comparative genetic dictionary of a selected pan-Romance anthroponymic core.

From body parts to wolves, bread and family relations

The published dictionary reflects that conceptual organisation.

The first major lexical volume, II/1 (2004), examined names connected with the human being and parts of the human body.

It was followed much later by II/2 (2018), devoted to additional body-related terms and to physical and moral characteristics.

The animal world occupies Volumes III/1 (2015) and III/2 (2020). Mammals came first, followed by birds, fish, reptiles and invertebrates. Here one encounters the lexical ancestors behind names associated with wolves, bears, lions, horses, cattle, birds, insects and many other animals. The 2015 volume alone contained 28 super-lemmas corresponding to 49 individual lemmas.

Volume IV/1 (2023) moved through several apparently disparate but anthroponymically productive semantic fields: colours, food, clothing, dates and festivals. Among its etyma are words corresponding to black, white, brown and red, as well as bread, flour, meat, pepper and items of clothing.

And now comes IV/2.

De Gruyter currently lists the volume as ahead of publication in 2026. It contains 36 super-lemmas corresponding to 55 individual lemmas and treats kinship relations, social relations, selected ethnic adjectives, several action verbs, abstract concepts such as DIABOLUS and CARITAS, and three late articles.

This is the volume being presented today in Oviedo.

The closing day is itself a statement about PatRom

The programme for 5 November is remarkably appropriate.

At 16:30, Dieter Kremer speaks on:

“PatRom: lo que no se encuentra” — “PatRom: what cannot be found.”

That is an intriguing title with which to close a forty-year dictionary project. It turns attention not simply to achievements, but to gaps, limits and the methodological importance of knowing when the historical evidence does not permit an answer.

At 17:15, Jean Germain presents:

“Enseñances del proyeutu PatRom” - “Lessons from the PatRom project.”

Ana María Cano González then takes the audience back into the actual machinery of the dictionary with:

*HISPĀNIA, HISPĀNUS, HISPĀNIOLUS in the context of PatRom.

Finally, researchers who worked on PatRom in Asturias - Ramiro Javier Barcia López, Loreto Díaz Suárez, Xulio Viejo Fernández and Susana Villa Basalo - join Cano for a round table.

So the final afternoon does not merely celebrate the publication of a book. It asks what the project found, what it could not find, what researchers learned from it, and how its methods operated in practice. That seems an unusually fitting way to end PatRom.

PatRom changed more than one dictionary

Its wider impact is difficult to measure by citation counts alone. Jean Germain has described PatRom as one of the most ambitious projects in personal-name research of recent decades and, importantly, as a motor and catalyst for a field in which surname etymology had too often been vulnerable to poorly documented or amateur explanations.

Gérard Taverdet was similarly emphatic when the first main dictionary volume appeared in 2004: he regarded its publication as more than the appearance of another reference work and predicted that it would mark subsequent anthroponymic research. The reason lies in the method.

PatRom insisted that surname etymology must be based on: historical forms, regional linguistic competence, phonological plausibility, morphology, geographical distribution, modern evidence, and comparison across related languages. An attractive resemblance between a modern surname and a modern word was not enough. That principle sounds obvious today. In the late 1980s, applying it systematically across the whole Romance world was revolutionary in scale.

An entire library grew around the dictionary

The dictionary was only the visible centre of a much larger publication programme. The Patronymica Romanica series was established as the project's own scholarly publication organ for conference proceedings, monographs and onomastic source editions.

Its first volume, published in 1990, contained the proceedings of the founding Trier colloquium of December 1987. Other volumes opened major historical sources to anthroponymists: medieval population censuses from Navarre, fourteenth-century Barcelona tax lists, records from medieval Paris, and early anthroponymic documentation from Madeira.

Still others became substantial regional studies: Enzo Caffarelli's work on personal naming in Rome, Julio Viejo Fernández's study of medieval Asturian anthroponymy, Ana Isabel Boullón Agrelo's Antroponimia medieval galega, and Lidia Becker's Hispano-romanisches Namenbuch.

The series also absorbed wider onomastic work, including the multi-volume proceedings of the 1993 ICOS Congress in Trier and later books on Spanish toponymy and place-name standardisation. By 2020 the Leipzig Namenberatungsstelle counted 25 volumes in the accompanying Patronymica Romanica series. PatRom thus produced not one book but something closer to an anthroponymic research infrastructure.

Regional projects became part of the legacy

The influence spread further through publications produced by individual PatRom centres.

