Directions in Urban Place Name Research compiled by Terhi Ainiala and Jani Vuolteenaho Kotimaisten kielten tutkimuskeskuksen verkkojulkaisuja 23 © Kotimaisten kielten tutkimuskeskus Helsinki 2011 URN:ISBN 978-952-5446-65-4 ISSN 1796-041X CONTENTS Directions in urban place name research Foreword Terhi Ainiala and Jani Vuolteenaho On ancient Luwian elements in the toponymy of the Beyşehir county, Turkey Mustafa Arslan Lingual and extra-lingual aspects of development of street names in the Czech Rebublic Milan Harvalík Street names and context Olga Mori Newly built fortified cities in New Urbanism style: what kind of names are the streets being given? Riemer Reinsma APPENDIX: Collected place names from villages in the Beyşehir county (On ancient Luwian elements in the toponymy of the Beyşehir county, Turkey) Mustafa Arslan 1 Foreword In 13−16 August 2009, The Research Institute for the Languages of Finland organized an international symposium on urban place name research in Vuosaari, Helsinki, Finland. Over 60 scholars from all over the world attended the first-of-its-kind meeting, paying witness to a considerable upsurge in the interest in the onomastic aspects of urban processes lately experienced in many humanities and social sciences. Even in more fruitful and multiple ways than we initially dared to wish as the organizers, the goals set to the symposium were fulfilled perfectly. Our sincerest thanks belong to all who present in Vuosaari during those enthusiastic days. Increasingly, urban place name scholars have begun to ask questions such as: In what ways power structures and social identities are constructed and contested through the naming of streets and other urban constructions? What is the role of place names in the formation of lived everyday meanings and cognitive perceptions of urban space? What is the contribution of specific disciplines to the study of urban toponymies, and how might interdisciplinary approaches to it be best facilitated? In the Vuosaari symposium, the keynote speakers professor Staffan Nyström (University of Uppsala) and professor Maoz Azaryahu (University of Haifa) considered these issues from the perspectives of urban name planning and the politics of toponymic commemorations, respectively. In addition, nearly 40 session papers investigated institutional procedures, commercial aspirations and day-to- day meanings related to toponymic landscapes in both historical and present-day urban settings. This Internet-compilation comprises of four contributions presented in the symposium. In the initiating paper, Olga Mori thoughtfully discusses the contextual embeddedness of street names, in both linguistic and non-linguistic senses of the term. Next, Mustafa Arslan brings to fore the elements of the ancient Luwian language in the present toponymy of Turkey and its county of Beyşehir, in particular. In the following account of the changing historical and political circumstances of naming practices in the Czech Republic, Milan Harvalik stresses the importance of approaching the task of selection of public urban names “with consideration and responsibility” – especially if past mistakes as exemplified by the Czech case are to be avoided. In the final paper, Riemer Reinsma topically points out Dutch instances of a new urban naming trend in which the orientational and descriptive functions of old names are being replaced by deliberately nostalgic onomastic evocations. Terhi Ainiala and Jani Vuolteenaho 2 Mustafa Arslan (SELÇUK university, Turkey) On ancient Luwian elements in the toponymy of the Beyşehir county, Turkey Introduction Located in central Anatolia, the surrounding areas of the city of Konya have been inhabited since Neolithic ages (Kapucu 2008). Most famously, the neolithic Çatalhöyük settlement is known around Turkey and even the whole world. Its history dates back to 7500 BC. In addition, the later presence of Hittite cultures in the region has been evidenced by archaeological and written sources (Bahar 1996). The Luwian language, a most common and longest lived language during the Hittite period, was used in the area in the second millennium BC (Alp 2005). In the classical age, the Konya region was known as Lykaonia (Bahar 1996), a name obviously derived from the word luqqa in 2000 BC (Alp 2005). For its part, the name Konya is a derivative of İkonnion, or İconium, as it is referred to in the New Testament (Acts of the Apostles, XIII-XIV). In 1069, Seljuqian raiders occupied central Anatolia and the city of Konya (Sevim 1990). After the Malazgirt Battle in 1071, Anatolia was conquered by the Seljuqs. In turn, İconium became known as Konya. The county of Beyşehir is located in the western part of the current Konya province. It was inhabited in the Neolithic ages, too, as studies regarding this period indicate the culvation of domesticated cereals and peas, as well as the keeping of cattle and sheep (Bordaz 1973). Archaeological studies conducted in Erbaba, the first known settlement in the Beyşehir area, have discovered links between Çatalhöyük and Hacılar settlements in Burdur (Mellink 1976). Hence, Beyşehir and its vicinity were in touch with central Anatolia and Mediterranean region even in the Neolithic ages. Beyşehir was an important center in the Hittite Period, too. There are two beautiful monuments still left in the area that belonged to the Hittites. While the Eflatunpınar Monument is located in Sadıkhacı town, the Fasıllar Statue, over seven meters in height, lies within a classical Roman stadium in Fasıllar village (Mellaart 1962) (Figures 1a & 1b). Inferred from these monuments and other sources, the Luwian language was commonly used in the region. 