Skip navigation


You are in:  Home » Publications » Bulletins » Bulletin 138

A composite gazetteer of Antarctica

Roberto Cervellati and Chiara Ramorino

Progetto Antartide, ENEA, CR – Casaccia,
Post Office Box 2400, 00100 Roma AD, Italy

Jörn Sievers

Bundesamt für Kartographie und Geodäsie, Richard-Strauss-Allee 11,
Frankfurt am Main, D-60598 Germany

Janet Thomson

British Antarctic Survey, High Cross, Madingley Road,
Cambridge CB3 OET

Drew Clarke

Department of Industry, Science and Resources, GPO Box 9839,
Canberra, ACT 2601, Australia

Received March 2000

ABSTRACT. Publication of the Composite gazetteer of Antarctica by the SCAR Working Group on Geodesy and Geographic Information is a major milestone in the evolution of Antarctic toponymy. It has taken six years to produce, and contains 21,552 names representing 16,563 geographic features, sourced from 20 national Antarctic gazetteers and one international agency. The Gazetteer has been designed to avoid any value judgement regarding precedence or form of the various place-names. The contents of the two volumes are described, and the results of an analysis of the names data are presented. It is noted that 476 geographic features have two or more completely different names, whereas 3377 features have multiple names due to translation or transliteration. The limited progress towards development of toponymic guidelines for the Antarctic is described, along with plans for further development of the Gazetteer. An immediate benefit of the publication is that national Antarctic geographic names authorities will now be able to avoid approving new names for geographic features that are already named.

Contents
Introduction 278
Initial development 278
The SCAR Composite gazetteer of Antarctica 279
Toponymic analysis 281
Guidelines 282
Future development 284
Conclusion 284
Acknowledgements 284
References 284

Introduction

Place-names play an important role in Antarctica, due in part to their historical and political relevance. The manner of Antarctic discovery and mapping, and the lack of a single geographic names authority under the Antarctic Treaty System, have resulted in numerous cases of multiple names for single features, and inconsistent practices in the recognition and use of existing names. The operational and scientific consequences are evident, with the potential for fatal misunderstandings in position reports by sea, air, and land travellers, and ambiguity in describing the location of scientific observations. The fact that place-names are intrinsically related to territorial claims only makes a solution to the problem more difficult.

The Scientific Committee on Antarctic Research (SCAR) initiates, promotes, and coordinates a wide range of scientific research programmes, many of which involve significant international collaboration. The SCAR Working Group on Geodesy and Geographic Information (WG-GGI) has an active programme to develop integrated Antarctic geographic-information products, including topographic maps, digital-mapping data, and associated standards and guidelines. The WG-GGI comprises members from 23 countries involved in Antarctic mapping, with observers from four international bodies. At the XXII SCAR meeting in Bariloche, Argentina, in 1992, WG-GGI initiated a new programme designed to bring some order to Antarctic toponymy. The specific goals were to develop two new products for the Antarctic community: a compilation of all existing Antarctic place-names, and guidelines for creating new place-names and for the use of existing names.

The underpinning objective was to promote adoption of the general toponymic principle of 'one name per feature' for Antarctic geographic names.

This paper reports the successful completion of the first goal, with the publication of the first edition of the SCAR Composite gazetteer of Antarctica (SCAR 1998). Some comments are also made on progress with the second (and more difficult) goal.

Initial development

The history of the development of the Gazetteer is described in some detail in the preface to the publication, and is summarized here. The work was led by the Italian member of WG-GGI, who assembled a team of technical experts, supported by the German and United Kingdom members.

All WG-GGI members were first asked to contribute their existing national Antarctic gazetteers in digital form. This process was facilitated by an earlier Australian project that had collected a number of national Antarctic gazetteers and created computer listings. The Italian team assessed these initial contributions and designed a format that could accommodate the various gazetteers into a single database. A first draft of the Composite gazetteer of Antarctica was presented to WG-GGI at XXIII SCAR in Rome, Italy, in 1994. The Italian team had identified numerous inconsistencies, ambiguities, misspellings, and errors in the initial data, and WG-GGI members were asked to review these and to provide any necessary corrections. Most importantly, members were asked to validate and authorise the data in the Gazetteer through their respective national Antarctic naming authorities. This work proceeded from 1994 to 1996, with updates, corrections, and several new national contributions.