The Barcelona group produced the Repertori d’Antropònims Catalans. The Louvain centre was closely associated with Jules Herbillon and Jean Germain’s two-volume Dictionnaire des noms de famille en Belgique romane et dans les régions limitrophes. Regional studies appeared for Galicia, Asturias, Madeira, Rome and elsewhere.

This is another reason why it would be misleading to judge PatRom only by asking whether every originally planned dictionary lemma finally appeared. The project helped create corpora, bibliographies, doctoral research, regional dictionaries, source editions, conferences and personal networks that continued to generate scholarship independently of the central dictionary.

A project from another technological age

There is also something remarkable about PatRom from the perspective of 2026.

The project was conceived in 1987. The World Wide Web did not yet exist. There was no Google Books, no digitised national newspaper corpus, no massive searchable genealogical database, no GIS platform on a researcher's laptop, and certainly no machine-learning system capable of clustering millions of name variants. PatRom nevertheless set out to coordinate enormous quantities of historical and contemporary anthroponymic data across national borders.

Researchers had to identify sources, transcribe them, encode them, establish common abbreviations, negotiate common classifications and physically bring together national and regional expertise. The very slowness of the project reflects this historical context. Today we can query millions of names in seconds. PatRom reminds us that data availability is not the same as interpretation.

Its lasting lesson may be precisely that a historical name requires context: linguistic, chronological, geographical and documentary. Modern computational tools can accelerate the first stages of that process enormously. They do not abolish the need for the kind of philological judgement that PatRom spent four decades refining.

Not an ending, but a corpus of questions

The publisher's description of the dictionary once envisaged an additional supplementary volume that might draw together conclusions and indexes after the completion of the lexicographical series. Whether that plan will take a new form after today's official closure remains to be seen.

What is certain is that Volume IV/2 closes the principal lexicographical architecture of PatRom.

The project that began in Trier with a group of scholars wondering how the fragmented evidence of Romance surnames could possibly be brought together ends in Oviedo with a multi-volume dictionary, an extensive research series and a methodology that has entered the toolbox of Romance anthroponymy.

Forty years is an extraordinary lifespan for a collaborative humanities project. During that period institutions changed, technologies changed, generations of scholars changed, and some of PatRom’s founding and contributing figures did not live to see the final volume. Yet the project continued. Perhaps that perseverance is itself part of its scholarly message. Names survive because communities transmit them. And scholarship survives in much the same way: through transmission, revision, collaboration and the willingness of one generation to continue work begun by another.

Today in Oviedo, PatRom closes. Its influence on Romance name studies does not.


The Dictionnaire historique de l’anthroponymie romane — principal volumes

Cano González, Ana María, Jean Germain & Dieter Kremer (eds.). 2004.
Dictionnaire historique de l’anthroponymie romane. Patronymica Romanica (PatRom). Volume II/1: L’homme et les parties du corps humain (première partie). Tübingen: Max Niemeyer.

Cano González, Ana María, Jean Germain & Dieter Kremer (eds.). 2007.
Volume I/1: Introductions. Cahier des normes rédactionnelles. Morphologie. Bibliographies. Tübingen: Max Niemeyer.

Cano González, Ana María & Claudia Maas-Chauveau, with the PatRom collective. 2010.
Volume I/2: Bibliographie des sources historiques. Berlin/New York: De Gruyter.

Cano González, Ana María, Jean Germain & Dieter Kremer (eds.). 2015.
Volume III/1: Les animaux. Première partie: Les mammifères. Berlin/Boston: De Gruyter.

Cano González, Ana María, Jean Germain & Dieter Kremer (eds.). 2018.
Volume II/2: Les parties du corps humain. 2e partie: Les particularités physiques et morales. Berlin/Boston: De Gruyter.

Cano González, Ana María, Jean Germain & Dieter Kremer (eds.). 2020.
Volume III/2: Les animaux. 2e partie: Les oiseaux, poissons et invertébrés. Berlin/Boston: De Gruyter.

Cano González, Ana María, Jean Germain & Dieter Kremer (eds.). 2023.
Volume IV/1: Couleurs – Aliments et vêtements – Dates et fêtes. Berlin/Boston: De Gruyter.

Cano González, Ana María, Jean Germain & Dieter Kremer (eds.). 2026.
Volume IV/2: Les relations de parenté – les relations sociales – quelques ethniques – des verbes d’action – deux abstraits – trois articles tardifs. Berlin/Boston: De Gruyter. Ahead of publication; presented at the closing of PatRom in Oviedo, 5 November 2026.

