Toponymic Attachment: When Place Names Hold Memory and Identity
There is an interesting theory in toponomastics (the study of place names) worth discussing: toponymic attachment. The theory was first formulated by Laura Kostanski in 2009, during her research on the contestation over name changes for several places in the Grampians (Gariwerd) National Park area in Victoria, Australia.
The main premise of this theory is that there is a bond between humans and place names. We know that every place has a name. Something can only be said to be a place if it has a name. We utter place names without much thought: Padang, Bukittinggi, Malioboro, Borobudur, or Lake Toba. On the surface, these names may merely be location markers on a map or addresses in a navigation system. Yet, a place name is actually far more complex than just a marker. It stores history, wraps up stories, presents memories, shapes identity, and can even trigger debate when it is about to be changed.
Essentially, places are named by humans, for human interests, and to make things easier for humans. Through a name, humans recognise, differentiate, remember, and communicate a place to others. However, because names are born from humans and used continuously by humans, a relationship gradually forms that far exceeds its practical function. A name is no longer just a series of sounds or an arrangement of letters, but a part of the life experience of the community that uses it.
The relationship formed between humans and place names can give rise to positive or negative associations. Kostanski (2009) defined it as ‘a positive or negative association that individuals and groups make with real or imagined toponyms’. In other words, what is attached to is not the place itself, but the name that represents that place. The association that emerges depends on a person’s knowledge and experience of a place. One thing must be firmly distinguished: attachment to the place and attachment to the place name.
Toponymic attachment is the attachment to the place name. It differs from place attachment, which was earlier developed by Altman and Low (1992). Place attachment explains the physical and psychological relationship of humans with the place itself. Conversely, toponymic attachment focuses on the human relationship with the place name as a symbol of that place. Even so, the theory of toponymic attachment is built on the conceptual foundation of place attachment. If place attachment questions, ‘Why does someone feel they have a relationship with a location?’, toponymic attachment questions, ‘Why can someone have an equally strong relationship with the name of that location?’
The difference appears slight, but it is actually very fundamental. A person can have an emotional bond with the name of their village even though the village has physically changed. Conversely, a person can continue to love a place but object when its name is changed. In such a situation, what is being defended is no longer the landscape, but the symbol that has been a vessel for collective memory and identity.
In toponomastic studies, toponymic attachment emerges as a consequence of the meaningfulness of a space. A space turns into a place when humans give it a name that simultaneously produces meaning. The name becomes a marker that distinguishes a space that was originally abstract into a place that has an identity. Through the name, humans also build social and cultural relationships with that place.
Place names actually communicate many things, such as worldviews, collective memory, and the cultural norms of the community that uses them. A name becomes a window to understanding how a society interprets their living environment. It is not surprising that two community groups can view one place name in very different ways because their historical and social experiences are also different.
According to Kostanski (2009), toponymic attachment is formed by two main components: toponymic identity and toponymic dependence. Both explain the mechanism by which a name can have important meaning for a community.
Toponymic identity relates to the emotional relationship between the community and the place name. This bond is born from history, culture, collective memory, a sense of togetherness (collectivity), life experiences, and various events that have occurred in that place. The place name becomes part of individual and community identity. When a name is mentioned, what emerges is not just a geographical location, but also memories, pride, sadness, a sense of belonging, and various other relevant personal associations.
Toponymic dependence, meanwhile, is more functional in nature. Place names become tools that make it easier for humans to carry out various activities, from giving directions and identifying locations to promoting tourism and building the image of an area. In this context, a name has practical value that affects the social and economic life of the community. A widely recognised name can increase the attractiveness of a region, while a name change can incur significant social and administrative costs. However, there are also cases where the community inhabiting a place changes its name to accumulate greater capital.
Both components show that place names not only build identity but also create dependence. The community does not merely use a place name; it lives with it.
Toponymic attachment does not question where a name comes from or who first named it.