We are all aware of the unethical practices of early
explorers, anthropologists, and archaeologists who have taken cultural objects
to study, preserve, and display in museums to the broader public. In response
to this colonial act, and the subsequent separation of cultural material from
descendant communities, some researchers are looking to virtual or digital
repatriation of cultural objects as a solution or, in some cases, an interim
solution to repatriating material objects to the communities they belong to. In
situations where laws like the Native American Graves Protection and
Repatriation Act (NAGPRA) do not apply, such as between international borders,
creating digital access to cultural materials seems like the next best option.
3D scans of artifacts and related artifact or site information can be shared
with communities. New technological advances in high resolution imagery, such
as UAV (drone) imagery, 360⁰ photos, and virtual reality increase the ways
in which communities can interact with and reconnect with their material
culture. Although these technologies increase opportunities to reconnect
communities with their material past and promote cultural learning, I question
what is lost by not repatriating the physical object. Can we equate digital
repatriation of material culture with repatriation of the actual artifacts?
Two issues come to mind. The first is that
researchers, often not affiliated with the descendant culture, are choosing
which objects to represent and how to display them. There is a sort of lens,
influenced by the creator’s decision-making and the technological limitations
surrounding the digitizing project. As a result, the people interacting with
the digital material are viewing the material culture after it has been
filtered through the processes. This could lead to objects being represented in
culturally inappropriate or irrelevant ways. This issue could be mitigated, of
course, by including descendant communities in the digitization and curatorial
process to ensure their cultural values are being represented. Despite
collaborative efforts, what might still be lacking in a digital representation,
compared to the real artifact?
The second issue that comes to mind is about
artifacts whose value is intrinsic in their physical properties. For example,
an object belonging to a deceased family member might be valuable because that
person owned, touched, and used that object. What about objects that are considered
sacred or have some sort of spiritual quality assigned to them? In most cases,
the digital representation of these objects would not suffice.
How then do we speak about digital or virtual
repatriation? Do we equate it with material repatriation? Do we differentiate
it as something lesser than material repatriation, as in an option we take when
material repatriation is not possible? Or are there other considerations we
must examine?
If you would like to learn more about how virtual/digital repatriation
is being practiced, take some time to explore these projects:
Inuvialuit Living History Project: A Case of Access
-Ash
3 comments:
This is an interesting post! Is there a specific reason as to why archaeologists would prefer digital repatriation? Specifically, if an object is sacred or of particular cultural significance? I would have assumed that the archaeologists would create 3D models of these objects for their own use and returned the original. Because of this, I would say that I do not equate material repatriation with virtual repatriation. Why should the archaeologist get to keep the material object? It does not seem fair to argue that the archaeologist should get the original because some of the information or value is lost in the virtual object, and therefore, the research would suffer. Because if so then we are aware that the descendent community would not be receiving something that could be considered equal to the original object. However, as long as the descendent communities are consulted with and agree to this arrangement it could prove beneficial. Though it may need to be determined on a case-by-case basis.
Hi Kaylee,
I think there are some archaeologists who see more value in physically preserving an artifact over repatriating the artifact back to the descendant community who may not have the appropriate facilities or resources for continued conservation of the artifact. There may be different ideas about the need to preserve certain artifacts, and digital repatriation might seem like a suitable solution. I guess the question here is who owns the artifact? Who should be able to decide? There are some Indigenous groups, for example, who might want artifacts belonging to their ancestors to be reburied or to "take natures course" for spiritual reasons which could conflict with archaeologists' values or goals. I agree with you that cases of repatriation should be considered on a case-by-case basis and together, the community and archaeologists could decide on a solution that meets both their objectives like 3D models of the artifact, as you suggested. Coming to a solution both parties are content with can be difficult and takes time, hence why I believe that building community relations early on in any project (preferably prior to establishing any research questions) is important.
This is definitely an interesting post! It reminded me of Dan Hick's lecture on Necrography. I believe he used the analogy of someone committing a crime in which they took items from the victims. When this crime was addressed and the perpetrator was caught, would it be acceptable that they get to keep those items? Or make 3D models of those items to either keep for themselves or give to the families of the victims in lieu of returning the actual items. I'm sure I'm bastardising his analogy somewhat but I think the point is still clear. I honestly do not feel that the argument that research is important enough that we cannot repatriate artifacts back wholly, without making a 3D model of them to use in some capacity.
Post a Comment