Native American Material Heritage and the Digital Age:Virtual Repatriation and Its Implications for Community Knowledge Sharing By Katherine Carlton Introduction to Research Goals

My research explores the ways in which the sharing of knowledge of material culture differs in the physical and virtual medium. With the advent of digital technology and increased collaboration between indigenous communities and museums, many institutions are working collaboratively with tribes to develop digital databases of their cultural heritage objects. Theoretically, these databases can then be accessed by tribal members so that they may view the objects and then share their own knowledge about them on the digital site. I am investigating the ways in which this digital form of knowledge sharing differs from that which takes place in the physical museum space.

To identify the ways knowledge is shared in the virtual realm, I analyze the membership composition and object entries of the Great Lakes Research Alliance for the Study of Aboriginal Arts and Cultures digital database. I then contrast these observations with an analysis of two case studies in which tribal members visited their cultural heritage objects in person, focusing specifically on the sort of knowledge sharing that took place in these physical encounters. Lastly, I reflect on my own experience digitizing the Museum of Anthropologys Great Lakes basket collection, offering insight regarding the ways in which digital heritage databases and collaborative relationships between museums and tribes can be improved and supplemented. Great Lakes Research Alliance for the Study of Aboriginal Arts and Cultures (GRASAC)GRASAC MembershipGRASAC Information SharingOriginal Objects and the Human ConnectionVisual Repatriation: Two Case Studies

Yupik Elders and the Etnologisches Museum:In the summer of 1994, a group of seven Yupik tribal members traveled from Alaska to the Etnologisches Museum in Berlin to see the largest collection of Yupik artifacts in the world. They spent three weeks interacting with their heritage objects. The handling of the items was most special in that it elicited a sharing of stories related to family and community history. By interacting with objects such as whaling harpoons and wooden shovels, members of the Yupik delegation remembered stories they hadnt heard in decades. Sugpiaq Artists and the Boulogne-sur-Mer:In 2006, a group of Sugpiaq cavers traveled from Alaska to the Boulogne-sur-Mer Museum in France to visit a collection of over 70 traditional Sugpiaq masks that had been collected in the 1870s. By interacting with the masks and learning how they were made, the artists were able to revitalize old mask-carving traditions that had virtually disappeared from the community. Most expressed the opinion that photographs were insufficient for learning the intricacies of design, and that seeing the objects in person is what reawakened their old tradition. Like in the case of the Yupik, it is evident that physical interaction with heritage objects is necessary to elicit the kind of knowledge sharing that GRASAC is meant to encourage, but that does not seem to be present in the digital space.

Digitization Process ReflectionsConclusions: Knowledge Sharing in the Digital and Physical SpaceMy analysis of GRASAC revealed that most member institutions of the database are non-native-community-based, such as museums or record offices, rather than tribes. This trend suggests that the site is working to facilitate the sharing of cultural heritage knowledge between collecting institutions, but perhaps not between museums and tribes. In my sample of 64 object-pages, I found that most data-fields of the objects contextual information were completed, such as date made, construction techniques, and region or origin. Based on my own experience making entries into GRASAC, I concluded that the data-fields that were left blank likely reflected the lack of information that was available in some of the museums catalogue records. The data-fields generally high completion levels suggest that the sight is effective in sharing objects contextual information with other members of GRASAC. However I also noticed that only 3% of the object-pages in my sample had any posted comments from community members. To explore why this would be the case, I turned to research on object surrogacy to see how the digital element of the objects could be deterring tribal members from sharing knowledge about them. In 1936, German philosopher Walter Benjamin introduced a concept he called the aura of the original. He suggested that original objects had a certain element that could not be recreated through mechanical reproductions. Subsequent scholars have furthered this argument in the digital age, arguing that digital reproductions do not elicit the same emotional connections to objects that individuals feel when viewing the real thing. In the context of my research, I suggest that the reason community members are not sharing information on GRASAC is that they are uninspired by the digital images. To test this point, I examine the knowledge sharing that took place in two case studies in which tribal member interacted with their heritage objects in the physical museum space.Drawing upon my analysis of GRASAC, the two case studies, and my own digitizing experience, I argue that digital heritage databases are effective for showing tribal members where their heritage objects are located and what information is available on them, but that physical interaction is necessary to elicit the sharing of cultural knowledge from community members. GRASAC and other similar sites should be viewed as a starting point for forging collaborative relationships between tribes and museums through which physical museum visits can then be arranged. GRASAC membership table

