V. Will the Digital Do? Exploring the Role of 3D Technologies in Repatriation Negotiations

Since their inception, museums and their physical objects have been intertwined, for better or for worse. In the nineteenth century, to conserve power and perpetuate colonial ideologies of superiority, Western museums were a tool of colonial control by expanding their halls with collections of artifacts created by, and important to, the communities they colonized. While Western museums collected trophies to display their wealth and power, Indigenous communities lost vital parts of their culture, community, and ultimately, their identity. As Mark Oppenneer notes in Preserving Aboriginal Heritage: Technical & Traditional Approaches, many Canadian Indigenous groups view objects not as inanimate or ornamental, but as a part of the living culture.¹

In recent years, there has been an increasingly strong call for some of the world’s most prominent museums and cultural institutions to repatriate certain cultural artifacts. As noted in Preserving What is Valued: Museums, Conservation and First Nations, the call for repatriation goes beyond the physical return of an object; it is a way for Indigenous communities to finally be reunited with lost traditions and knowledge; in a way, it is reuniting with their ancestors.² Many Western museums have pushed back against the repatriation of artifacts, citing a multitude of reasons as to why the objects must stay within their collections, with examples including the fragility of the object, or its importance to the museums mission of education and public service.³

The rise in digital technologies, ranging from archives to 3D printing, may offer museums and cultural institutions an agreeable compromise; allowing source communities to reconnect with important objects and histories without museums sacrificing the educational and outreach programs that are connected to those objects. However, as noted by Nicole Crawford, chief curator of the University of Wyoming Art Museum, “There isn’t really any global guideline for repatriation.”⁴ Adding the digital layers can complicate repatriation, especially if it was the 3D reproduction returned, not the original object. For the purposes of this project, repatriation is defined as the act or process of restoring or returning someone or something, including lost cultural knowledge, to the community of origin, allegiance, or citizenship. This paper will explore the opportunities and challenges digital technologies, specifically 3D images or scans, and 3D printed objects, present to museum and culture professionals and Indigenous communities who are working towards repatriation of objects and knowledge.

Statement of Positionality

Before moving further into this paper, I believe it is helpful to speak about my position as an author. I identify as a white cis-gender female, using she/her pronouns, and am a second-year graduate student at the George Washington University. The university’s graduate student body is predominantly white, making up 52% of the graduate students. My academic background includes a Bachelor of Arts in International Studies from Arcadia University, focusing on conflict resolution and peacebuilding. Currently, I conduct research through the George Washington University’s library, with most sources peer-reviewed and accessible through academic databases. I have applied my studies in Museum Ethics and Decolonization and the Museum to address this research topic specifically. I have chosen this avenue of research to develop my academic and personal understanding of museums and their relationships with Indigenous communities.

Opportunities for Reclaiming and Rediscovery

As museums work to engage and collaborate with broader and more diverse publics, they are turning to increasingly more creative solutions to support the growing interests of its communities. Since the early 2010s, the topic of repatriation has increasingly been a factor in how different publics interact with museums. 3D technologies can offer museums unique ways to address calls for repatriation, satisfying the demands of their visitors while balancing its mission for education and outreach. Sam Davies argues in Repatriations & Restorations: The Growing Role of Digital Manufacturing Technology in Cultural Heritage, 3D technologies “can be used as tools to support and facilitate repatriations, reuniting people with cherished items and replacing lost knowledge in affected communities, while still allowing museums to inform the public about the culture behind the objects.”⁵ Furthermore digital repatriation can offer a great compromise, reuniting communities with sacred items and replacing lost knowledge while educating the broader publics within a museum setting. As 3D technology advances, museums, cultural institutions, and source communities are finding new ways to foster relationships and conversations. The versatility of digital objects continues to provide new and innovative ways for communities to engage with their lost heritage, whether it be lost to time, or to a collections box in museum storage.

