IVEffectiveness of 3D Digitization as a Tool for Indigenous Cultural Heritage Preservation

  • Hannah Stubee, The George Washington University

Extolled for its breadth of applications, 3D digitization has recently emerged on the museum scene as a potential tool for Indigenous communities to preserve their tangible and intangible heritage in a way that is compatible with Indigenous ways of knowing and the challenges of repatriation. Unlike 2D images and original artifacts trapped behind glass, 3D data is valuable beyond its visual appeal. It allows the viewer to interact with the internal structure, surface, and visual appearance of an object, unimpeded by physical limitations. Therefore, it is able to provide an embodied experience of an object that lends itself to the stimulation, reinforcement, and transmission of generational memory “through modeling, practice and animation” more so than 2D images.1 Digital surrogates can be used for conservation, research, and education, taking on a separate life from the original object. This has the potential to allow for original Indigenous belongings to be repatriated or, at the very least, better preserved by limiting handling of the original artifacts.

While 3D digitization may be theoretically well suited for digital heritage preservation and repatriation projects, museums should be aware that digital repatriation is a form of “conscientization,” in which the “settler move to innocence is to focus on decolonizing the mind […] as if it were the sole activity of decolonization; to [circumvent] the more uncomfortable task of relinquishing stolen land,” or in this case, stolen belongings.2 3D digitization and digital repatriation are not a replacement for the repatriation of stolen belongings, but rather one of many complementary efforts that may enhance or further repatriation of original artifacts. Careful evaluation of early 3D cultural heritage projects is crucial if we hope to develop this technology for cultural heritage use in a responsible, community-responsive way moving forward.

It is important to note that 3D digitization sits at the intersection of a multitude of contentious issues in museums, from decolonization and repatriation to digitization and ethical data management. All of these issues are complex in their own right and deserve a more full discussion than can be provided in the scope of this paper. For a closer look at issues related to digitization of cultural heritage, I recommend reading Gwyneira Isaac’s “Perclusive Alliances”3 and Zinaida Manžuch’s “Ethical Issues in Digitization Of Cultural Heritage.”4 Though not museum-specific, Eve Tuck and K. Wayne Yang’s “Decolonization is not a metaphor” is a good introduction to active decolonization that should be applied when designing partnerships with source communities.5

As a non-Indigenous scholar, I also cannot speak to the needs or opinions of Indigenous people beyond what I have found in my research. I have incorporated Indigenous voices where possible, but Native peoples are diverse and their contributions are underrepresented in academic research. Therefore, even the Indigenous perspectives that have been published are limited and in no way a holistic representation of the diverse concerns and values of all tribes.

Methods of 3D Modeling

In Europe, museum professionals have been attempting to harness the quickly advancing field of commercial and industrial 3D digitization for cultural heritage uses in an attempt to efficiently preserve the mass of artifacts and historic sites there.6 Now that the practice has been proven abroad, the United States is looking to take advantage of the trend. 3D digitization can collect three different kinds of data about an object: internal structure, surface, and visual appearance. These data are typically synthesized into one 3D model that can be used as a surrogate for the original object.

Many different technologies can be used to collect this data, but each has different restraints and outcomes. For example, X-radiography allows researchers to view the internal structure of an object, but not the surface. Laser scanning can produce an “extremely accurate record of an object’s physical structure” but it “does not provide information about structure below an object’s surface.” Computed tomography (CT) scanners, which also use X-rays, can collect data about both the internal and external structure. Lasers and X-rays only extract spatial information about an object, so their data cannot represent color. A color “texture” must be layered onto the shape of the object like a thin skin.7 These are just a few of the most common techniques available. The “3D Digitization in Cultural Heritage Institutions Guidebook” by Emma Cieslik lays out other options for other digitizing technology and their strengths and weaknesses for various applications.8

