Coupling Hydrotoponymy and GIS Cartography: A Case Study of Hydrohistorical Issues in Urban Groundwater Systems,Porto, NW Portugal

The aim of this multidisciplinary study is to retrospectively examine hydrohistorical issues, namely hydrogeographic, hydrotoponymical and hydrogeological features, in order to assess the evolution of the Porto urban groundwater system (NW Portugal). To achieve these goals, the comparison of two main field inventories in a large urban region was performed by (i) historical mapping of sources and groundwater data from scientific reports spanning the late 17th century to the early 20th; and (ii) hydrogeologic and hydrotoponymical field inventory performed under current conditions. These field inventories permitted the location of springs, dug wells, fountains, public washing places and underground water galleries, which collected groundwater to supply the population of Porto until the early 20th century. This study also allowed the development of a hydrotoponymical classification for urban areas and a field hydrotoponymical inventory data sheet. This research integrated several techniques based on historical hydrogeography, hydrogeology and urban geosciences. The results of the field inventories were combined into both a database and a Geographical Information System (GIS) platform. This unified methodology allowed a cross‐check and analysis of several levels of information, namely hydrotoponymy, hydroclimatology, hydrogeology, structural geology and geomorphology. This perspective led to an assessment of the evolution of the quality of water resources in large urban areas over time. In addition, the role of hydrotoponymical features is presented in order to support the hydrogeological conceptual model for large urbanised areas.     

Tolerant majorities,loyal minorities and ‘ethnic reversals’: constructing minority rights at Versailles 1919*

ABSTRACT. The 1919 Versailles Peace Conference created new states in East Central Europe (ECE), but the imperfect implementation of the ‘one nation, one state’ formula resulted in more than twenty‐five million ‘unassimilable’ minorities. With the introduction of majoritarian democracy, this gave rise to what we term ‘ethnic reversals’: ‘formally dominant majorities’ suffered status decline, while previously ‘minoritised majorities’ found new political powers. Accordingly, the 1919 Minorities Treaties sought to manage these ‘ethnic reversals’ by instituting a liberal minority rights regime that tried to create both ‘tolerant majorities’ and ‘loyal minorities’. While the Treaties reflected the influences of Anglo‐American and Anglo‐American Jewish elites – the most notable voices of liberalism in an age of ethnic homogenisation – we suggest that in contexts of historical diversity with little institutionalised liberalism, ‘ethnic reversals’ raise issues that cannot be resolved within liberal conceptions of minority rights that rely solely or primarily on cultural protections.