PatRom and the books around it - selected publications

Kremer, Dieter (ed.). 1990. Dictionnaire historique des noms de famille romans. Actes du Ier Colloque, Trèves, 10–13 décembre 1987. Patronymica Romanica 1.

Bourlet, Caroline & Lucie Fossier. 1991. Paris sous Philippe-le-Bel, including the 1292 Rôle de la Taille and its personal-name index. Patronymica Romanica 2.

Cierbide Martinena, Ricardo. 1993. Censos de población de la Baja Navarra (1350–1353 y 1412). Patronymica Romanica 7.

Caffarelli, Enzo. 1996. L’onomastica personale nella città di Roma dalla fine del secolo XIX ad oggi. Patronymica Romanica 8.

Kremer, Dieter & Claudia Maas-Chauveau. 1997. Dictionnaire historique de l’anthroponymie romane (PatRom): Présentation d’un projet. Patronymica Romanica 9.

Viejo Fernández, Julio. 1998. La onomástica asturiana bajomedieval: nombres de persona y procedimientos denominativos en Asturias durante los siglos XIII al XV. Patronymica Romanica 10.

Cano González, Ana María & Susana Villa Basalo (eds.). 1998. Actas del IX Coloquio PatRom, Uviéu/Oviedo, 26–29 octubre 1995. Patronymica Romanica 11.

Boullón Agrelo, Ana Isabel. 1999. Antroponimia medieval galega (ss. VIII–XII). Patronymica Romanica 12.

Nunes, Naidea Nunes & Dieter Kremer. 1999. Antroponímia primitiva da Madeira e Repertório onomástico histórico da Madeira (séculos XV e XVI). Patronymica Romanica 13.

Kremer, Dieter, Ivo Castro & Wulf Müller (eds.). 2003. Miscelânea Patromiana: Actas do V Colóquio (Lisboa), Comunicações do VII Colóquio (Neuchâtel) e do VIII Colóquio (Bucureşti). Patronymica Romanica 20.

Hafner, Ute. 2004. Namengebung und Namenverhalten im Spanien der 70er Jahre. Patronymica Romanica 21.

Piquer Ferrer, Esperança. 2005. Censos de población del territorio de Barcelona en la década de 1360. Patronymica Romanica 22.

Becker, Lidia. 2009. Hispano-romanisches Namenbuch: Untersuchung der Personennamen vorrömischer, griechischer und lateinisch-romanischer Etymologie auf der Iberischen Halbinsel im Mittelalter (6.–12. Jahrhundert). Patronymica Romanica 23.

Gordón Peral, María Dolores (ed.). 2010. Toponimia de España: Estado actual y perspectivas de la investigación. Patronymica Romanica 24.

Gordón Peral, María Dolores (ed.). 2013. Lengua, espacio y sociedad: Investigaciones sobre normalización toponímica en España. Patronymica Romanica 25.

Further reading on the project

Germain, Jean. 2017. “Les différentes sources au cœur du projet PatRom (PATRONYMICA ROMANICA).” Nouvelle Revue d’Onomastique 59: 105–124. DOI 10.3406/onoma.2017.1877.

Taverdet, Gérard. 2004. “Autour du Patrom.” Nouvelle Revue d’Onomastique 43–44: 61–66. DOI 10.3406/onoma.2004.1464.

Wednesday, November 4, 2026

How Should Kazakhstan Name the World in a New Alphabet?

What happens to Paris, Vienna, London, Beijing or Riyadh when a country changes its script? This is not merely a question of replacing one set of letters with another. It is a question of language policy, cultural memory, phonology, international standardization and identity.

Our new article, published in Acta onomastica 67/2 (2026), addresses precisely this problem:

Dana Pashan, Kyzdarkhan Rysbergen & Eugen Schochenmaier
“Exonymization Strategies Across Scripts: A Typological Review and Research Agenda for Kazakhstan”
Acta onomastica 67/2 (2026), pp. 389–412
DOI: 10.58756/a2673416



When transliteration is not enough

Kazakhstan is moving from the Cyrillic to the Latin script. At first glance, the task may appear straightforward: develop a conversion system and transliterate existing geographical names.

But foreign place names make the problem much more complicated.

Many names currently used in Kazakh have reached the language through Russian mediation. A mechanical conversion from Cyrillic into Latin could therefore simply preserve Russian phonological patterns in a new alphabet rather than create genuinely Kazakh forms.

The article asks a fundamental question:

Should Kazakhstan simply transliterate its existing exonyms - or should it reconsider how foreign geographical names are adapted into Kazakh altogether?