The technique that would be most affordable and straightforward for museums to implement is photogrammetry, which “[derives] 3D measurements based on a set of overlapping images.”9 Essentially, a creator can stitch together a 3D shell of an object from many photos taken at different angles. Photogrammetry’s “key focus is on rendering to create a visual realistic and appealing picture of reality,” rather than on creating measurements, so it is best suited for applications that value aesthetics over accuracy of measurements.10 Photogrammetry is the most accessible form of 3D digitization because at its very base level, it can be done on a smartphone with the phone’s built-in camera and photo-stitching apps like RealityScan.11 Heritage Together12 and other organizations have been digitally reconstructing cultural heritage sites that have either been destroyed or endangered by crowdsourcing and stitching together smartphone camera images from tourists.13 Although this tactic may not be feasible for Indigenous sites, which may be less photographically documented due to privacy restrictions on sacred sites, photogrammetry can also be applied to museum collections. These projects demonstrate that 3D digitization does not always require overly complicated technology, enabling Indigenous community members to run their own digitization projects without relying heavily on museum professionals. Dr. Jonathan Roberts of the Queensland University of Toronto lauded Heritage Together for “[allowing] the community to learn more about their heritage, and while improving heritage management” such as preservation.14

What is digital repatriation?

In order to assess whether 3D digitization can improve digital repatriation efforts, we need to define what digital repatriation is and should be. In its most basic form, repatriation is the “return of objects or human remains to the proper owners.”15 ‘Digital’ repatriation specifically, is the “practice of taking some digital form of an item housed in a memory institution and sharing it with the origin community via a virtual platform.” Digital repatriation emerged as a compromise to return some version of an object to Indigenous communities in “response to the lack of proper facilities and social-political support that are needed for a successful physical repatriation.”16 Repatriating a digital surrogate may bypass some obstacles of physical repatriation, however, sharing digital copies of objects with source communities alone is not effective if the ultimate goal of repatriation is decolonizing the museum by empowering source communities to reclaim their heritage. The museum must also provide resources and facilitate opportunities for Indigenous people to reclaim their heritage with autonomy.

According to Rachel Hatzipanagos, decolonization is the “process that institutions undergo to expand the perspectives they portray beyond those of the dominant cultural group, particularly white colonizers.”17 Museums have historically been object-centric, focusing resources on the preservation and display of objects as the main method of teaching about heritage. However, MacDonald and Alsford posit that if museums re-center their practice around people by viewing their collection items as vessels for information (or knowledge) they can create a “transactional learning situation that is not simply a response to a stimulus, but a response that acts on the environment that gives rise to further stimuli.”18 Therefore, a decolonizing digital heritage project is one that focuses on an “active interaction between the digital material and origin community members, not simply the displaying of digital images on the internet as, for instance, in an online museum catalog.”19 When repatriating cultural heritage, “photos or models that allow the examination of techniques, materials, and preparation employed to make an item are far more important than the traditional cataloging photo […]” because the return of an object means nothing if it cannot be actively used to better the community.20 Because 3D models have a vast array of interactive applications, they could be useful for collaborative digital repatriation efforts that provide the community with the opportunity to produce new knowledge, thus adding an Indigenous perspective to the museum’s traditionally limited scope in a way that gives Indigenous people agency.

Applications of 3D Modeling

There are two main ways that 3D models can be used for cultural heritage preservation to meet the goals of digital repatriation: digitizing individual objects, and constructing larger virtual environments. 3D models of individual objects can be helpful for conservation, research, and the creation of replicas via 3D printing or artist reproduction. This technology was originally brought into museums to support conservation efforts because it allows for a lot of information to be collected from an object while minimizing handling. Reducing handling as much as possible is essential for repatriation candidates, which are often sacred, delicate, or even contaminated with hazardous chemicals due to past conservation and pest management techniques.21

Detailed models can provide better visualization into the structure of an artifact, which can give researchers and Indigenous artists insight into how it was produced. For example, measurements collected from an object’s surface can be “run through computer programs and databases to be compared against existing typology” in order to determine provenance or type, effectively automating part of the research process.22 Artists can use digital models to closely examine the structure of an object and reverse engineer traditional craft skills that may have been lost over time.23

If Indigenous artists are successful in reverse-engineering an object, they can even work with the museum to produce a handmade replica to use in place of the original object. Replicas provide an opportunity to rethink the process of repatriation because, with permission of the source community, museums can display a replica and repatriate the original object. Display of the surrogate artifact becomes a way to “add a new dimension to the [object’s] story” and “tell the story about repatriation.”24 However, replicas are not truly a decolonial solution if their main purpose is not to support the source community, but rather to prevent detriment to the museum upon repatriation of original artifacts––more concerned with “rescuing a settler normalcy, […] rescuing a settler future” than with supporting the source community.25

