Coastal toponyms of Iran: Classification of some placenames from Bushehr and Gilan based on Australian National Placenames Survey typology
Hamideh Poshtvan Mahnaz Talebi-Dastenaei Talebi-Dastenaei
While the domain of toponymy has great research potential, it has so far gained little attention in Iran. The present paper is a typological study on a sample group of toponyms from two different provinces of Gilan (a northern coastal province next to the Caspian Sea) and Bushehr (a southern coastal province beside the Persian Gulf) within the framework of the Australian National Placenames Survey typology proposed by Tent and Blair. The two regions in question are similar in terms of adjacency to a major water body but different in language, culture, and geography. To determine whether the Australian proposed typology is applicable to Iranian toponyms, we collected 60 coastal placenames from Gilan and Bushehr and classified them according to their Specifics and Generics based on Tent and Blair’s (2009, 2011) typology. Further, we compared placenaming motivations and processes in the two regions. The results show that although the Iranian placenames differ from the Australian ones in terms of their structure, they fit well into the typology. Water-related features are among the top motivations for local namers in both Gilan and Bushehr. Nevertheless, Bushehr namers are more motivated by natural features while those from Gilan, in most cases, are non-naturally motivated.
/logos/favicon/apple-touch-icon-57x57.png?v=PYn8YGgX3y
John Benjamins Publishing Catalog
Coastal toponyms of Iran

Classification of some placenames from Bushehr and Gilan based on Australian National Placenames Survey typology

While the domain of toponymy has great research potential, it has so far gained little attention in Iran. The present paper is a typological study on a sample group of toponyms from two different provinces of Gilan (a northern coastal province next to the Caspian Sea) and Bushehr (a southern coastal province beside the Persian Gulf) within the framework of the Australian National Placenames Survey typology proposed by Tent and Blair. The two regions in question are similar in terms of adjacency to a major water body but different in language, culture, and geography. To determine whether the Australian proposed typology is applicable to Iranian toponyms, we collected 60 coastal placenames from Gilan and Bushehr and classified them according to their Specifics and Generics based on Tent and Blair’s (2009, 2011) typology. Further, we compared placenaming motivations and processes in the two regions. The results show that although the Iranian placenames differ from the Australian ones in terms of their structure, they fit well into the typology. Water-related features are among the top motivations for local namers in both Gilan and Bushehr. Nevertheless, Bushehr namers are more motivated by natural features while those from Gilan, in most cases, are non-naturally motivated.

Article outline

1.Introduction

2.Methodology

Linguistic diversity

Linguistic diversity

3.ANPS typology

4.Presentation and classification of toponyms in Gilan vs. Bushehr

4.1Distribution of specifics in Gilan vs. Bushehr

4.2Analytical perspective

4.3Distribution of specifics in Gilan vs. Bushehr

4.4Specific-generic patterns

5.Conclusion

Note

References

Published online: 5 July 2022

https://doi.org/10.1075/alal.22002.pos

References (16)

References

Albuquerque, Davi, Talebi-Dastenaei, Mahnaz, & Poshtvan, Hamideh. (2018). Toponyms in ecolinguistics. Contrasts in Different Strategies of Naming Places in Iran and Brazil. Revista de Letras, 37 1, 148–161.

Bazin, Marcel. (2012). Gīlān I. Geography and Ethnography. In E. Yarshater (Ed), Encyclopædia Iranica 5 (6) (pp. 617–625). New York: Center for Iranian studies, Columbia University, [URL]

Blair, David, & Tent, Jan. (2015). Feature terms for Australian toponymy. ANPS technical paper. Australian National Placenames Survey, 3 1.

Dadras, Hasan, & Koochakizadeh, Faramarz. (2014). Naming and Apellation of Gilan’s Settlements. Blour publication.

Hakala, Ulla, Sjöblom, Paula, Kantola, Satu-Paivi. (2015). Toponyms as carriers of heritage: implications for place branding. Journal of Product, & Management, Brand. 24 (3), 263–275.

ISC (Iran Statistics Center). (2018). Public Census of Population and Settlement 2016. Tehran: Ministry of the Interior, Iran Statistics Center. Available at: [URL]

Lauder, Multamia. (2013). The role of place names in preserving cultural heritage in Indonesia. Paper, Place Names Preserving Cultural Heritage, Brunei, 13–14 1, 1–19.

Lecoq, Pierre. (1989). Le dialectes du centre de l’Iran. In R. Schmitt (Ed.), Compendium Linguarum Iranicarum (pp. 313–326). Reichert.

Nemati, Fatemeh., Ghasemi, Shakiba., & Anonby, Erik. (2017). Bushehr Province language distribution data. In E. Anonby & M. e. a. Taheri-Ardali (Eds.), Atlas of the Languages of Iran (ALI). Ottawa: Geomatics and Cartographic Research Centre, Carleton University. Available at: [URL]

Poshtvan, Hamideh., Anonby, Erik. (under publication). Gilān Province language distribution data. In: Atlas of the languages of Iran, by Erik Anonby, Mortaza Taheri-Ardali, et al. Ottawa: GCRC (Geomatics and Cartographic Research Centre), Carleton University.

Stilo, Donald. (2018). The Caspian region and south Azerbaijan: Caspian and Tatic. The Languages and Linguistics of Western Asia, An areal perspective. De Gruyter Mouton, 659–824.

Tent, Jan. (2015). Approaches to research in toponymy. Names, 63(2), 65–74.

Tent, Jan., & Blair, David. (2009). Motivations for naming: A toponymic typology. ANPS Technical paper, South Turramurra, NSW: Australian National Placenames Survey, 21. [URL]

Tent, Jan., & Blair, David. (2011). Motivations for naming: The development of a toponymic typology for Australian placenames. Names, 59(2), 67–89.

Tent, Jan., & Slatyer, Helen. (2009). Naming places on the ‘Southland’: European place-naming practices from 1606 to 1803. Australian Historical Studies, 40(1), 5–31.