At XXIV SCAR in Cambridge, United Kingdom, in 1996, a second draft of the Gazetteer was tabled and discussed, and further requests for clarification and authorization were made. The WG-GGI agreed that the next step was to publish a first edition of the Gazetteer, using the best available data, by XXV SCAR in Concepción, Chile, in 1998. The format for the publication was agreed in 1997, and a final call was made for contributions and validation. The first edition of the Gazetteer was printed in March 1998 and contained all data received to 30 November 1997. Although all data were sourced from official national Antarctic naming authorities, less than half of the national data-sets in the Gazetteer were formally validated by those authorities. The sources and validation status are described in an annex to the Gazetteer. It is important to emphasize that the Gazetteer contains data as presented to the WG-GGI. The compilers did not make any changes, corrections, or editorial judgements to the toponymic data without authorization from the source. The format of the Gazetteer was designed to avoid any implication of priority or preference for particular names or forms of names, using alphabetical order for all sorting.

The SCAR Composite gazetteer of Antarctica

The first edition of the Gazetteer contains 32,955 entries, sourced from 20 national Antarctic gazetteers and one international body (Table 1). The international source was the General Bathymetric Chart of the Ocean (GEBCO) Gazetteer, which was used for undersea features south of 60°S. An on-line version of the Gazetteer, including the preface and annexes, is available at the following web site: http://www.pnra.it/SCAR_GAZE

Volume 1

Volume 1 of the Gazetteer contains an alphabetical list of all the names from the 21 source gazetteers. This comprises 21,552 different names, derived from the 32,955 names found in the source gazetteers and corresponding to 16,563 geographic features. The numeric difference arises from identical names from different sources being listed only once. For each name, Volume 1 contains the following basic information: country, class, and reference number. A typical Volume 1 entry is:

Amundsen Bay (Aus, Rus, Usa) [3] 316

indicating that the name 'Amundsen Bay' appeared identically in the Australian, Russian, and American national Antarctic gazetteers, that it refers to a class 3 feature (coves and harbours), and that it is listed as feature number 316 in Volume 2. In effect, Volume 1 is an alphabetical index to Volume 2, allowing multiple names to point to a single geographic feature.

Table 1. Sources and numbers of place-names in the first edition of the Composite gazetteer of Antarctica. The column 'Common' gives the total number of features that have been named by at least one other country.

Country/ Code Number of Common
Programme place-names
Argentina ARG 2528 1971
Australia AUS 2356 1957
Belgium BEL 117 113
Bulgaria BGR 50 24
Chile CHL 1454 1272
China CHN 283 -
France FRA 204 84
Germany DEU 382 122
India IND 21 1
Italy ITA 25 1
Japan JPN 314 147
New Zealand NZL 2005 1766
Norway NOR 1588 1014
Poland POL 263 31
Russia RUS 4806 3748
South Africa ZAF 2 -
Spain ESP 30 4
United Kingdom GBR 4574 4461
Uruguay URY 5 -
United States USA 11775 9628
GEBCO GBC 173 13
TOTAL 32955

Synonyms

In addition to approved names, several source gazetteers listed synonyms for a given geographic feature, commonly labelled as 'variants' in the published gazetteers. Such synonyms were described as obsolete (historical) names, misspellings, and incorrect applications, but they also included linguistically correct forms of geographic names in a foreign language. By including synonyms for a given feature, a national gazetteer records the existence of names different from its officially recognized name. A synonym in one country's gazetteer can be the approved name in the gazetteer of another country and vice versa.

The Gazetteer represents a composite list of approved names taken from all the current national gazetteers available. Synonyms in individual gazetteers have been excluded, since all the names in current usage will exist as approved names in other gazetteers. However, it is recognized that the lack of historical names of synonyms will limit the value of this first edition of the Gazetteer when researching scientific literature of a historical nature or that written in different languages. The inclusion of such synonyms may be considered for future editions.