Expanding 3D modeling to create not just visualizations of singular objects, but entire virtual environments that add context to objects might be more beneficial for source communities. Two popular models for these virtual environments include educational games and virtual exhibits. New to both the gaming world and the cultural heritage sector, a new genre of computer games known as ‘serious games,’ “are not limited to the aim of providing entertainment, [and] allow for collaborative use of 3D spaces that are used for learning and educational purposes."26 Serious gaming is an exciting prospect for specifically Indigenous cultural heritage preservation because it is best suited for “communication, visual expression of information, collaboration mechanisms, interactivity and entertainment,” which are all traits that overlap with Indigenous goals and ways of presenting information.27

Games provide a new way for Indigenous communities to not only practice, but self-define heritage. In historical games, “the human player is immersed in the historical setting, allowing the player to re-live history.”28 When Indigenous communities participate in the formation of these video games, they can define the narrative that the player will experience, asserting their perspective of histories they have often been left out of. Indigenous media such as this can be considered a form of “cultural activism,” that “‘[talks] back’ to structures of power that have erased or distorted indigenous interests and realities.”29

Virtual exhibits have the potential to bring together artifacts from far-reaching locations. This is particularly helpful in the case of Indigenous objects that have been stolen and dispersed to museums and private collections across the country and beyond. Established in the 1990s, the Four Directions Project connected nineteen schools on American Indian reservations with four university partners and two museum partners to “create virtual museums that reflect their cultures and serve to present and preserve the students’ indigenous heritage.”30 During the creation of the virtual exhibits, students and community elders were able to access and curate collections of belongings from several partner museums and add their own knowledge to the virtual exhibit. These partnerships provided a framework for culturally responsive teaching, cultural revitalization, and cultural collaboration across museum collections.

When is digital repatriation helpful?

If a 3D model is useful because it is able to replicate the properties of an object more accurately than other digital surrogates, we should be asking “why not just repatriate the original object?” Unfortunately, physical repatriation is “presently not always an attainable goal, particularly in the instance of collections residing outside the United States or items that do not fall under NAGPRA,” (Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act) such as objects found on private land.31 NAGPRA does not restrict repatriation of objects that fall outside of its designation, but museums may be hesitant to repatriate without a clear law to sanction it. Museums are supposed to hold objects in trust for the public, so deaccessioning (legally removing an object from a permanent collection) is controversial.

If repatriation is an option, digital surrogates may provide intellectual access until the physical object can be repatriated.Eva Malvich, a member of the Yup’ik tribe in Alaska, explains that while it is important to steer clear of white saviorism, “some communities do not wish to have the original documents back” because “taking back collections means taking on a lot of responsibility in providing suitable facilities and care.”32 Some communities may ask the museum to agree to shared stewardship in which the museum hosts the physical object until they have the resources to steward it themselves.

Digital repatriation can also be a stepping stone to further repatriation efforts in the future rather than the end of the road, but the needs of every Indigenous community will be different. The repatriation process should be an ongoing discussion between museums and Indigenous communities. In most cases, physical repatriation is preferred, but it is beneficial to examine digital repatriation as an alternative when physical repatriation cannot be immediately achieved.

Practical Considerations

For all of its possibilities, 3D digitization also presents a new set of ethical dilemmas and practical concerns. Cost, accessibility, limitations of technology, and the complexity of digital asset management must all be considered in the project planning process. For instance, it may be tempting to try to extract the maximum amount of data out of each object in order to repatriate as much knowledge as a physical object could, but creating the highest quality scans for every object that we hope to digitally repatriate is simply not practical. In order to make the most of what little resources are available, the museum and source community should work together to define what level of detail is necessary for the kind of use the community hopes to get out of the model. For example, “geometric accuracy of 3D reconstruction is very important when undertaken in a preservation/reconstruction context,” but may not be critical when creating an educational virtual reality program where the digital reconstruction need only be accurate enough to be visually appealing.33

