I previously introduced the idea of storing archaeological data with DNA encoding. Unfortunately, there are some concerns if this technology is further explored in archaeology. In theory, this technology should help remove some bias from future historical narratives and data sets, ensuring we don’t have to personally decide what digital data we have room to store or whether it’s worth transferring old data to new storage technology to avoid it being lost or forgotten. Without needing to prioritize information, everything could be encoded for the future. However, is this okay? Or could this lead us blindly into ‘preservation by record’?
Although we have the potential to preserve “everything,” the number of decisions leading to the data encoding cannot be forgotten. Future researchers must not assume the record is “everything.” Our interpretation of archaeological and heritage material needed to transform the material into a binary code itself is a potentially problematic procedure. Different forms of digital archaeology already risk the loss of cognitive and experiential aspects of heritage. After this heavy alteration from being transformed into binary computer code, transformed into a strain of DNA, and then reversed in processual to the original digital data set, distance from these aspects is, even more, a risk. This could cause a potentially damaging distance between the material and its cultural context, an issue that has already been discussed in lecture.
Also, is it our right to preserve archaeological and heritage material “forever”? Some communities require images of deceased individuals to be destroyed to let the individual pass to their next life. Some material culture also requires burying or destroying when no longer in use. Would storage in organic, living material affect these issues?
The proper care, handling, and long-term storage of material in archaeology is an ethical disciplinary problem that must be considered. Is the potential for LONG term digital storage a proper solution to this? Would this method be any better than storing material in locked boxes, warehouses, off-site facilities, out of sight and out of mind? Could the potential distance created between material and context exacerbate this issue? Or do you believe this technological advancement could drive critical discussions on ethics and improve our practice?
One thing is for sure, this technology would require interdisciplinary teams and descendant communities must work together to ensure proper care of archaeological and heritage material. The blessing of our discipline is the constant ethical concerns to consider. I'd love to hear your thoughts!
2 comments:
This is a really interesting post Lauren! I had never heard of using DNA as a way to store data before I saw it in your last post, and the ethical implications of it are fascinating. You mention that the process of encoding archaeological material into binary could be problematic and result in the loss of information and context. This is certainly a concern and I wonder if using this method of storage would actually be beneficial in the long run if that is the case? Would the data stored this way be easily accessible?
The ethical issues you raised about how some communities may prefer the re-burial or destruction of material culture is interesting as well. I would imagine that this would have to be determined on a case by case basis with the communities in question. These are not easy questions to answer! I am excited to see how this technology develops and improves.
I, too, have not heard of DNA data storage until your posts. It sounds wildly futuristic! This is a complex subject with many implications (and I am sure more questions will arise as this comes to fruition). I have a question about who can access this data in the future and how archaeologists can ensure that the appropriate people are accessing the information. I am thinking mainly of Indigenous sacred knowledge that has been collected by archaeologists from Indigenous knowledge holders with specific instructions about how to handle the information and who can access it. How can we ensure these wishes are being accounted for? Or does the obligation to adhere to people's wishes expire at some point in the future- a statute of limitations perhaps? In my opinion, there would have to be specific safeguards in place to ensure that data agreements are in place and honoured no matter how far into the future they are accessed. Is this even possible?
-Ash
Post a Comment