Geographic coverage

The geographic coverage of the Gazetteer is the area south of latitude 60°S. Although the interests of SCAR extend north of 60°S and encompass all the areas inside the Antarctic convergence and several sub-Antarctic islands, the geographic features north of 60°S either fall within the sovereignty of a particular country or, in the case of oceanic features, are named according to the rules of international bodies. Thus the WG-GGI agreed that the Gazetteer should be limited to the area south of 60°S, where there is no single recognized naming authority. Accordingly, those records or sections of source gazetteers that refer to areas outside the agreed limit have not been included in the Gazetteer publication or database.

Scientific stations

There are different national points of view about whether or not Antarctic scientific stations should be included in a list of geographic place-names. Some national gazetteers include Antarctic stations and some do not. A man-made structure is not a natural geographic feature, but the location of a station is an important piece of geographic information. Because the Gazetteer is a compilation from the national gazetteers as supplied, no station has been deleted nor has there been any attempt to obtain a complete list of stations. As a consequence, some, but not all, Antarctic stations are listed in the Gazetteer. However, a complete list of stations occupied all year is regularly published in SCAR Bulletin.

Word order for entries

Entries are arranged alphabetically, with the specific part first. For example, Cape Dalton is listed as 'Dalton, Cape,' Mount Dalton as 'Dalton, Mount,' and Dalton Iceberg Tongue as 'Dalton Iceberg Tongue.'

Transliteration

A characteristic that makes the Gazetteer a rather unusual publication (although not unique) is the diverse origin of the data, derived from different languages in Roman and non-Roman alphabets. The transliteration of entries into the Roman alphabet is as provided by the source country.

Diacritical marks

All diacritical marks in Volume 1 of the Gazetteer are identical to those present in the original gazetteers. Due to the variety of alphabets used in the source gazetteers, the publication of the Gazetteer required the use of different fonts in order to find all the necessary diacritical marks. This characteristic is not yet able to be maintained in the on-line database.

Country

The 'country' attribute refers to the nation publishing the gazetteer from which the geographic name has been extracted. The three-letter country ISO code after the name indicates the source. Two or more ISO codes after a name indicate that more than one country has the same name in their national Antarctic gazetteers.

Class

The 'class' attribute refers to the type of geographic feature to which a name has been applied. The use of classes, or the classification of names, facilitates the grouping of names around a specific feature. None of the source national Antarctic gazetteers included any reference to classes. The class given in the Gazetteer was therefore derived from the generic part of the name by the compilers, or, more rarely, from maps, charts, or additional information supplied in reply to a specific query. Users of the Gazetteer should not attach any great significance to the class attributes, other than for their practical value in interpreting and arranging the Gazetteer data. It must also be recognized that the boundary between one class and another is somewhat arbitrary. A full description of the feature classes is provided in an annex to the Gazetteer.

Reference number

Each name appearing in Volume 1 has been given an arbitrary, but fixed, reference number or unique feature identifier. However, the reference number is unique to a specific geographic feature rather than to the name itself. Thus all the names in Volume 1 associated with the same reference number refer to the same feature.

Generic terms

The name of a geographic feature is usually made up of a generic part and a specific part. For example, the generic part or generic term of 'Terra Nova Bay' is 'Bay' and the specific part is 'Terra Nova.' Although the generic term provides a good indication of the type of feature being named, it must be remembered that data in the Gazetteer originated from 21 sources, in 12 different languages. A scientist working with the Gazetteer must be familiar with the different terms and their equivalents in other languages. All generic terms that have been incorporated into the Gazetteer from the source gazetteers are listed in an annex.

Volume 2

Volume 2 of the Gazetteer contains a list of 16,563 records, arranged numerically by their reference numbers. Each record corresponds to a geographic feature recognized by at least one of the 21 sources. For each feature there is a list of all names given by the different countries, their ISO country code, and the geographic coordinates assigned to that feature by each country. When two or more countries adopted the same name, two or more entries are associated with the reference number. The coordinates of each entry may however be different. A typical Volume 2 entry is:

Ref. No. Source Name Latitude Longitude
158 (AUS): Albov Rocks 66° 28,0'S 126° 45,0'E
(RUS): Al'bova, skala 66° 28'S 126° 47'E
(USA): Al'bov Rocks 66° 28'S 126° 45'E

Names associated with each feature are listed alphabetically by ISO code, with no precedence or priority implied.