3D digitization is a tremendous undertaking because the museum must not only shoulder the cost of the technology and labor required to create the models, but also because creation of a model alone is not enough if the museum hopes to host a meaningful collaboration with the source community. While collaborations with museums may give these communities an opportunity to represent themselves in the digital sphere in a way they previously may not have been able to, the creation of culturally-specific digital resources is only half the battle. The community must have the infrastructure to access and use these resources at home after the completion of the project.34 The museum must also be able to support use of the models, which often involves creating a whole new platform that can facilitate easy, private, and engaging access to the models.35 When developing platforms for the use of these digital assets it is important to remember that “indigenous peoples are proportionately underrepresented in cyberspace––for obvious reasons such as economic poverty, technological inexperience, linguistic isolation, political repression, and/or cultural resistance.”36 Especially in remote areas, origin communities may be limited by poor internet connections. Museums may have to consider creative workarounds to these barriers, such as sharing digital models “using mobile data storage, such as external hard drives, that are accessible to local community members.”37

Infrastructure may also be a barrier to storing, backing up, and maintaining digital assets that are created in the process of digitization. Digitization entails the creation of digital assets that the museum or community must store, back up, and maintain throughout developments in technology. This responsibility is complicated by the fact that 3D models can be “so complex or detailed that they cannot fit into the graphics memory, or even the main memory, of the computer.”38 Once digital assets are created to preserve a physical object, they themselves must be preserved in perpetuity. Data management of complex digital objects is an ever-evolving challenge that even experts struggle to overcome because new technologies are often implemented without any thought to how new types of digital assets can be stored or maintained in perpetuity as the technologies that created them become obsolete. User-friendly programs are making creation of 3D models more accessible, but they should not be made unless the Museum and community have a realistic plan for long-term digital stewardship.

Privacy of digital assets is another concern when dealing with cultural heritage objects, especially in the case of sacred objects or other belongings that carry knowledge that has traditionally been restricted in order to uphold power structures within tribes. Because 3D digitization is so new, it is “not subject to the standards and regulations that would otherwise be applied.”39 There is no consensus on who owns the rights to 3D data: the museum, the tribe, or the researchers who collected the data? Who should decide how it can be used? As educational institutions, museums prioritize dissemination of knowledge and prefer to make everything open access, but Indigenous and Euro-American concepts of privacy and replication can sometimes conflict. Unabridged access to public domain materials is not always a public good.40 If the public is granted unrestricted access to these objects, there is a tremendous risk of misuse. In fact, open access data can even be abused to create forgeries.41 Until legal precedent can be set, it is up to museums to set ethical guidelines for the use and ownership of 3D data. Current U.S. law does recognize Indigenous legislation protections over cultural heritage objects and intellectual property. It is possible that “intellectual property rights may not be appropriate, legally or culturally, for the digital surrogates of some objects and materials.”42

Takeaways

While 3D technology is certainly full of possibilities, it is crucial to remain pragmatic and keep Indigenous interests at the forefront of our evaluation of 3D digitization. Before beginning costly digitization projects, museums should ask whether the technology is truly necessary to meet the goals of the community, or if there is a more effective solution that uses fewer resources. Ultimately, money spent on 3D digitization and maintenance of digital assets might be more impactful for the community if redirected toward hiring more Indigenous museum staff or paying for transportation for remote communities to physically access museums.

In order to be truly decolonial, digitization projects must be by and for Indigenous communities. The role of the museum in digitization projects should be that of a public utility, linking communities to resources so that they can design and carry out their own projects. Museums must be willing to relinquish their power over cultural heritage resources and trust Indigenous communities to steward and share their heritage in whatever way they deem appropriate. Ideally, digitization projects should be a catalyst or continuation of ongoing discussion surrounding each community’s unique needs for physical and digital repatriation. Ultimately, digital repatriation is not a replacement for physical repatriation, but rather a separate process that bolsters or supplements cultural heritage preservation when physical repatriation is not possible.

Because 3D modeling is so new to heritage conservation, it is important to be mindful of the precedents we set with these early experiments. As Wachawiak and Karas point out, the “opportunity to influence the use and development of this remarkable technology is at hand.”43 3D digitization has enormous potential, but it can be even better if we can tackle its pitfalls head on and tailor it to Indigenous needs before it is too late to change.

