Born Archival: The Ebb and Flow of Digital Documents from the Field

Abstract

by entering into increasingly collaborative partnerships with speech communities, producing "documents" that have both local relevance and academic integrity. The growth in access to digital recording technology has meant that contemporary research initiatives on endangered languages are not only born digital, but often birthed straight into an archive. Yet heritage collections of recordings made by ethnographers and linguists in the past are ever more endangered, becoming orphaned when their collectors die or fragmented into their component parts based on the medium of documentation when they are finally archived. Drawing on fieldwork in Nepal with a community speaking an endangered Tibeto-Burman language, and reflecting on the decade I have spent directing a digital humanities research initiative-the Digital Himalaya Project-I discuss how linguists and anthropologists are collecting, protecting and connecting their data, and how technology influences their relationship to documents.

Archiving anthropology in Portugal

“…This argument leads us on to another proposition, which involves the idea of a 'second life' and the scope for a first-hand reutilization of collected data (Leopold 2008) through making them available both to future generations of anthropological practitioners and the studied populations (Turin 2011), stimulating new research studies and return visits to fieldsites. Ethnographic archives can thus act as collaborative platforms.…”

“…Some authors also argue that ethnographic archives allow for an approach that is capable of spanning the studied populations and the knowledge produced about them, thereby contributing to the preservation of their cultural heritage (Leopold 2008;Turin 2011).…”

“…However, the new life of ethnographic materials also raises an important ethical issue: confidentiality, consent and restrictions on access to materials, 3 considering that most access policies should simultaneously take both the document-producers' decisions and the interests of the studied populations into account (Caplan 2010;Leopold 2008;Silverman & Parezo 1995;Silverman et al 2003;Turin 2011).…”

After the Return

“…As we explored in the workshop, it is clear that giving and receiving are rarely monodirectional or linear, and have to be thought of as reciprocal and cyclical ongoing processes (Bell 2008(Bell , 2010Christen 2005Christen , 2009Turin 2007Turin , 2011. Indigenous communities, museums, archives, and libraries, as well as individuals and family groups, are increasingly using digital materials in sophisticated and intersecting ways (e.g., Boast et al 2007;Geismar and Mohns 2011;Salmond 2012).…”

Digital Himalaya and the Collaborative Publishing Experience

“…They took precautions to gauge the project's impact early on by sharing a sample of historical documents and films with Himalayan residents before putting the bulk of the information online. To their relief, the people who viewed the materials were delighted to discover, and to have available for their own reference and use, historically rich content about themselves and their ancestors that helped to deepen understandings of their past (Shneiderman 2003; Turin 2011b:456). Now that the materials are online, the project directors receive regular e‐mails from website users who write to express thanks, ask for additional resources on particular topics, and volunteer information that enhances the quality of the associated content.…”