When a place is a cultural heritage site

That makes sense, because place names or geographical locations are associated with so much emotion, knowledge, and tradition of many generations of people in a particular locality.

Try putting yourself in the shoes of someone whose beloved local name suddenly disappears, no longer spoken, and you'll easily understand. When two localities merge into one, the need arises to name the merged area: what name to use, whether to keep one name and discard the other, or combine the two names, as in the case of the two communes of Quỳnh Đôi and Quỳnh Hậu in Nghệ An province – should it be Quỳnh Đôi or Quỳnh Hậu, or simply "Đôi Hậu"? It's certainly a headache and inevitably leads to debate.

khi dia danh la di san van hoa hinh anh 1 — Quynh Doi Village

First, let me state clearly that the planning of administrative units, and the accompanying naming of these units, has traditionally been the prerogative of the governing authority. Unlike popular toponyms or folk names, which are given by the public, these are official toponyms, decided by the state, and only one name can be given to each administrative entity.

During the feudal era, the name of an administrative entity was determined (embedded) by the feudal government, naturally based on calculations by Confucian scholars, using what they considered the optimal selection method. The science of toponymy worldwide has the concept of naming rights, and in this case, it is considered to belong to state power. However, in a democratic system, citizens also have the right to participate in the naming process, which is something we are currently promoting.

The issue of choosing a suitable place name for a new administrative unit is indeed difficult. Objectively, the problem itself is not simple. Subjectively, the field of toponymy in our country is still in its infancy and fundamentally disconnected from the world , as some researchers in toponymy and linguistics have acknowledged. If the science of toponymy develops, it will greatly assist the government and the people in determining the optimal place name. For example, in the debate about the place names Quỳnh Đôi and Quỳnh Hậu mentioned above, there is no sign of any researchers in toponymy.

I am reminded of the opinion of Bahram Amirahmadian, Associate Professor of World Studies, University of Tehran (Iran), Head of the Historical Place Names Group, Iranian Committee for Standardization of Place Names (ICSGN), National Cartographic Center of Iran (NCC), at the 25th session of the United Nations Expert Group on Geographical Names (UNGEGN) held in Nairobi (Kenya) in 1997.

He argued that place names that existed in the past belong to history (unlike newly created place names in the contemporary era). He wrote: “Geographical names, especially those based on historical foundations, are very important in the history and culture of any nation… They belong to the history and civilization of that nation. Therefore, these place names should be preserved as part of history and cultural heritage.” Bahram even advised against attempting to change place names without fully understanding their historical significance.

Of course, not every place name is a cultural heritage site. The older the place name, the more valuable it is because it is associated with generations, changes in life, and historical events. It would be difficult to imagine what would happen if important place names in the country suddenly disappeared. Once we identify a place name as a cultural heritage site, we must treat it as we would other cultural heritage sites. Planning administrative units, as well as defining place names for them, is a very important matter. I believe that relevant agencies should hold seminars with the participation of various scientific disciplines on this issue to help not only today but also in the future.

In the long term, it is also necessary to involve researchers of place names in the role of consultants, evaluators, and reviewers when there is a need for proper naming.

Source