Digital Repatriation as a Decolonizing Practice in the Archaeological Archive

Abstract

Repatriation of archival materials holds great potential for decolonizing archaeological archives. This paper argues that while repatriation of human remains and cultural objects is required by law under the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA), traditional manuscript archives can and should be subject to the same standards for repatriation. The entirety of the archaeological archive can therefore be repatriated to descendant communities. In fact, many museums and other institutions have adopted the practice of digital repatriation of both documents and artifacts. By repatriating a facsimile of an important cultural item, institutions may actually perpetuate the colonial perspective that the original item’s proper place is with the institution instead of with its community of origin. This paper addresses situations in which it is both appropriate and inappropriate to repatriate a digital copy instead of the original object. As part of efforts to be more inclusive and to become better stewards of the collections housed at curating institutions, we look to repatriation—the return of cultural heritage to source or descendant communities— as one component in the complex process of decolonizing archives. The concept of “decolonization” has become hypervisible in academic and museum spheres, and we interpret it here as the process of removing or reducing colonial structure and influence to the greatest extent possible. Colonial influences in institutional archival spaces are vast and multifaceted, and repatriation addresses only one piece of this puzzle. Legal requirements for the repatriation of cultural heritage materials exist in the United States through legislation such as the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA), which focuses on historical and archaeological cultural heritage. Here we apply similar concepts to archival collections and present a case study describing such a process. In this paper we refer particularly to the repatriation of those archival collections which document Native American histories and experiences. Archives of Native American materials are not limited to those found in tribal museums or archaeological repositories. Collections related to Native communities vary drastically and can be found just about anywhere: in 2016, fourteen of seventeen responding units at Indiana University Bloomington self-reported “physical or digital artifacts, objects, images, audio-visual materials, archives, books, maps, manuscripts, and artworks that depict, discuss, or relate to American Indian historical and contemporary issues” (Sievert, 2017). Native American materials were identified in repositories ranging from the Archives of Traditional Music to the campus Herbarium. By identifying Native materials from collections originally gathered without consent, described without consultation, and shared without collaboration and returning them to their source communities, decisions related to use and access are left in the capable hands of those whom the collections represent. We draw upon our personal experiences as a librarian-archivist for a university archaeological laboratory, now anthropological museum, and a university Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA) practitioner to explore the benefits and challenges of repatriating archival materials. We disclose and acknowledge that we are White women who have benefited in various ways from the colonial institutions and systems in which we work. Our particular training in the fields of anthropology and archival studies impacts our understandings of the communities, documents, and artifacts with which we work. This imbalance reflects the critical importance of centering Indigenous knowledge, perspectives,