ARG AUS BEL BGR CHL CHN FRA DEU IND ITA JPN NZL NOR POL RUS ZAF ESP GBR URY USA GBC
521 - 67 - 1036 - - 26 - - - 2 - 5 689 - 1 1922 - 1916 1 ARG
396 - - - - - 2 - - 1 35 - 1 1154 - - - - 1764 5 AUS
4 - 66 - - 2 - - 2 - 3 - 19 - - 69 - 111 - BEL
26 - - - - - - - - - - - - - 24 - 3 - BGR
174 - - 23 - - - 2 12 3 460 - - 1208 - 1222 1 CHL
283 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - CHN
120 - - - - - - - 47 - - - - 79 - FRA
260 - - - - 72 1 75 - - 34 - 107 - DEU
20 - - - - - 1 - - - - 1 - IND
24 - 1 - - - - - - - - - ITA
167 - 31 - 44 - - - - 128 - JPN
238 1 - 524 - - 3 - 1756 2 NZL
574 - 416 - - 3 - 933 2 NOR
232 3 - - 24 - 25 - POL
1058 - - 1017 - 3464 9 RUS
2 - - - - - ZAF
26 3 - 2 - ESP
112 - 4417 2 GBR
5 - - URY
2146 1 USA
160 GBC

Geographic coordinates

Coordinates were generally supplied with a resolution of one minute of arc, corresponding to 1852 metres in latitude and, at 70°S, 633 metres in longitude. All higher resolution source coordinates were reproduced in the Gazetteer as decimal minutes. The accuracy of the coordinates will vary according to the accuracy of the original map, chart, or survey, and according to the point or areal nature of the feature itself. There are numerous examples of different source gazetteers having identical names and different coordinates, although it is apparent that the entries refer to the same geographic feature.

Cross referencing

Volumes 1 and 2 complement each other. Volume 1 lists all the names alphabetically and provides the reference number that links a given name to the relevant feature. In Volume 2, the reference numbers are listed in ascending numerical order, and all names linked to a given reference number (a single feature) occur together in alphabetical order, providing a rapid indication of where multiple naming of features has occurred and where a country appears to have formally recognized a name from another source.

 

Toponymic analysis

The first edition of the Gazetteer database has been analyzed to highlight the current characteristics of Antarctic toponymy.

Table 2 indicates the relationship between source gazetteers. Entries indicate the number of names that are common to any two countries, while the shaded entries indicate the number of features named by that country only. Tables 1 and 2 illustrate the extent to which some countries are active in recognizing approved names from other sources and incorporating them into their national Antarctic gazetteer, whereas others have chosen to restrict their gazetteers to their own sources. Minor differences in totals between Table 1 and Table 2 are due to a number of unresolved repeated entries in particular source gazetteers.

Table 3 describes eight other toponymic characteristics of the Gazetteer database, while Table 4 provides examples of these. Two general points should be noted in this analysis. First, all Argentine and Chilean generic terms are written in Spanish but the Argentine begin with a lower case while all Chilean ones begin with an uppercase. Moreover, a comma is always used for separating the specific name from the generic term. This means that every time a Chilean or an Argentine name is present with a name from another source, the corresponding feature has been placed in row four of Table 3. Second, a single feature does not always have the same generic term. Both Mount and Mountain can often be found as generic terms for the same feature, as can Island(s) and Rock(s), Peak and Mount, Cerro and Hill, and so on. While such differences may not be important in many situations, they may have led to an error in the definition of a unique feature.

Tables 3 and 4 highlight the extent to which unique Antarctic features have multiple names. In summary, for the 16,563 features listed in Volume 2 of the first edition of the Gazetteer, there are:

The potential for at best confusion, and at worst disaster, is obvious.

Table 3. Some toponymic characteristics of Antarctic geographic features.

Description Number Examples in Table 4
1. Features named in exactly the same way by differentcountries (both specific name and generic term). Of these, only 3171 also have identical coordinates. 5936
2. Features having names differing only by use of upper and lower case. This includes 16 features named only by CHL and ARG that differ only by the initial letter of the generic term. 67 A
3. Features similarly named by different countries. This class includes: 531

  • names with words exchanged;

    		•  B

  • specific names that include the first name added before the family name of a person;

    		•  C

  • specific names differently transliterated (includes 92 variations in Russian names due to genitive cases);

    		•  D

  • names differing by only one letter and probably due to a misprint.

