[ANSTHRLD] places vs. place names (was: Place name help - High Medieval Scotland)

[Coblaith Muimnech]

Dreda wrote:
> I am looking for documentation on the name of Dumbarton, Scotland,  
> during the High Middle Ages (specifically 900-1054. . .). . .

Crandall replied with some quotes from the Encyclopædia Britannica  
Online about the history of Dumbarton and Strathclyde.

Then Charles of Portsmouth commented:
> http://www.archive.org/stream/scotlandunderher01robeuoft#page/38/ 
> mode/2up/search/Dumbarton
>
> here is a link where Dumbarton  AKA Dunbartonshire is mentioned  
> during the time frame you are looking for.

In order to construct a period toponymic, you need a period *place  
name*.  Evidence that a place existed (or even was inhabited) in  
period is not evidence that it was called then what it is called  
now.  The names of places (like other names--and other words,  
generally) change over time.  Sometimes they change dramatically from  
one year to the next.  (Istanbul was Constantinople.)  Sometimes they  
change at the same pace as the rest of a language.  But that still  
adds up to a lot of difference over the course of a millennium.   
(Heck, Breitreichfeld, in Derbyshire, became "Brushfield" in half  
that time <http://freepages.books.rootsweb.ancestry.com/~marchington/ 
zz-descriptive-cat-vils.htm>.)  Encyclopedias and history texts are  
no more useful for the purpose of establishing period forms of a  
place name than for establishing period forms of the names of  
individuals, and for the same reasons.


Coblaith Muimnech
<mailto:Coblaith at sbcglobal.net>
<http://coblaith.net>