That question has not yet received a systematic answer.

Five script traditions, five different solutions

To understand what Kazakhstan might do, the article first looks outward.

It compares exonymization practices across five major script environments:

  • Indic and Southeast Asian abugida scripts

  • the Chinese logographic script

  • Arabic and Hebrew

  • Cyrillic

  • and the Latin-script transitions of Turkic-speaking countries

The comparison shows that there is no universal solution.

Some systems prioritize pronunciation. Others preserve traditional forms. Some translate transparent geographical elements. Others combine phonetic and semantic strategies. In almost every case, historical convention and institutional regulation play a decisive role.

Paris is not simply “Paris”

The article illustrates how dramatically one geographical name may change across writing systems.

In Chinese, Paris becomes 巴黎 (Bālí), using characters primarily for their sound.

In Russian, Париж (Parizh) preserves a historically mediated form that likely entered through Polish rather than directly from modern French pronunciation.

In Arabic and Hebrew, foreign names must be adapted to writing systems in which vowels are represented differently.

Indic scripts face another problem: consonant clusters and word-final consonants often have to be reshaped to fit the phonotactic structure of the receiving language.

These are not minor spelling differences.

They show that every language effectively reconstructs the geographical world through its own phonology, orthography and naming traditions.

Lessons from Turkey, Azerbaijan, Uzbekistan and Turkmenistan

The most directly relevant comparisons come from other Turkic-speaking countries that have already experienced major script reforms.

The article examines Turkey, Azerbaijan, Uzbekistan and Turkmenistan.

Their experiences provide both models and warnings.

Turkey demonstrates the strength of a stable phonologically oriented alphabet, but also shows what can happen when questions of foreign-name standardization are left to develop gradually after the reform.

Azerbaijan illustrates the tension between linguistic precision, international readability and digital usability.

Uzbekistan shows the problems created by long-term coexistence of Cyrillic and Latin scripts and repeated modifications to the alphabet.

Turkmenistan demonstrates how unstable or impractical letter choices can complicate education, administration and the standardization of names.

The central lesson is striking:

script reform cannot be separated from name policy.

If exonyms are ignored until after the alphabet has been settled, inconsistent forms can become entrenched in maps, textbooks, media and digital databases for decades.

Kazakhstan has a rare opportunity

Kazakhstan’s situation is unusual.

The country has already experienced two major script changes in the twentieth century: from Arabic script to Latin in 1929 and from Latin to Cyrillic in 1940. The present reform therefore represents the third major script transition in less than a century.

But there is also an advantage.

Unlike earlier reforms elsewhere, Kazakhstan has the opportunity to address exonymization before inconsistent practices become fixed.

The article identifies several unresolved questions:

How should inherited Russian-mediated exonyms be treated?

Should foreign names be retranscribed according to Kazakh phonology?

How should Kazakh-specific sounds be represented in foreign names?

Which institution should have final authority over standardized forms?

How should maps, education, official administration and digital platforms coordinate their usage?

And can corpus linguistics and machine learning help identify actual usage and improve consistency?

The real lesson is institutional

One of the article’s most important conclusions is that successful exonymization is not primarily a matter of finding the “perfect” phonetic system.

The comparative evidence suggests that the decisive factor is institutional organization.

Countries that achieve greater consistency tend to have:

a designated authority,
explicit published guidelines,
and a mechanism for revising those standards as language use changes.

Without such structures, competing forms emerge across maps, textbooks, databases and public administration.

This is why exonymization should not be treated as a minor technical appendix to alphabet reform.

It is part of language planning.

More than a Kazakhstan case study

Although Kazakhstan provides the immediate focus, the article addresses a much wider problem.

Whenever names move between languages and scripts, they sit at the intersection of:

sound, writing, history, cultural memory, political convention and institutional authority.

An exonym is therefore never simply a converted string of letters.

It is the result of a relationship between languages.

That is why forms such as Вена, Париж, Bālí, Rūmā or their future Kazakh equivalents tell us much more than how one language writes a foreign city.

They tell us how one linguistic community incorporates the outside world into its own system of names.

And as Kazakhstan prepares for a new Latin-script future, that question is becoming increasingly urgent.


DOI: 10.58756/a2673416

The article was produced within the research project BR24993133, funded by the Science Committee of the Ministry of Education and Science of the Republic of Kazakhstan.

For researchers working on exonyms, geographical names, script reform, transliteration, language policy, Central Asia or the digital standardization of names, we hope the article provides both a comparative reference and a starting point for further discussion.