Notes

  1. Marie Battiste, “Indigenous Knowledge and Pedagogy in First Nations Education” (Apamuwek Institute, October 31, 2002), https://www.afn.ca/uploads/files/education/24._2002_oct_marie_battiste_indigenousknowledgeandpedagogy_lit_review_for_min_working_group.pdf. ↩︎

  2. Eve Tuck and K. Wayne Yang, “Decolonization Is Not a Metaphor,” Decolonization: Indigeneity, Education & Society 1, no. 1 (2012): 9, 19–22, https://clas.osu.edu/sites/clas.osu.edu/files/Tuck%20and%20Yang%202012%20Decolonization%20is%20not%20a%20metaphor.pdf. ↩︎

  3. Gwyneira Isaac, “Perclusive Alliances,” Current Anthropology 56, no. S12 (December 2015): S286–96, https://doi.org/10.1086/683296. ↩︎

  4. Zinaida Manžuch, “Ethical Issues in Digitization of Cultural Heritage,” Journal of Contemporary Archival Studies 4, no. Article 4 (2017): 1–14, https://elischolar.library.yale.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1036&context=jcas. ↩︎

  5. Tuck and Yang, “Decolonization Is Not a Metaphor,” 1-40. ↩︎

  6. Melvin J. Wachowiak and Basiliki Vicky Karas, “3d Scanning and Replication for Museum and Cultural Heritage Applications,” Journal of the American Institute for Conservation 48, no. 2 (August 2009): 143, https://doi.org/10.1179/019713609804516992. ↩︎

  7. Wachowiak and Karas, “3d Scanning and Replication for Museum and Cultural Heritage Applications,” 142. ↩︎

  8. Emma Cieslik and Samuel Harris, “3D Digitization in Cultural Heritage Institutions Guidebook” (Dr. Samuel D. Harris National Museum of Dentistry, July 27, 2020), https://www.dental.umaryland.edu/media/sod/national-museum-of-dentistry/pdfs/3D-Digitization-Guidebook.pdf. ↩︎

  9. Annabelle Davis et al., “Pilbara Rock Art: Laser Scanning, Photogrammetry and 3D Photographic Reconstruction as Heritage Management Tools,” Heritage Science 5, no. 1 (July 4, 2017: 9, https://doi.org/10.1186/s40494-017-0140-7. ↩︎

  10. Annabelle Davis et al., “Pilbara Rock Art,” 9. ↩︎

  11. Epic Games, “Epic Games Releases Free RealityScan IOS App for 3D Scanning,” Epic Games, December 1, 2022, https://www.epicgames.com/site/en-US/news/epic-games-releases-free-realityscan-ios-app-for-3d-scanning. ↩︎

  12. Heritage Together, “About the Project,” Heritage Together, accessed October 19, 2021, http://heritagetogether.org/?page_id=30. ↩︎

  13. Medeia Csoba DeHass and Alexandra Taitt, “3D Technology in Collaborative Heritage Preservation,” Museum Anthropology Review 12, no. 2 (August 11, 2018): 126, https://doi.org/10.14434/mar.v12i2.22428. ↩︎

  14. Heritage Together, “About the Project.” ↩︎

  15. Association of Registrars and Collections Specialists and Collections Stewardship Professional Network of the American Alliance of Museums, “Association of Registrars and Collections Specialists Collections Stewardship Professional Network of the American Alliance of Museums Code of Ethics and Professional Practices for Collections Professionals Code of Ethics and Professional Practices for Collections Professionals,” American Alliance of Museums (American Alliance of Museums, February 24, 2021), https://www.aam-us.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/03/Code_Ethics_Collections_Professionals_2021_02_24.pdf. ↩︎

  16. DeHass and Taitt, “3D Technology in Collaborative Heritage Preservation,” 121. ↩︎

  17. Rachel Hatzipanagos, “The ‘Decolonization’ of the American Museum,” The Washington Post (The Washington Post, October 11, 2018), https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2018/10/12/decolonization-american-museum/. ↩︎

