• Korean Journal of Heritage: History & Science
• /
• v.54 no.2
• /
• pp.56-77
• /
• 2021

Toponyms are located not only in the site between human cognition and the physical environment but also in the name of cultural heritage. Accordingly, certain identities and ideologies for which human groups and community have sought, their holistic way of life, and all cultural symbols and cosmos, such as sense of place and genius loci, are included in their toponymic heritage. Denoting, symbolizing, integrating and representing the culture and nature belong to the human community. Based on these perceptions of the toponymic heritage, the aims of this article are to examine the values of a toponym as an Intangible Cultural Heritage (ICH) and to suggest the application methods using the toponymic functions for governing of tangible cultural heritage. This article discusses the multivocality, diversity, and non-representational theory of landscape phenomenology intrinsic to the terms of culture and cultural landscape and then the domestic and international issues on the toponymic heritage in the first chapter on the values of toponym as a part of the ICH. In particular, it analyzes the preceding research in the field of toponymy, as well as the Resolutions of UNCSGN and UNGEGN on "Geographical names as culture, heritage and identity" including indigenous, minority and regional language names since 1992, which is related to the UNESCO's Convention for the Safeguarding of the Intangible Cultural Heritage in 2003. Based on this, I suggest that the traits of toponymic cultural heritage and its five standards of selection, i.e., cultural traits of toponyms, historical traits, spatial traits, socio-economic traits and linguistic traits with some examples. In the second chapter discussing on the methods using the toponymic denoting functions for creating and governing of the tangible cultural heritage, it is underlined to maintain the systematic and unified principle regarding the ways of naming in the official cultural heritage and its governing. Lastly, I introduce the possible ways of establishing a conservative area of the historical and cultural environment while using the toponymic scale and multi-toponymic territory. Considering both the spatial and participatory turns in the field of heritage studies in addition to the multiple viewpoints and sense of cultural heritage, I suggest that the conservative area for the cultural heritage and the historical and cultural environment should be set up through choosing the certain toponymic scale and multi-toponymic territory.