This book teems with a multitude of interesting and important issues, but the following three conceptual and methodological questions seem to determine its structure: first, what is exactly subsumed under the general toponym of “Slave Coast?” Second, how reliable and informative are the toponyms and glossonyms of this region given their foreign origin? Finally, what are the effective ways to restore or reconstruct a reliable toponymy and glossonymy? The first question calls for a redefinition which is provided by contributors such as Iroko who rejects the widely held view that the Slave Coast designates a fixed and homogeneous entity. He states that, like the slave trade itself, the toponym entails a dynamic and fluctuating notion referring to a geopolitical and economic reality whose identity depends on the century, and on specific periods within each century. There is a general agreement on the negative answer to the second question related to the reliability of the toponyms bestowed by Europeans on African places. As Amenewy puts it, this toponymy is self-interested and contradictory. Iroko shows that most toponyms were derived from goods to which the Europeans were attached, and he points out that this toponymy has an uninformative meaning with regard to the volume and intensity of the slave trade activities that occurred in the region. Gaybor chimes in by showing that these toponyms were devised in haste because the explorers and slave traders were anxious to complete their contract with the ship-owners and did not take time to acquire enough language knowledge to come to real contact with indigenous populations. These assessments pave the way for the thoughtful answer to the third question: the authors of this volume agree that it would be a methodological error to disregard the European toponyms altogether, since it contains important clues that can be used in reconstructing a meaningful and informative toponymy. For instance, Pazzi has shown in his contribution how Portuguese toponymy can be used to trace the first encounter between Portuguese “explorers” and Africans. The recommendation of the conference was rather to reinterpret and reconstruct the European toponymy by supplementing, and sometimes replacing it through the use of knowledge based on local languages (Tchitchi, Lebène), archeological investigations (Adande), and cultural studies, whether it be cutural comparison between the people of the Bight of Benin in order to identify their linguistic identity and their ethnic diversity (Egblewogge, Capo), or between these cultures and Diasporan cultures, such as those in Brazil, in order to dispell the nostalgic misrepresentations of African reality.