  18. George F. Macdonald and Stephen Alsford, “The Museum as Information Utility,” Museum Management and Curatorship 10, no. 3 (1991): 309. ↩︎

  19. DeHass and Taitt, “3D Technology in Collaborative Heritage Preservation,” 127. ↩︎

  20. DeHass and Taitt, “3D Technology in Collaborative Heritage Preservation,” 131. ↩︎

  21. DeHass and Taitt, “3D Technology in Collaborative Heritage Preservation,” 132. ↩︎

  22. DeHass and Taitt, “3D Technology in Collaborative Heritage Preservation,” 131. ↩︎

  23. Wachowiak and Karas, “3d Scanning and Replication ,” 143. ↩︎

  24. Meilan Solly, “This Replica of a Tlingit Killer Whale Hat Is Spurring Dialogue about Digitization,” Smithsonian Magazine, September 11, 2017, https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smithsonian-institution/replica-tlingit-killer-whale-hat-spurring-dialogue-about-digitization-180964483/. ↩︎

  25. Rachel Hatzipanagos, “The ‘Decolonization’ of the American Museum,” The Washington Post (The Washington Post, October 11, 2018): 35, https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2018/10/12/decolonization-american-museum/. ↩︎

  26. Eike Falk Anderson et al., “Developing Serious Games for Cultural Heritage: A State-of-The-Art Review,” Virtual Reality 14, no. 4 (November 16, 2010): 255-256, https://doi.org/10.1007/s10055-010-0177-3. ↩︎

  27. Anderson et al., “Developing Serious Games for Cultural Heritage,” 256. ↩︎

  28. Anderson et al., “Developing Serious Games for Cultural Heritage,” 261. ↩︎

  29. Faye Ginsburg, “Native Intelligence: A Short History of Debates on Indigenous Media and Ethnographic Film,” in Made to Be Seen: Perspectives on the History of Visual Anthropology, ed. Marcus Banks and Jay Ruby (Chicago and London: The University of Chicago Press, 2011), 7. ↩︎

  30. Mark Christal et al., “Virtual Museums from Four Directions: An Emerging Model for School-Museum Collaboration” (Washington, DC.: Department of Education, 2001), https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/ERIC-ED466145/pdf/ERIC-ED466145.pdf. ↩︎

  31. DeHass and Taitt, “3D Technology in Collaborative Heritage Preservation,” 127. ↩︎

  32. DeHass and Taitt, “3D Technology in Collaborative Heritage Preservation,” 122. ↩︎

  33. Annabelle Davis et al., “Pilbara Rock Art,” 2. ↩︎

  34. Kimberly Christen, “Opening Archives: Respectful Repatriation,” The American Archivist 74, no. Spring/Summer 2011 (2011): 194. ↩︎

  35. Zinaida Manžuch, “Ethical Issues in Digitization of Cultural Heritage,” 11. ↩︎

  36. Faye Ginsburg, “Native Intelligence,” 17. ↩︎

  37. DeHass and Taitt, “3D Technology in Collaborative Heritage Preservation,” 145. ↩︎

  38. Anderson et al., “Developing Serious Games for Cultural Heritage,” 265. ↩︎

  39. Cara S. Hirst, Suzanna White, and Sian E. Smith, “Standardisation in 3D Geometric Morphometrics: Ethics, Ownership, and Methods,” Archaeologies 14, no. 2 (August 2018): 275, https://doi.org/10.1007/s11759-018-9349-7. ↩︎

  40. Kimberly Christen, “Opening Archives: Respectful Repatriation,” The American Archivist 74, no. Spring/Summer 2011 (2011): 189. ↩︎

  41. Wachowiak and Karas, “3d Scanning and Replication,” 144. ↩︎

  42. Mathilde Pavis and Andrea Wallace, “Response to the 2018 Sarr-Savoy Report: Statement on Intellectual Property Rights and Open Access Relevant to the Digitization and Restitution of African Cultural Heritage and Associated Materials,” Journal of Intellectual Property, InformaWachowiak and Karas, “3d Scanning and Replication for Museum and Cultural Heritage Applications,” 157. ↩︎

  43. Wachowiak and Karas, “3d Scanning and Replication,” 157. ↩︎