Chart1

0.46

0.16

0.19

0.03

Native

0.11

0.05

GRASAC Member Institutions by Type

GRASAC Member Institutions

Institutions

Member Institution CategoriesGeographic RegionTotalPercentage of Total Institutions

United StatesCanadaEurope

Non-Native

Non-University Affiliated Museums14121746%

University Affiliated Museums402616%

Archives/ Records Offices241719%

Historical Societies10013%

Native

Culture Centers130411%

First Nations/Tribes02025%

Total Number9131537

Percentage of Total Institutions24%35%41%

Institutions

GRASAC Member Institutions by Type

GRASAC Member Institutions

Object Data

GRASAC Member Institutions by Geography

Object Data 2

Object Description DataPercentage of Sample With This Field Completed

Description80%Date Made89%

Date Made89%Materials84%

Maker6%Description80%

Region of Origin75%Region of Origin75%

Nation of Origin69%Format/Techniques70%

Local Origin31%Nation of Origin69%

Materials84%Dimensions64%

Format/Techniques70%Acquisition Source59%

Dimensions64%Collection Narrative59%

Original Function13%Date of Acquisition55%

Date of Acquisition55%Local Origin31%

Acquisition Source59%Original Collection Date20%

Original Collector9%Original Function13%

Original Collection Date20%Original Collector9%

Collection Narrative59%Maker6%

Comments3%Comments3%

Object Data 2

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

Object Description Field Completion Rate

Object Desciption Data Field

Percentage of Sample with This Field Complete

Pictures

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

Object Display Page Description Fields

Percentage of Sample with This Field Complete

Object Description Fields Completion Rates

Object Description DataObject Identification Number (As Defined in Sample)Number CompletePercentage

12345678910111213141516171819202122232425262728293031323334353637383940414243444546474849505152535455565758596061626364

Item Identification

Description/SummaryXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX5180%

Dates and Times Related to Item

Date Made or Date RangeXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX5789%

Makers and Places

MakerXXXX46%

Region of OriginXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX4875%

Nation of OriginXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX4469%

Local OriginXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX2031%

Physical Description

MaterialsXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX5484%

Format/TechniquesXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX4570%

DimensionsXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX4164%

Use History

Original FunctionXXXXXXXX813%

Collection and Acquistion History

Date of Acquisition byt InstitutionXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX3555%

Acquisition SourceXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX3859%

Original CollectorXXXXXX69%

Original Collection Date/Date RangeXXXXXXXXXXXXX1320%

Collection Narrative/HistoryXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX3859%

Additional

CommentsXX23%

Percent of Information Complete*707080677606727202020202020802020737367606780605327276733474773333313665360666073478080136060605367537333876760476753534760674752%

*Categories included in this chart are those that would apply to all objects with complete provenance information stored in institutions

Photo CountNumberPercentage of Sample with This Amount of Photos

1 or no photos711%

2 to 5 photos2844%

6 to 10 photos1828%

11 to 15 photos812%

16 to 20 photos23%

More than 20 photos12%

0

0

0

0

0

0

Number of Photos Accompanying Each Object Entry in Sample

Number of Photos Accompanying Each Object Entry

Percentage of Sample

Object Entry Photos

GRASAC was started in the early 2000s with the intent of digitally reuniting Native American communities of the Great Lakes with items of their cultural heritage. Staff of museums that are members of GRASAC can upload Great Lakes items in their collections onto the database. Contextual information such as date made and region of origin are also included on the object-pages (seen in image above-left). To understand what sort of knowledge is being shared on GRASAC, I analyze the completion levels of these data-fields in my sample of 64 objects on GRASAC. Tribal institutions who are members of GRASAC can then access these object-pages and post their comments, thus sharing their cultural heritage knowledge with museums and other tribal members.

GRASAC object-page display

To further explore what was being lost in the process of digitization, I digitized a portion of the Museum of Anthropologys Great Lakes basket collection for inclusion in GRASAC. Drawing upon Walter Benjamins work regarding the aura of the original, I concluded that as much as I was attempting to take detailed photos, I was not capturing the objects essence that can be felt when interacting with the original. Additionally, I was challenged in deciding what angles of the baskets were most important to photograph. I myself am not a basket maker or a member of the objects source community, so it was difficult to assume what images community members accessing the items on GRASAC would most like to see.

A basket in the Museum of Anthropologys Great Lakes Collection being photographed for inclusion in GRASAC