    		•
    4. Features with the same specific name and having the generic part translated, such as: Alectoria, islote (CHL), Alectoria, Islote (ARG), and Alectoria Island (GBR, USA). This includes all cases where the generic part in English has been added to a name that already contains the generic, such as Vorrtind (NOR) and Vorrtind Peak (USA) ('tind' equivalent to 'peak'). 2605
    5. Features having one name that completely differs from the others.This also includes translations (22 cases), names written differently (20 cases), and a number of uncertain cases. 452 E
    6. Features having three completely different names. 24 F
    7. Features with specific descriptive names translated into differentlanguages. This includes names written differently (17 cases). 299 G
    8. Miscellaneous. This includes different forms and translations of personal names. H

    Guidelines

    During development of the Gazetteer, the WG-GGI also addressed the goal of developing guidelines for creating new place-names and for the use of existing names, with the German member leading the task. The initial achievement was production of a working document entitled 'Proposed international toponymic guidelines for the Antarctic' (SCAR 1994), which was tabled at the WG-GGI meeting at XXIII SCAR in Rome in 1994. This document proposed a number of principles and procedures for the creation of new place-names, consistent with resolutions of the United Nations Group of Experts on Geographical Names, and similar to a number of existing national Antarctic guidelines. The underlying principle was 'one feature – one name.'

    Recognizing the obvious sensitivities of any move to standardize the treatment of Antarctic place-names, the WG-GGI made the following recommendation to XXIII SCAR (SCAR 1995: 4):

    Recognising the importance of unambiguous naming of geographic features, for both scientific and operational purposes;

     Noting that many Antarctic features now have multiple names, and that there are no international procedures in place to limit future multiple naming, or to guide in the selection of which names should be used on a map or in a scientific or logistical publication; the SCAR Working Group on Geodesy and Geographic Information:

    Recommends that SCAR:

    considers the contents of its Proposed International Toponymic Guidelines for the Antarctic; and

    considers the process for their review, adoption and implementation.

    The WG-GGI does not propose any further action on this component of its Place Names program, pending advice from SCAR.

     

    No formal advice was received.

    The 1994 working document also included recommendations for the use of existing geographical names, addressing priority, language, translations, scripts, and map usage. These recommendations were subsequently illustrated in an experimental topographic map (Sievers and Thomson 1998).

    Table 4. Examples of the toponymic characteristics.

    A. Features having names differing only by use of upper and lower case

    AUS 83°15'S 157°55'E MacDonald Bluffs
    USA 83°15'S 157°50'E Macdonald Bluffs

    B. Names with words exchanged

    ARG 62°05'S 58°22'W Plaza La, punta
    CHL 62°04'S 58°25'W La Plaza, Punta
    GBR 62°06'S 58°25'W Plaza Point
    USA 62°06'S 58°26'W Plaza Point

    C. Specific names that include the first name added before the family name of a person

    AUS 67°39'S 45°58'E Feoktistov, Cape
    RUS 67°39'S 45°58'E Nikolaja Feoktistova,

    mys

    D. Specific names differently transliterated

    JPN 68°03'S 43°25'E Tizire Hyôga
    USA 68°03'S 43°23'E Chijire Glacier
    NOR 71°35'S 11°40'E Gor'kijryggen
    RUS 71°35'S 11°40'E Gor'kogo, hrebet
    USA 71°37'S 11°37'E Gorki Ridge

    E. Features having one name that completely differs from the others

    BEL 72°05'S 35°30'E Reine Fabiola, Monts
    JPN 71°14'S 35°25'E Yamato Sanmyaku
    NOR 71°30'S 35°30'E Dronning Fabiolafjella
    RUS 71°20'S 36°00'E Queen Fabiola Mountains
    USA 71°30'S 35°40'E Queen Fabiola Mountains
    ARG 64°20'S 62°34'W Afuera, islotes (C. Murray)
    CHL 64°20'S 62°35'W De Afuera, Islotes
    GBR 64°20'S 62°36'W Dodge Rocks
    USA 64°20'S 62°36'W Afuera Islands

    F. Features having three completely different names

    ARG 64°40'S 62°33'W Doble, monte
    GBR 64°40'S 62°34'W Sable Pinnacles
    USA 64°40'S 62°35'W Noire Rock

