Archaeological heritage in the age of digital colonialism

Abstract

Digital archaeologists claim that their practices have proven to be an important tool for mediating conflict, ensuring that the digital turn in archaeology entails engaging in current political issues. This can be questioned by analysing a copy of the Syrian Arch of Triumph. The original was destroyed in 2015. A year later, a copy was carved out of Egyptian marble; the replica was constructed thanks to digital documentation, which allowed archaeologists to create a 3D model. The arch was placed in various Western locations; however, it never reached Syria. Hybridity, the cultural and political significance of the arch’s replica and its ‘Grand Tour’ invite us to think about different interpretive layers of this artefact of ideological discourse (ontological, epistemological, ethical). In this paper, the replica of the Syrian arch will be analysed through the frameworks of post-colonial theory and technology studies. Both perspectives provide an insight into promising advantages and alarming drawbacks of such digital practices. This paper argues that the case of a copy of the Syrian Arch of Triumph on the one hand reflects the contemporary colonial technocracy in heritage politics (an ethical dimension), and on the other demonstrates that an ideological aspect of its digital reconstruction emerges from a speculative anticipation of what might constitute the universal value of world heritage in the future (an onto-epistemological dimension).

Revitalizing the Cultural Heritage: Assessing the Historical Significance and Conservation Potential of Hindu Sites in Punjab, Pakistan

“…Limited public awareness and appreciation of the historical significance of these sites pose another critical challenge to their conservation. Many local communities may not fully recognize the value of these heritage sites, leading to indifference or even vandalism (Stobiecka, 2020). Building public awareness and fostering a sense of ownership and pride in these sites can play a significant role in encouraging local communities to actively participate in conservation efforts.…”

Being Seen, Being Heard: Ownership of Archaeology and Digital Heritage

“…Digitization or the transformation of analogue items into digital forms is the process by which objects are encoded in machine language and made human-readable through specialized software and graphic displays. Digitization efforts in holding institutions such as galleries, archives, libraries and museums typically distance Indigenous, and historically excluded peoples from their heritage (Nicholas, 2017;Stobiecka, 2020), which only serves to reinforce colonial practices in archaeology. In her mindful piece, Being Seen, Being Heard Odumosu (2020) draws the reader's attention to the ethics associated with the display and circulation of sensitive digital heritage, such as imagery of enslaved and colonized peoples in the Danish National Archives.…”

Chasing Future Feelings: A Practice-led Experiment with Emergent Digital Materialities of Heritage

“…However, substantive questions have been raised around their openness, ownership, long-term usefulness and capacity for re-use, and around exactly how these digital objects will fulfil promises of making heritage more widely available and 'democratised' (Jeffrey 2015;Rico 2017). Some have pointed to the deployment of digital technologies as a troubling new form of 'digital colonialism' (Kamash 2017;Stobiecka 2020), while others claim that 3D data is already facing 'an imminent crisis of obsolescence, "resource discovery" and corporate abandonment', suggesting that the rush to capture scanned data, and to make digital objects, has not been matched by a similar concern for the sustainability of the digital records produced (Kilbride 2017: 183).…”

“…As is clear to heritage, museum and archive professionals, digitization, or digital data capture, is not digital preservation; in fact, it creates a digital preservation problem (Kilbride 2017: 185). However, the term 'digital preservation' continues to be used widely in popular contexts, particularly around efforts to digitally record, visualize and reconstruct archaeological sites and objects destroyed in violent conflicts and disasters (Kamash 2017: 612;Stobiecka 2020). This loose use of terminology particularly irritates those specialists who work within established digital preservation workflows, supported by a range of international doctrine, charters and guidelines (e.g.…”