Standardization of Terrestrial and Maritime Names Vs
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
STANDARDIZATION OF TERRESTRIAL AND MARITIME NAMES VS. THEIR USE AS A POLITICAL TOOL' Naftali Kadmon, Jerusalem. Israel 2 1 The Toponym as a Political Instrument Geographical names, both terrestrial and maritime. often generate strong emotions. Hardly anywhere is this more apparent than in the use of toponyms in a political environment and context. The present paper deals with a number of such cases. Let us begin with the following. Early 1991 saw the outbreak oftbe Gulf War. Which Gulf'? To the western world this was clear. Iran. which regards itself heir to the Persian Empire, and where Farsi is spoken. naturally calls the body of water serving as its south-western border the Persian Gulf. So do western countries and languages, and they did so in many ancient books and maps, for example in Ptolemy's Geographia of the 2nd cent. AD and in its reconstructed maps of the 1 Sth-17th centuries. Not so some of the Arab countries bordering the same sheet of - by now - oil-polluted water on the west and the south: they call it the Arabian Gulf. And this name, too, appears in old maps3. The two names reflect political rivalry. That this rivalry is reflected in cartographic use can be seen from the following passage which appeared on the Internet on 20 September 1996 and which originated in Dalhousie University, Canada: "One producer of maps (John Bartholomew & Son) labeled the water body 'Persian Gulf' on a 1977 map of Iran. and then 'Arabian Gulf', also 1977, which focused on the Gulf States. I would gather that this is an indication of the 'politics of maps'. but I would be interested to know if this was done to avoid upsetting users of the Iran map and users of the map showing Arab Gulf States. ~ If the Gulf War was not caused by a geographical name, there is. at the time of writing, a not inconsiderable probability of another war erupting because of a toponym. The disintegration of the fonner federal state of Yugoslavia in 1992 resulted, among others. in the claim to independence of one of its former constituents, Makedonia (English exonym: Macedonia). This former federated republic was situated at the south-eastern end of Yugoslavia [= South Slavia] which bordered on Greece. It so happened that the northern region of Greece, just across the border. was also named Makedonia (or rather Makedonia, with the stress on the penultimate vowel). When the ex-Yugoslav Makedoniadecided on the use of this name for its statehood. Greece objected strongly, asserting that no country except Greece would be permitted to pretend to the name of the ancient kingdom of Makedonia; the name was, so to speak, covered by copyright already at the time of Alexander the Great of Macedonia. Moreover, 1 This paper is based partly on material from a f0l1hcoming book by the same author. 2 The author is Emeritus Professor of Cartography and Toponymy at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem, Israel. ) One concise source of infonnation on ancient and old maps among many is History 0/ Cartograph~v by Leo Bagrow, edited by R.A. Skelton; Watts, London, 1964. - 22 - Greece voiced its concern that the new Slavic state of Makedonia would initiate tenitorial claims against Greece, and on fmding this country intransigent, might start a war, and not a verbal one either. The representative of the United Kingdom a[ the Sixth United Nations Conference on the Standardization of Geographical Names said in 1992 thar the European Community had not recognized the new Makedonia at the time largely because of the name, although its boundaries as such were recognized.<! At the time of writing the temporary name is FYROM: Former Yugoslav Republic of Makedonia. Inhabitants of "Greek" Makedonia simply refer to the new national entity as ftSkopje", after its capital. Another toponymically critical region bordering Greece is the Aegaean Sea with its islands. Several years ago Turkey, which has this historical sea as its western boundary, published lists of marine features 5 the Turkish names of which it had asked to be accepted - and introduced into general use - by the international community6. Greece. which has names of its own for these features. strongly resisted this move, even as regards objects which lay in Turkish tenitorial waters. There has been no particular ruling on this specific case, and the standard UN Resolutions (to which I'll refer below) are applicable. But the most extreme form of verbal toponymic warfare has been raging over place names in Cyprus - again involving Turkey and Greece. A.J; a by·product of the Turkish invasion of northern Cyprus in 1974, a secondary intra·Cypriot name war broke out, backed respectively - and vehemently - by Greece and Turkey. The main bone of contention was the Turkish administration's using Turkish toponyms for features which had previously carried Greek names. At the third United Nations Conference