3 Figures 1a & 1b. The Eflatunpınar Monument on the left, the Fasıllar Monument on the right (Photos: Hasan Bahar, June 2007). Elements of the Luwian language surviving in toponymy The oldest Luwian elements are found in tablets from the age of Assyrian trade colonies. In the light of personal and place names mentioned in them, the first Luwians came to Anatolia before 2000 BC. While the south of Turkey was known as Luwia during the so-called Old Kingdom, the Luwian language was spoken in the current territory of Turkey until the end of the 6th century BC (Bahar 2005) . As Alp (2005) has observed, place names with -nt and -ss suffixes – found currently in Anatolia, Greece and even Italy – are originally Luwian. In addition, one can find an abundance of words abra, apra, abra and ibra, and words based on these roots, in the toponymy of the historical area of Luwian Pelasg culture, in particular. As Umar (1993) has pointed out, these words refer to different types of places associated with water, and especially to geographical features with substantial amounts of water in their vicinity. Interestingly, many currently used Turkish place names with -ibr and -ivr roots also appear to be associated with water. My argument is that these names probably are the vestiges of the ancient Luwian language. A number of examples from the Beyşehir county and other regions of Turkey, such as Ibrim (a place near Lake Beysehir), Çivril (a village near a river), İvriz (a village near a spring), or İbradı (a county near Manavgat River), thus betray an original Luwian association with water. Likewise, there exists an interesting place name in Karahisar village in Beysehir: Cebrail Çesmesi (Figure 2). While the generic term Çesme means ‘drinking fountain’ in Turkish, Cebrail is the archangel Gabriel and also a common first name for males in Turkey. Yet the root -ebr in Cebrail gives a hint that the original name for the age-old fountain and its surroundings was not connected with the Archangel Gabrial (the messenger of God who did not have a duty to do with water), or a person named after him. 4 Figure 2. Cebrail Çeşmesi in Karahisar (Photo: Mustafa Arslan, May 2008). Another good example of a drinking fountain is located in the neighbouring city of Aksehir. Its name is İbre Çeşmesi ‘İbre drinking fountain’ (Figure 3). İbre means ‘pin shaped thing’ in Turkish. Yet this meaning and the feature in question appear to have no relationship whatsoever. As I interpret it, Turkish people named the above two drinking fountains after the (phonetic) model the Luwian people had done before them. However, this history has not attracted scholarly attention so far – not the least because ibre also has an established Turkish meaning (while nobody thinks about its connection with the ancient Luwian language). Figure 3. İbre Çeşmesi in Akşehir (Photo: Mustafa Arslan, August 2008). Further, if one looks at the photographs of Çivril, Çivreller, Çivriller and İbrim (figures 4, 5, 6 and 7), it is easy to see these geographical structures matching the definitions of abra, apra, ebra, ibra. 5 In each case, there is a stream or small river flowing in a narrow bed. Likely, all these names are the relics of Luwian language, renamed during the Turkish presence in Anatolia after the 13th century. Figure 4. Çivril in Beyşehir (Photo: Mustafa Arslan, May 2008). Figure 5. Çivreller in Beyşehir (Photo: Mustafa Arslan, May 2008). 6 Figure 6. Çivriller in Beyşehir (Photo: Mustafa Arslan, May 2008). Figure 7. İbrim in Beyşehir (Photo: Mustafa Arslan, May 008). Towards an historical understanding of the toponymy of the Beyşehir county While the purpose of this article is not to present any definite analysis of ancient Luwian elements in the place names of Beyşehir, it is worthwhile to refer to a recent inventory of its toponymy. In the Beyşehir county, there are 8 towns and 36 villages (Alperen 2001; see also the headings in Appendix 1). In them, altogether 2 759 place names were collected for mainly documentary purposes, and without prior intention to trace Luwian elements in currently used vernacular toponymy. However, the collected material included several clues to the existence of such historically borrowed elements from this ‘dead’ ancient language. In this respect, the case of Beyşehir shows how place names are heritages from our ancestors and previous cultures even though current speakers are not necessarily aware of these connections.