Digital repatriation

Digital repatriation is the return of items of cultural heritage in a digital format to the communities from which they originated. The term originated from within anthropology, and typically referred to the creation of digital photographs of ethnographic material which would then be made available to members of the originating culture.[1] However, the term has also been applied to museum, library, and archives collections[2], and can refer not only to digital photographs but digital collections and virtual exhibits including 3D scans and audio recordings.[3]

Digital repatriation is becoming increasingly relevant as more cultural institutions make their collections available online. This increased access is sometimes at odds with the desires of the originating culture, since it limits their ability to curate and define terms of access to their cultural materials.[4] Many cultural institutions are making efforts to involve communities in collection display and description.

Digital surrogates

Proponents of digital surrogacy argue that it can offer benefits to originating cultures, scholars, and educators. For originating cultures, digital surrogates can make cultural objects accessible to dispersed populations, reunite collections of physically scattered objects, or provide access to objects for which physical repatriation is challenging.[5] Digital surrogates can provide an interactive experience for community members[6] and inspire new community engagement with cultural objects.[5][7] High quality digital surrogates can aid with preservation of the original objects, provide documentation for collections management, and give scholars access to the surrogates for continued study regardless of where the original artifacts are located.[8] However, scholars caution that digital surrogates are alternative representations of an object, rather than replacements for the original objects.[7]

Ethical considerations

Repatriation is fraught with ethical and legal challenges regarding ownership of artifacts and materials. Communities within originating cultures seeking to assert ownership over artifacts and materials held in outside institutions may lack the types of documentation that would be accepted in international courts of law[9] and they may have traditions and beliefs which conflict with Western understandings of individual intellectual property rights.[10] While digital repatriation can provide access to objects for which physical repatriation is complicated or unlikely, originating cultures may not be satisfied with this option.

Institutions creating digital surrogates for digital repatriation may retain copies for institutional use. Originating cultures may object to replicating or displaying sacred objects, objections which may extend to digital representations of the objects.[11][12] Some institutions have chosen to resolve this ethical challenge by requesting intellectual property rights clearance from the communities in question before publishing digital materials[13] and offering control over access permissions and representation of digital materials to members of the originating cultures.[11][14]

Examples

The National Museum of the American Indian (USA) and the Museum of New Zealand Te Papa Tongarewa have been particularly active in bicultural co-curation of digital material.[15] The Local Contexts initiative has developed Traditional Knowledge labels, which institutions can utilize in digital collections to allow communities to designate certain material as restricted for access or use.[16] This allows for online access to community materials while respecting the origin culture’s traditions and wishes.[17]

gollark: Kind of fooling you into believing you're talking to a human isn't exactly an indicator of human level intelligence.
gollark: That's kind of ad hominem. Stuff can still be true if a deterministic process says it.
gollark: Well, the free will thing here seems to just be that somehow you magically get nondeterminism introduced somewhere.
gollark: I mean, if you have some neuron which happens to randomly flick on and off nondeterministically, does that add free will now?
gollark: I don't particularly *like* this way of considering it, but it *is* one.

References
  1. "Digital Repatriation and Virtual Exhibition". Digital Partnerships with Indian Communities. University of Pennsylvania, School of Arts & Sciences. Retrieved 26 June 2016.
  2. "Repatriation | National Museum of the American Indian". americanindian.si.edu. Retrieved 2018-11-17.
  3. Roy, Loriene & Christal, Mark (2002). "Digital Repatriation: Constructing a Culturally Responsive Virtual Museum Tour". Journal of Library and Information Science. 28.
  4. Christen, Kimberly (2011). "Opening Archives: Respectful Repatriation". The American Archivist. 74 (1): 185–210. doi:10.17723/aarc.74.1.4233nv6nv6428521. hdl:2376/5704. JSTOR 23079006. S2CID 147056139.
  5. Ngata, Wayne; Ngata-Gibson, Hera; Salmond, Amiria (2012). Salmond, Amiria; Lythberg, Billie (eds.). "Te Ataakura: Digital taonga and cultural innovation". Journal of Material Culture. 17 (3): 229–244. doi:10.1177/1359183512453807. ISSN 1359-1835.
  6. Dawson, Peter; Levy, Richard; Lyons, Natasha (2011). "'Breaking the fourth wall': 3D virtual worlds as tools for knowledge repatriation in archaeology". Journal of Social Archaeology. 11 (3): 387–402. doi:10.1177/1469605311417064. ISSN 1469-6053.
  7. Christen, Kimberly (2011). "Opening Archives: Respectful Repatriation". The American Archivist. 74 (1): 185–210. doi:10.17723/aarc.74.1.4233nv6nv6428521. hdl:2376/5704. ISSN 0360-9081. S2CID 147056139.
  8. "Repatriation, Reconstruction, and Cultural Diplomacy in the Digital World". er.educause.edu. Retrieved 2019-04-19.
  9. Colwell-Chanthaphonh, Chip (2013). "repatriation and the burdens of proof". Museum Anthropology. 36 (2): 108–109. doi:10.1111/muan.12024.
  10. Britz, Johannes; Lor, Peter (2004). "A Moral Reflection on the Digitization of Africa's Documentary Heritage". IFLA Journal. 30 (3): 216–223. doi:10.1177/034003520403000304. ISSN 0340-0352.
  11. Christen, Kimberly (2011). "Opening Archives: Respectful Repatriation". The American Archivist. 74 (1): 185–210. doi:10.17723/aarc.74.1.4233nv6nv6428521. hdl:2376/5704. ISSN 0360-9081. S2CID 147056139.
  12. Curtis, Neil G. W. (2010-09-16). "REPATRIATION FROM SCOTTISH MUSEUMS: Learning from NAGPRA: REPATRIATION FROM SCOTTISH MUSEUMS". Museum Anthropology. 33 (2): 234–248. doi:10.1111/j.1548-1379.2010.01101.x.
  13. Hennessy, Kate (2009). "Virtual Repatriation and Digital Cultural Heritage: The Ethics of Managing Online Collections". Anthropology News. 50 (4): 5–6. doi:10.1111/j.1556-3502.2009.50405.x.
  14. Roy, Loriene; Christal, Mark (April 2002). "Digital Repatriation: Constructing a Culturally Responsive Virtual Museum Tour". Journal of Library and Information Science. 28 (1): 14–18.
  15. Basu, Paul (2015). "Reanimating Cultural Heritage Digital Curatorship, Knowledge Networks, and Social Transformation in Sierra Leone Paul". The International Handbooks of Museum Studies. Museum Transformations: 337–364.
  16. "Traditional Knowledge (TK) Labels - Local Contexts". Local Contexts. Retrieved 2018-11-21.
  17. "Traditional Knowledge (TK) Labels - Local Contexts". Local Contexts. Retrieved 2018-11-17.


This article is issued from Wikipedia. The text is licensed under Creative Commons - Attribution - Sharealike. Additional terms may apply for the media files.