on the Standardization of Geographical Names in 1977, Cyprus accused Turkey in a letter to the President of the Conference', of "committing against the Greek population [of Cyprus] all kinds of unprecedented atrocities". In its national report to the Conference Cyprus stated 8 that" .... the forces of occupation have brought about a complete change of geographical names in the occupied area .... which fonns part of the cultural property and heritage of the people of Cyprus as a whole". Turkey replie<P that H •••• the wilful and unjustified change of names has been a political pastime of the Greek Cypriot leaders for a long number of years .... ". In one letter10 Turkey declared that the statements by Cyprus were "unfounded provocation and malicious accusations and of a highly political ~ U.N. Department of Public Infonnation, New York, Press Release No. 187 of 17 Aug. 1992. 5 "List of maritime feature names and names of undersea features around Turkey". Geographical Names Working Group of Turkey, Ankara, 1992. 6 H A short list of standardized names of undersea and marine features around Turkey". 5th U.N. Conference on the Standardization of Geographical Names, MOOlreal, 1987, document EJCONF.79fINFf58. 7 EfCONF.69/L.122 of 24 Aug. 1977, p.3. a U.N. document EJCONF.69/L.82; see also Third U.N. Conference on the Standardization o/Geographical Names, 1977, Vol. II: Technical Papers, pp. 43-44. United Nations, New York, 1981. 9 E/CONF.691L.137 of 30 Aug. 1977, p.1-2. 10 EfCONF.691L.140 of 2 Sepe. 1977, p.3. - 2:-l - _1 character- - thus confirming once again the opening sentences of the present paper. The Third Conference fmalty fonnulated Resolution No. 16: ~ It is recommended that any changes made by other authorities in the names standardized by a competent national geographical names authority should not be recognized by the United Nations". 11 But this applies only to names within a national sovereignty. It must not be thought lila[ such connicts exist only in the eastern Mediterranean baSin. AI the United NBLions conferenoes on toponymy oilier countries. too, have been airing their differences over geographical names. The former German Democratic Republic (DDR) objected to the name Bundesrepublik Deutschland for its western neighbour, the Federal Republic of Germany, claiming that this should be Deutsche Bundesrepublik - which was not acceptable to West Germany. Since 1989 no more such objections were raised, because the two countries united - under the name of the economically and politically senior western partner. But before that the ooR objected in principle to toponyms which the FRG had been conferring In West Berlin. contesting the latter's right to regard West Berlin as one of irs Bundeslander. An interesting point was raised with the emergence of certain extreme rightist movements-later outlawed - in the highly democratic Federal Republic of Germany. German cartography uses exonyms to a very great extent for geographical features (mainly populated places) in foreign countries - whereas the United Nations strongly recommend minimizing the use of exonyms. In particular. relevant guidelines ace prescribed in Resolution 29 of the 2nd U.N. Conference on the Standardization of Geographical l2 Names. and especially in Resolution 20 of the 4th Conference and Resolution 13 of the 5th Conference • The last mentioned -recoounends, more specifically. thai COWltries also intensify their efforts to persuade private and public organizations such as educational institutions .... to reduce the use of exonyms". France. Britain. Spain and. indeed, most other countries also use exOIlym'i. But whereas English exonyms, for example. seem in many cases to stem from problems of pronunciation (e.g. Copenhagen for Kebenhavn. Cologne - pronounced Colone - for Koln, Zurich - pronounced Zoorik - ior Zurich. Cairo for at Qahirah, etc.). many German exonyrns are both German~culture and German~lan guage based since some of the places named were, in the past, settled by Germans.In the discussion on exonyms at the 6th Conference on Standardization in )992. some speakers said thai in view of the fact mat the use of exonyms might be regarded. as "cultural agg rcss i on ~ , the use of these names should indeed be discouraged. Alsace. partly French and partly German, and mostly on the political fe nce. is bilingual. When the French-speaking community demanded that the town of Breitenbach [= wide brook] which, since the II 3rd U.N. Conference on the StanJanli::ation a/Geographical Names. 1977, Vol. I. Report o/the Conference, p.J5. United Nations. New York, 1979. lZ For a listing of the resolutions adopted ill the firs t six United Nations Conferences on the Standardization of Geographica1 Names see Resolutions adopted at the six United NatiollS Conferences on the Standardization afGeographical Names. 1967. 1972, 1977, 1982, 1987, 1992. Prepared for the United Nations by the Canadian Permanent Convnittec on Gt))graphical Names [Onawa, 19941.