The Cunning Means of Domination

This discussion started on the WAC listserv when I objected on 8 April 2007 to a short message sent by Claire Smith on the previous day. She had been announcing that her colleague “Heather Burke and are] putting together a list of important non-Anglo archaeologists” and was asking whether “anyone has any recommendations” for that list and, if so, whether they would email her off list. I objected strongly. This paper explains why. In doing so I am describing the degree of complexity language use has acquired in the contemporary world with old linguistic maps quickly become obsolete. To insist that English is simply the lingua franca of academic discourse is to ignore that complexity. The wide use of English as an academic lingua franca means in practice that there are very strong asymmetries not only in individual archaeologists’ abilities to express themselves competently and confidently in that language but also in what is considered appropriate or possible to express. For a language is not simply a random code with which anything might be said to anybody. Language, and the conventions that govern how a given language is to be applied, influences to a large extent even what is a sensible thing to say in a given context. Language use in archaeology is not about translating the same archaeology into different languages but about translating between different archaeologies and associated cultural practices including languages. The only sensible way forward is for WAC to promote among its members the learning of more languages—which is something the vast majority of “non-Anglo” archaeologists already knows and accepts as a fact of life. We do not need lists of “non-Anglo” archaeologists that are considered worth reading about in English, but more archaeologists being able to appreciate the work of colleagues in its original language. In conclusion I urge exclusively Anglophone archaeologists to please stop finding excuses for learning foreign languages.