Archaeologies
Journal of the World Archaeological Congress
© World Archaeological Congress 2008
10.1007/s11759-008-9060-1
Forum
Linguistic Imperialism and Minoan Archaeology (Greece) Anna Simandiraki1 and Trevor Grimshaw1
(1) International Baccalaureate Research Team, Department of Education, University of Bath, Claverton Down, Bath, BA2 7AY, UK
Anna Simandiraki (Corresponding author)
Email:
pytna@yahoo.co.uk Trevor Grimshaw
Email:
edstg@bath.ac.uk Received: 14 January 2008 Accepted: 19 March 2008 Published online: 10 April 2008
Abstract This contribution to the debate about Anglo- and non-Anglo archaeologies briefly describes the issue from the point of view of Minoan Archaeology (Crete, Greece). The authors seek to problematise (English) language use within this discipline and highlight the complexity of archaeological discourses.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Resumen Esta contribución a la discusión sobre arqueologías anglófonas y no anglófonas describe brevemente el asunto desde el punto de vista de la arqueología Minoica (Creta, Grecia). Los autores buscan a problematizar el idioma (en este caso el inglés) utilizado en esta disciplina y destacar la complejidad de los discursos arqueológicos.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Résumé Cette contribution au débat entre archéologues anglophones et archéologues non-anglophones présente brièvement la question du point de vue de l’archéologie minoenne (Crète, Grèce). Les auteurs cherchent à problématiser l’utilisation de la langue (anglaise) dans le cadre de la discipline et à souligner la complexité du discourt archéologique.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In recent years the cultural politics of English and other international languages have become a major focus of debate within the field of applied linguistics. Much discussion has surrounded the concept of linguistic imperialism, which may be defined as a process in which ‘the dominance of English is asserted and maintained by the establishment and continuous reconstitution of structural and cultural inequalities between English and other languages’ (Phillipson 1992:47). Although other colonial languages operate in similar ways, the critique has mostly focused on English, since this occupies the top of the global linguistic hierarchy and is the primary medium through which the intellectual and political institutions of the industrialised ‘West’ exercise their influence throughout the world.
In recent research (the European Association of Archaeologists, and the British Association of Applied Linguistics in 2006; Simandiraki and Grimshaw forthcoming), we have explored the implications of this for the discipline of Minoan archaeology. The Minoan civilisation developed on Crete, the largest Greek island, during the 3rd & 2nd millennia BC. On account of its strategic position, throughout history the island has attracted the attention of many super-powers. These included Britain, France, Italy and Russia, who oversaw Crete’s transitional period of ‘independence’ between Ottoman and Greek rule (late 19th–early 20th century A.D.). This period coincided with the establishment of Minoan archaeology as a distinct discipline and the excavation of the Palace of Knossos by Sir Arthur Evans, a Briton.
It is nowadays possible to draw up an archaeological linguistic map of Crete, based on the wide range of languages used within Cretan archaeology for networking, permits, fieldwork (including diaries) and publications. The most prominent languages are Greek and English (British and American). French and Italian are also used; as are, to a lesser extent, Swedish, Norwegian and German. These languages reflect the influence of the many national Schools of Archaeology, based in Athens (the Greek capital) and maintaining study centres or labs on Crete, near their researched sites. Meanwhile, the Greek Ministry of Culture conducts fieldwork via its Ephorates (local archaeological services), the universities and the Greek Society of Archaeologists. When negotiating access to Minoan archaeological data, it is essential to have a good command of both Greek and English and a working knowledge of as many of the other languages as possible.
But one should also mention local linguistic hierarchies. Minoan archaeologists commonly encounter several distinct varieties of Greek. There is Standard Modern Greek, employed in everyday activities such as networking, arrangements for fieldwork and private discussions. There are the local Cretan dialects (East and West), which an archaeologist might use to develop rapport with the workers and benefit more fully from their expertise (e.g. soil recognition, digging skills). There is ‘academic Greek’, a formal style used in scholarly and media publications. This is akin to Katharevousa, an archaic style which one must understand in order to access many archaeological reports predating the 1980s. In addition, Minoan archaeology has its own specific terminology, including vocabulary derived from ancient Greek (‘rhyton’) or translated from English (‘teapot’).
While, in theory, a truly proficient Minoan archaeologist is able to code-switch between all these different varieties, a ‘native-English-speaking’ Minoan archaeologist does not necessarily need to know all these nuances of Greek in order to succeed. As in other academic disciplines, English is by far the pre-eminent international language of Minoan archaeology. Evans’s founding work was published in English. The activities of the British and American Schools of Archaeology at Athens combined are the best funded and the most widely known. The majority of research positions in Minoan archaeology are based in the core English-speaking countries. Furthermore, the publications of ‘non-native-English-speaking’ archaeologists need to be of an ‘international’ standard. In principle, one can choose to publish internationally in any one of several languages. But, in practice, the research will receive more attention if published in English. Most archaeological journals of international standing are published in English; and most of their editors are ‘native English speakers’. In effect, this means that ‘non-native English speakers’ must adjust their style in order to suit specific Anglophone editorial conventions, and also master distinctly non-Greek discourses of practice, such as cognitive or processual archaeology.
Therefore, a native Cretan who seeks a career in Minoan archaeology is faced with clear pragmatic choices in terms of postgraduate studies, employment and medium of communication. Similarly, when speaking at an archaeological conference in his/her native Crete, s/he may choose to present in English. Even when reading about topics that are close to home, Cretan archaeologists may find themselves reading culturally specific terminology rooted in the Anglophone world, e.g. the colour of a clay described as ‘strawberries and cream’ or Mycenaean amphorae found on Crete called ‘stirrup jars’. ‘Native-English-speaking’ archaeologists thus exercise an influence markedly disproportionate to their relatively few fieldwork permits. Together with their extensive global network of associated colleagues and university departments, they constitute an influential Anglophone discourse community. In contrast, scholarship generated in other languages, although extensively published, reaches much smaller audiences and is therefore increasingly marginalized.
It is important for archaeologists to be critically aware of the power of language and its role in the construction of social and scientific realities. The languages of archaeology can create insularities which are downplayed or ignored by their users, but which, nevertheless, constitute important impediments to the development of the discipline. The dominance of English as an international language does not necessarily imply a deliberate neo-colonial conspiracy, nor that non-Anglo archaeologists have been co-opted (Pennycook 2007). However, it does force us to abandon the myth of English as a neutral, ‘value-free’ medium of science, and to recognize all language as ideological practice. For the ‘non-native-English-speaking’ archaeologist, the development of an international career may come at the price of being inscribed by alien discourses. Conversely, the ‘native-English-speaking’ archaeologist may make the false assumption that those who do not express themselves in the dominant language have less to contribute.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
References Cited
Pennycook A. 2007 Global Englishes and Transcultural Flows. London: Routledge
Phillipson R. 1992 Linguistic Imperialism. Oxford: Oxford University Press
Simandiraki, A., and T. Grimshaw (forthcoming). The Branding of Minoan Archaeology. In Building Bridges with the Past: The Significance of Memory and Tradition in the Genesis and Transmission of Culture, edited by M. Georgiadis and C. Gallou. British Archaeological Reports (BAR) International Series
http://www.springerlink.com/content/k72660530q164621/fulltext.html