Virtual Repatriation: It Is Neither Virtual nor Repatriation

Digitisation, digital interaction and social media: embedded barriers to democratic heritage

“…Notions of open access for all do not always sit easily with these other democratising themes that stress reconciling conflicting groups and engaging with marginalised communities. In fact, in the cases of many Indigenous communities, making all aspects of their heritage accessible online to everyone, regardless of age, gender, initiation or other status, is an anathema to their values (Hogsden and Poulter 2012;Ngata, Ngata-Gibson and Salmond 2012;Boast and Enote 2013). Certain projects, such as the Mukurtu Wumpurrarni-kari Archive (Mukurtu n.d.) and Plateau Peoples' Web Portal (WSU n.d.), do employ Content Management Systems (CMS) that restrict access to culturally sensitive digital information according to Indigenous community protocols.…”

“…Too often, these collaborative digitisation projects between institutions and source communities overlook the ways projects might realise local goals that support learning and engagement with cultural heritage; instead, they simply 'broadcast collections' and the accompanying catalogue information already held by the institution (Srinivasan et al 2009, 162). As Boast makes clear, even digitisation projects that incorporate these marginalised voices in digital spaces frequently fail to move contributed comments from the online periphery into the central institution catalogues where knowledge is produced and defended (Boast, Bravo, and Srinivasan 2007, 401;Boast and Enote 2013) since this is not pre-defined as an intended research outcome.…”

“…The Zuni A:shiwi A:Wan Museum and Heritage Centre (AAMHC) in New Mexico, USA, is one case in point. Originally conceived as a digitisation project that might enrich Cambridge University's Museum of Archaeology and Anthropology (MoAA) database of Kechiba:wa items with contemporary Zuni views, the active involvement of the Zuni community meant the project developed in such a way that the digital database has been constructed according to Zuni principles and is housed within the Zuni pueblo (Isaac 2009;Boast and Enote 2013). The power to share and add knowledge to the database rests with the Zuni community, suggesting grassroots democratisation of heritage is really taking place.…”

The Untapped Potential of Low-Cost Photogrammetry in Community-Based Archaeology: A Case Study From Banks Island, Arctic Canada

“…What do communities risk in making models of their tangible cultural heritage available online? While some communities have actively pursued digital replication of their heritage objects (Ngata, NgataGibson, and Salmond 2012), others do not wish to make such objects publically available due to their esoteric qualities (Boast and Enote 2013). Bollwerk (2015) cautions that movements in archaeology towards increased transparency through Open Access and Open Data may conflict with Indigenous cultural protocols, and that co-creating digital data and resources with Indigenous communities means ensuring that those communities can control access to the data.…”

Exploring the “Cozy Cabal of Academics, Dealers and Collectors” through the Schøyen Collection

“…The role of digitisation is a recurring discussion in the politics of heritage, especially concerning repatriation [181]. The attempts at justifying research on and dissemination of the Schøyen collection by attempting a de-coupling of digital records and images from the objects and their history was a pronounced element in the National Library's engagement with Schøyen.…”