Collaborative encounters in digital cultural property

Anderson, Jane; Montenegro, María

doi:10.4324/9781315641034-27

Cited by 10 publications

(6 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…These communities have pushed back against colonial practices that distance them from their heritage through Indigenous epistemologies, methodologies, and practice (Kovach 2009; Smith 1999) and through international instruments and national legal systems (Battiste and Henderson 2000; Bell and Paterson 2009; Echo-Hawk 2012; Riding In et al 2004). As Anderson and Montenegro (2017:438) remark, digital heritage creates “new negotiations around access, care and ownership,” leading non-Indigenous stakeholders and Indigenous communities to have “new expectations and social engagements.” The rise of digital archaeology hightlights questions about whose archaeological heritage is collected and digitized, who decides what information is stored and where, what is shareable and shared, with whom digital data are shared, how they are cared for, and how they are curated for future use.…”

Section: A Few Issues In Archaeology and Digital Heritagementioning

confidence: 99%

The CARE Principles and the Reuse, Sharing, and Curation of Indigenous Data in Canadian Archaeology

Gupta

Martindale

Supernant

et al. 2023

Adv. archaeol. pract.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Reuse and sharing of archaeological data are tied to ethics in data practice, research design, and the rights of Indigenous peoples in decision-making about their heritage. In this article, the authors discuss how the CARE (Collective benefit, Authority to control, Responsibility, and Ethics) principles and Indigenous data governance create intellectual space for archaeological research. We show how archaeologists can use this framework to highlight hidden costs and labor associated with the “data ecosystem,” which are often borne by Indigenous nations and communities. The CARE framework gives voice to Indigenous peoples’ concerns around data sharing, curation, and reuse; ways we can redress these issues; and strategies that facilitate Indigenous nations and communities in deriving collective benefit from research. In archaeology, these efforts include greater work on heritage legislation and policy, repositioning Indigenous peoples as active stewards of their data, and building capacity in digital methods and ethical data practice. Each Indigenous nation and community has its own interests, values, and protocols, and we suggest paths to bring data practice into alignment with the CARE framework.

show abstract

Section: A Few Issues In Archaeology and Digital Heritagementioning

confidence: 99%

The CARE Principles and the Reuse, Sharing, and Curation of Indigenous Data in Canadian Archaeology

Gupta

Martindale

Supernant

et al. 2023

Adv. archaeol. pract.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…A very wide range of projects have now aimed to make historic materials, and especially photographs accessible to descendants and communities using digital tools, including research projects, government initiatives, and community-driven initiatives (e.g., Ginsburg 2008;Christen 2012;Geismar 2013;Anderson and Montenegro 2017). These contemporary practices of archival return have been described as "casting memories of the past into the future" (Barwick et al 2019), but pose "conundrums" such as the loss of provenance information, meaning that they may never find reconnection to the individuals and communities of their origin.…”

Section: Archival Restitutionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Indigenous Uses of Photographic Digital Heritage in Postcolonizing Australia

Lydon

2021

Photography and Culture

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The process of "postcolonizing" continues in the former settler colony of Australia, entailing intense struggles over national identity and culture. Digital heritage plays a key role in these conflicts, in the form of historical and newer archives that have become increasingly important within Indigenous advocacy for recognition. Constructed from more traditional museum, library and private collections, these have become digital assets that now circulate in radically different ways -for example, as proof of identities, and links to Country. Since the late 1990s, as a result of postcolonizing advocacy by Indigenous people and cultural institutions in alliance with rapidly developing digital technologies, a profound shift in management practices has facilitated the assertion of control by First Nations people. These are exemplified by the Aṟa Irititja project, and its replicants, such as the Storylines project at the State Library of Western Australia. Digital heritage and digitized historical photographs in particular are now considered to be key resources for building Aboriginal history and identity, challenging oppressive state narratives and strengthening communities. Despite concerns regarding loss of culture caused by globalization and continuing inequalities, Aboriginal interests have drawn upon this expanded photographic digital heritage resource, to advance their rights through new temporal practices of production, circulation, and consumption.

show abstract

“…As a largely educational extra-legal initiative, the TK labels were designed to be utilized by communities who, due to colonial practices of collecting and western definitions of authorship and ownership, are unable to assert legal control over their collections. They function as community-driven tools aimed at adding important and often missing information about proper use, guidelines for action, and responsible stewardship of publicly circulating digital cultural heritage (Anderson and Christen, 2013; Christen, 2015; Anderson and Montenegro, 2017).…”

Section: The Tk Labels: An Anticolonial Metadata Toolmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…In this sense, while Indigenous communities cannot “correct” or revoke the legal ownership and/or authorship, from their Indigenous perspective they can assert local and ongoing tribal, community and even family relationships, obligations and responsibilities that are embedded in their circulating digital materials (Christen, 2015). This, thus, works to trouble the circulation of normative legal rights – in the very act of labeling and pointing back to the contemporary local contexts from which these materials derive their meaning, there is a disruption in the presumed stability and legitimacy of the asserted legal ownership and authorship imposed by standard information systems and their metadata fields (Anderson and Montenegro, 2017).…”

Section: The Tk Labels: An Anticolonial Metadata Toolmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…These practices of collecting were significantly and systematically destructive – Indigenous cultural materials were removed from their home communities and detached from local knowledge systems and contexts. These materials remain today not only physically distant from their places of origin – in non-tribal museums, archives and libraries, universities, and federal agencies – but are also held within a legal system that refuses to acknowledge Indigenous claims to stewardship and ownership of these materials (Tribe et al , 2017; Christen, 2015, 2018; Anderson, 2013; Carpenter et al , 2008; Anderson and Montenegro, 2017). As a consequence, Indigenous people have historically been excluded from the decision-making processes that determine what information from and about them should be collected, who should gather that information, and who should manage it, document, describe and interpret it, and who should have access to it (Anderson, 2018).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Subverting the universality of metadata standards

Montenegro

2019

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Purpose The purpose of this paper is to investigate the underlying meanings, effects and cultural patterns of metadata standards, focusing on Dublin Core (DC), and explore the ways in which anticolonial metadata tools can be applied to exercise and promote Indigenous data sovereignty. Design/methodology/approach Applying an anticolonial approach, this paper examines the assumptions underpinning the stated roles of two of DC’s metadata elements, rights and creator. Based on that examination, the paper considers the limitations of DC for appropriately documenting Indigenous traditional knowledge (TK). Introduction of the TK labels and their implementation are put forward as an alternative method to such limitations in metadata standards. Findings The analysis of the rights and creator elements revealed that DC’s universality and supposed neutrality threaten the rightful attribution, specificity and dynamism of TK, undermining Indigenous data sovereignty. The paper advocates for alternative descriptive methods grounded within tribal sovereignty values while recognizing the difficulties of dealing with issues of interoperability by means of metadata standards given potentially innate tendencies to customization within communities. Originality/value This is the first paper to directly examine the implications of DC’s rights and creator elements for documenting TK. The paper identifies ethical practices and culturally appropriate tools that unsettle the universality claims of metadata standards. By introducing the TK labels, the paper contributes to the efforts of Indigenous communities to regain control and ownership of their cultural and intellectual property.

show abstract

Collaborative encounters in digital cultural property

Cited by 10 publications

References 0 publications

The CARE Principles and the Reuse, Sharing, and Curation of Indigenous Data in Canadian Archaeology

The CARE Principles and the Reuse, Sharing, and Curation of Indigenous Data in Canadian Archaeology

Indigenous Uses of Photographic Digital Heritage in Postcolonizing Australia

Subverting the universality of metadata standards

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About