    G. Features with specific descriptive names translated into different languages

    JPN 69°01'S 39°29'E Nisi-no-seto
    NOR 69°00'S 39°30'E Vestsundet
    RUS 69°00'S 39°35'E Nisino-seto
    USA 69°01'S 39°29'E Nishino-seto Strait
    ARG 68°55'S 70°25'W Los Dientes, agujas
    CHL 68°57'S 70°58'W Los Dientes, Agujas
    GBR 68°57'S 70°58'W Needles, The
    USA 68°57'S 70°58'W Les Dents

    H. Different forms and translations of personal names

    ARG 64°52'S 63°25'W Luis de Saboya, pico
    CHL 64°51'S 63°25.5''W Luigi di Savoia, Pico
    GBR 64°51'S 63°26'W Luigi Peak
    USA 64°51'S 63°26'W Savoia Peak

    At XXIV SCAR in Cambridge in 1996, the WG-GGI recommended that SCAR adopt three core principles regarding Antarctic place-naming, and in turn propose their adoption by the Council of Managers of National Antarctic Programmes (COMNAP) and the Treaty. The Working Group also recommended that SCAR, COMNAP, and the Treaty formally request WG-GGI to develop comprehensive 'Antarctic toponymic guidelines' in close cooperation with national and international naming authorities, based on the principles. This recommendation provoked considerable debate amongst national SCAR delegates. The preamble and recommendation were signifi-cantly changed, but the text of the three core principles was retained (1 to 3 below). The following recommendation was adopted as SCAR Recommendation XXIV-5 (SCAR 1997: 10):

    Concerning Place Names

    Noting that the SCAR Composite Gazetteer currently contains names data from sixteen SCAR member countries, comprising around 37,000 entries for 16,000 features (including over 1000 features with two or more entirely different names);

    Noting further that the International Hydrographic Organization has developed procedures for the naming of undersea features;

    Considering that, in the interests of both scientific clarity and operational safety, the general principle of 'one name per feature' should apply on the Antarctic continent as in other parts of the world;

    SCAR recommends that National Committees, via their governments, request the Antarctic Treaty to adopt principles for Antarctic place naming, including consideration of the following:

    1. New names shall not be applied to features that have already been named by a national or international naming authority – in adopting existing names, countries are encouraged not to vary any part of such names.
    2. All new names approved and documented by naming authorities should be regularly supplied to SCAR for publication in the SCAR Composite Gazetteer.
    3. When selecting existing names for use on maps and in other publications, countries are encouraged to give preference to the earliest approved or documented name - without varying any part of such names.
    4. That the Antarctic Treaty formally request SCAR to develop comprehensive 'Antarctic Toponymic Guidelines', in close cooperation with national and international naming authorities, based on the adopted principles.

    No government has yet made such a request to the Antarc-tic Treaty.

    Following the publication of the Gazetteer and its presentation to Delegates at XXV SCAR in Concepción in 1998, SCAR adopted the following Recommendation (XXV-7) of WG-GGI (SCAR 1999: 12):

    Concerning Antarctic Place-names

    Noting that the SCAR Composite Gazetteer of Antarctica (CGA):

    Considering that, in the interest of both scientific clarity and operational safety, the general principle of 'one name per feature' should apply for all feature names;

     

    SCAR recommends that National Committees, directly or through their national Antarctic authority:

    1. refer to the CGA in considering all proposals for new place names;
    2. avoid adding new place names to features already named;
    3. submit all new approved place names to the WG-GGI for inclusion in the CGA.

    It can be seen from the evolution of the WG-GGI recommendations to SCAR that the Working Group has deferred further work on international guidelines, and is instead concentrating on development of the Gazetteer as a means of avoiding any further naming of already named features.

    Future development

    The first priority for future development of the Gazetteer is to establish routine maintenance procedures to enable updates, corrections, and extensions to the database. The second priority is to expand the content by including additional information for each entry. Further hardcopy editions of the Gazetteer will be published, and the web site will be maintained and developed.

