Translating place: orthography and the problem of place names at the Royal Geographical Society
Lead Research Organisation:
Royal Holloway University of London
Department Name: Geography
Abstract
This project takes as its focus a problem that troubled the Royal Geographical Society (RGS) from its inception in 1830: how should the recording of place names on maps and other geographical publications be standardised given the international vagaries of language, alphabet, spelling, and pronunciation? The problem of "orthography" raised fundamental questions about who had the authority to adjudicate on place names, to determine their correct spelling or pronunciation, and to anticipate the cultural consequences particular practices of naming might have. Orthography was part of a wider imperial programme that sought to leverage Western scientific authority in bringing to order the geography of the non-Western world. Orthography sat at the intersection of science and colonialism, cosmopolitanism and geopolitics, linguistics and geography.
The role of the RGS as an arbiter of geographical truth came into particular focus following its decision in 1878 to draw up a set of orthographic rules-a scheme documented extensively in committee minutes and reports, in correspondence, and in publications in the Society's journals. This project seeks not only to reveal the imperial and colonial underpinnings of the RGS's work on orthography, but also to demonstrate the cultural and political power that place names have and how, in the spirit of decolonisation, communities previously silenced by particular forms of orthography can counter that process through, for example, the production of their own maps and gazetteers (the printed indices or dictionaries of place names read alongside maps), employing their own systems of orthography. Working in collaboration with
the RGS-and drawing on the wider expertise of the AHRC-led Connected Communities Programme-the project will seek to involve new audiences in the development of alternative, non-Western orthographies by way of public engagement activities including workshops on counter-mapping, an interactive exhibition examining the relationship between language, place, and authority, and public lectures showcasing the project's findings.
In specific terms, the project will address five key research questions:
1. What factors led the RGS to develop a new orthographic system?
2. What linguistic and geographical principles underpinned the development of that system's rules?
3. How were those rules interpreted and what impact did they have on maps and gazetteers published after 1878?
4. What does orthography tell us about the role of the RGS as an arbiter of geographical truth?
5. What does orthography reveal about the exchange and authorisation of geographical and scientific knowledge in the age of empire? What is its legacy in a postcolonial present?
Methodologically, the project will combine archival and bibliographical research (drawing on the Society's extensive archival and library holdings) with critical cartographical analysis. Primary and secondary sources will be used to reconstruct and explain the development of orthography in 19th- and early 20th-century geography and critical bibliographical and cartographical approaches will be employed to trace its influence on the production of maps and geographical gazetteers.
The project is original in its focus and fundamentally interdisciplinary in its approach, drawing on key debates in the history of geography and science, and postcolonial studies.
The role of the RGS as an arbiter of geographical truth came into particular focus following its decision in 1878 to draw up a set of orthographic rules-a scheme documented extensively in committee minutes and reports, in correspondence, and in publications in the Society's journals. This project seeks not only to reveal the imperial and colonial underpinnings of the RGS's work on orthography, but also to demonstrate the cultural and political power that place names have and how, in the spirit of decolonisation, communities previously silenced by particular forms of orthography can counter that process through, for example, the production of their own maps and gazetteers (the printed indices or dictionaries of place names read alongside maps), employing their own systems of orthography. Working in collaboration with
the RGS-and drawing on the wider expertise of the AHRC-led Connected Communities Programme-the project will seek to involve new audiences in the development of alternative, non-Western orthographies by way of public engagement activities including workshops on counter-mapping, an interactive exhibition examining the relationship between language, place, and authority, and public lectures showcasing the project's findings.
In specific terms, the project will address five key research questions:
1. What factors led the RGS to develop a new orthographic system?
2. What linguistic and geographical principles underpinned the development of that system's rules?
3. How were those rules interpreted and what impact did they have on maps and gazetteers published after 1878?
4. What does orthography tell us about the role of the RGS as an arbiter of geographical truth?
5. What does orthography reveal about the exchange and authorisation of geographical and scientific knowledge in the age of empire? What is its legacy in a postcolonial present?
Methodologically, the project will combine archival and bibliographical research (drawing on the Society's extensive archival and library holdings) with critical cartographical analysis. Primary and secondary sources will be used to reconstruct and explain the development of orthography in 19th- and early 20th-century geography and critical bibliographical and cartographical approaches will be employed to trace its influence on the production of maps and geographical gazetteers.
The project is original in its focus and fundamentally interdisciplinary in its approach, drawing on key debates in the history of geography and science, and postcolonial studies.
