War Diaries Talk

Place Names

  • makfai by makfai

    We have all heard of some of the names (e.g. Hellfire Corner) given to places around the battlefields but how were these names 'institutionalised' and accepted to such an extent that they could appear in War Diaries. Did the adjutant (or someone) have to approve them?

    It wasn't just trenches which were named but locations e.g. Eccles Fort; Essex Farm; Gasometer Corner; Dead Horse Corner.

    It is easy to see how some of these got their names (e.g. there must have been a gasometer at one corner and a dead horse at another!) but how did they become 'officially' accepted?

    Clearly some would have been in common usage but others crop up fairly quickly after a unit moves into a new area so precluding these places having been named before the unit's arrival.

    Any info?

    Posted

  • spof by spof moderator

    I think there were a variety of methods. In some cases it was landmarks like a gasometer or a dead horse. In others, they used names starting with the same letter as the square on the trench maps (see here for more info). One area on the Somme was taken over from the French and they had named the trenches after men killed there and the Scots who took over kept some of hte names and changed others to places in Scotland like Perth.

    When units moved in, these names would have been on maps etc. so they would be explained to the incoming troops and usually kept for consistency.

    Posted

  • makfai by makfai

    I understand how the names might have originated but wondered how they became 'official'. Did someone have to approve them?

    Posted

  • David_Underdown by David_Underdown moderator

    I don't know the exact process, but there was a huge mapping and printing operation. Once a name got into a trench map I would imagine it ws unlikely to be changed. There was a huge operation under Geographical Section, General Staff (aka MI4) with the assistance of the Ordnance Survey and Army Printing Service churning out trench maps (along with the surveying and aerial photography to create the maps in the first place).

    Posted

  • makfai by makfai

    Thanks for that.

    I have become intrigued by this aspect because I had never thought in detail about it before getting involved in OWD. Clearly, there must have been some official recording system for the authorities to include the names in the maps but I am curious to know how it worked.

    The etymology of some of the words is obvious but others are less so. For example, I have just seen a brilliant one: 'EEL PIE FORT'. Did someone get an eel pie sent to them and shared it there?? Who knows! But my curiosity is less in regard to how it was christened but more into how it became officially recognised.

    It is a shame that a lot of these place names have been somewhat 'lost'. I and another OWD tagger, who have both been doing the 24 Bn Manchester Regt, have sent our list of place names to their museum so that the names can be remembered and used for future research. It would be a shame if these names were totally lost when they had such relevance at the time.

    Posted

  • makfai by makfai

    I have found a note on the general topic here http://www.greatwar.co.uk/research/maps/british-army-ww1-trench-maps.htm
    Scroll down page to British Names for Map Locations
    Unfortunately, it doesn't fully answer my question but it is interesting.

    Posted

  • MatthewIWM by MatthewIWM moderator

    Thanks for posting the links, and for the info about Eel Pie Fort...like you said it's not only interesting that the place was nicknamed that, but that it was officially recognised as that!

    Excellent idea with sending the list of places to the museum for the Manchester Regiment, once we analyse the data from Operation War Diary I'm sure we'll find plenty more place names like that attached to each regiment, which is just another interesting bit of data that the project will be able to provide to historians and museums!

    Posted

  • makfai by makfai

    MatthewIWM it is a fascinating project and one which will allow much more in-depth research to be undertaken.

    I like seeing these names which had great relevance at the time. Far less clinical than map coordinates! The names themselves add to the 'tapestry' of the project even though the project is really after more 'official' geographical names.

    It is nice to feel that we are keeping alive those details which were more 'personal' to the troops actually on the ground.

    Posted

  • makfai by makfai

    I note that the Field Guide says: 'Ignore locations that do not have a proper place name eg ignore Camp F or Area G.'

    That instruction to 'ignore' seems to apply to the names I have found so interesting i.e. the names given to places by the troops/trench-map makers etc

    Frankly, I have ignored this instruction to ignore these places and have tagged these 'local' names as places but will they actually be recorded as places or not?

    If they are to be recorded perhaps the field guide could expand on and clarify this instruction?

    Posted

  • HeatherC by HeatherC moderator

    I think the Field Guide is referring to places which have generic names that are unlikely to be identifiable. Certainly their examples like "Camp F" could be anywhere, unlike a trench name which I think is much more likely to be able to be uniquely identified. I've had instances of this where the location (in capital letters and sometimes in the left hand diary column) is simply given as "Front Line" or "Support Trench" - little point in tagging such a generic location and I think this is what the Field Guide means by "do not have a proper place name".

    In any case, the question of whether or not to tag trench names was asked a while back and I'm sure the answer was to do so.

    Posted

  • makfai by makfai

    If the Field Guide is not amended then people who do not know about or have not read the Q/A will not know.

    Posted