    Maintenance

    WG-GGI is keen to obtain new place-names data from the current 21 data sources on a routine basis, and to add further national Antarctic gazetteers to the compilation. Advice on errors and corrections would also be welcome. The objective is periodically to update the on-line Gazetteer database, so that it remains a current authoritative source of existing Antarctic geographic names. This will enable the Gazetteer to fulfil the important role of being the first point of reference by all national Antarctic naming authorities in considering new name proposals, to ensure that the feature has not already been named by another country.

    The period between updates is yet to be determined, and will depend in part on the flow of contributions, but it will be at least annual.

    Content

    Two additional data items are proposed for each place-name: 'date of approval' and 'description,' both to be supplied by the relevant national Antarctic naming authorities. The date of approval will be the date on which the national authority approved the name. As the definition of this date will vary from country to country, depending on their national procedures, it may be necessary to index the dates to the relevant definition ('date of committee approval,' 'date of publication,' etc). The description entry will describe both the geographic feature itself ('isolated nunatak,' 'large ice shelf,' etc) and the origin of the name ('named by explorer X in 1900 after patron Y'). Initial guidelines have been prepared by WG-GGI for the supply of these data, and a trial collection of these additional data items commenced in 1999. The results of the trial, and the manner in which approval dates and feature descriptions should be incorporated into the printed and on-line versions of the Gazetteer, will be further considered at XXVI SCAR in Tokyo, Japan, in July 2000.

    These two additional data items will greatly increase the value of the Gazetteer, for both historical research and operational use.

    Conclusion

    In developing the Composite gazetteer of Antarctica, the WG-GGI has been careful always to respect the authority of the contributing sources. The policy has been to publish the data as supplied, changing only the format, regardless of any apparent errors. While many errors in the original data were detected and, on advice from the relevant authority, corrected, it is inevitable that there are still errors in the database and printed version. On the other hand, the process of cross-matching place-names data from 21 sources, then seeking clarifications on apparent errors from the contributors, has significantly improved the quality of many of the source national Antarctic gazetteers.

    The compilers of the Gazetteer understand the political sensitivities in dealing with Antarctic place-names. A common misunderstanding was that WG-GGI was attempting to establish some form of international place-naming authority that could approve new names. This has never been a goal, and several 'submissions' to the Gazetteer compilers have been returned with the suggestion that they be referred to the relevant national place-naming authority.

    The publication of the Gazetteer is a major milestone in the evolution of Antarctic toponymy. There is no longer any excuse for a national Antarctic naming authority to approve a new name for a feature that has already been named.

    Acknowledgements

    The authors wish to thank all contributors to the Gazetteer, both WG-GGI members and staff from the various national Antarctic authorities, many of whom made a major effort to supply and validate their place-names data. The financial support of Italy's Programma Nazionale di Ricerche in Antartide for publication of the first edition and maintenance of the web site is also gratefully acknowledged.

     

    Reference

    SCAR. 1994. Proposed international toponymic guidelines for the Antarctic: recommended international principles and procedures for the standardisation of naming geographical features in the Antarctic (south of 60°S) and for the use of existing names. Unpublished paper prepared by J. Sievers, SCAR Working Group on Geodesy and Geographic Information. Version: Rome 31 August 1994.

    SCAR. 1995. Summary Reports to XXIII SCAR, Rome, Italy, 4–9 September 1994: Working Group on Geodesy and Geographic Information. SCAR Bulletin 118: 3–4; Polar Record 31 (178): 365–366.

    SCAR. 1997. Twenty-fourth Meeting of SCAR, Cambridge, United Kingdom, 12–16 August 1996. SCAR Bulletin 125: 1–14; Polar Record 33 (185): 167–180.

    SCAR. 1998. Composite gazetteer of Antarctica (south of 60°S). Compiled by R. Cervellati and M.C. Ramorino for the Programma Nazionale di Ricerche in Antartide. 2 vols. Rome: Scientific Committee on Antarctic Research.

    SCAR. 1999. Twenty-fifth Meeting of SCAR, Concepción, Chile, 27–31 July 1998. SCAR Bulletin 133: 1–17; Polar Record 35 (193): 171–187.

    Sievers, J., and J.W. Thomson. 1998. Adopting one name per feature on maps of Antarctica: an experimental application: topographic map (satellite image map) 1:250,000 Trinity Peninsula SP21-22/13. Polarforschung 65: 123–131.