Reconnection to Lost Heritage - 3D Printing and Imaging and the Revitalization of Memory

For some communities, the development of 3D printing and 3D imaging has revitalized their cultural identity. Rachel Parsons notes in How Indigenous Groups Are Using 3D Technology to Preserve Ancient Practices, the use of 3D printing has opened opportunities for the preservation and revitalization of source communities’ cultural identity that may otherwise have been lost due to the original objects’ compromised nature. ⁶

For an example of how 3D prints can support the revitalization of memory and tradition, one can look to the Bell and Bell Shrine of St. Connell Cael. An important relic to the Donegal community in Ireland, this bell was integral in the celebration of St. Connell’s feast day, which included an annual pilgrimage from Donegal, Ireland to St. Connell’s Church on the Island Inishkeel. Since 1889, this eighth century bell has been a part of the British Museum’s collection. While the original bell has damages that render it impossible to use, with the help of ThinkSee3D, an organization made of digital and physical makers for natural and cultural heritage, a 3D printed St. Connell’s bell was gifted to the county museum of Donegal, where it is used once again for the annual pilgrimage.

With this 3D print, the community that actively participates in this pilgrimage can now reconnect with their history and ancestry in a new way. Through the 3D reproduction, the object once again can be put in the context it was designed for, creating unique opportunities for the Donegal community to engage with their history. As Katrina Rodriguez Echavarria and Myrsini Samaroudi describe, being able to touch and interact with an object, exploring its shape and weight, has the potential to transform cultural heritage experiences.⁷ The digital print of this bell has allowed the Donegal community to reclaim parts of their heritage and their traditions that were lost. The digital creation of this bell recreates a multisensory experience, allowing the community to actively engage with it; to reanimate their culture in a new way.

While replicas are not new concepts to museums and the larger repatriation debate, 3D imaging, and printing can be incredibly accurate in mapping the exact shape and cut of an object. 3D imaging and printing also offer more opportunities for museums and Indigenous communities to transform, create, and revitalize an endangered or lost heritage. With technologies continuing to progress and evolve, digital archives are expanding the repatriation conversation and how 3D technologies can help facilitate discussions amongst museums and source communities. While this paper will not specifically address digital archives and their interactions with repatriation discussions, it is important to note that 3D technologies, especially 3D imaging, are becoming increasingly favored as an additional element to repatriation as they are uniquely shareable and accessible.

Figure 1

Collaboration and Community - Reclaiming partnerships between museums and Indigenous communities through 3D collaboration

With the passing of the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA) in 1990, museums, universities, and cultural institutions across the United States collaborated with Indigenous communities on how best to handle cultural objects within their collections that fell under this act. For the National Museum of Natural History, this act ignited dialogue between the Tlingit Dakl’aweidi clan, an Indigenous community located in the southeast of Alaska, on the repatriation of several clan artifacts. Specifically, in 2005, the National Museum of Natural History repatriated a wooden Killer Whale hat, which is both a sacred object and an object of cultural patrimony. The repatriation process opened new communications and partnerships between the Tlingit community and the Smithsonian Institution more broadly and in 2012, the Tlingit community and the Smithsonian Digitization Program collaborated to create a 3D replica of the Killer Whale hat. For the Tlingit community, the 3D print and imaging data is used as insurance to safeguard their culture against loss. For the National Museum of Natural History, and the broader Smithsonian Institution, this replica serves as an educational and exhibit tool for the museum.

In this case, 3D imaging, and printing are used as tools to facilitate partnerships between museums and Indigenous communities. It is important to note that it was through the express permission of the Tlingit community that the creation and display of the Killer Whale Hat replica came to be. The digital technology encouraged an active and continued partnership between two communities. As R. Eric Hollinger et al., notes, “The digital technology provides for more dynamic relations between museums and native communities to explore those common interests they both share; the perpetuation of culture and cultural education of future generations.”⁸ 3D printing and imaging technologies can support museum conversations around repatriation. These technologies offer Indigenous communities more autonomy over the use and display of their objects.

Challenges

Just as 3D printing and imaging is creating unique opportunities for repatriation, they also create unique challenges. There is a lack of legislation and regulation around 3D technologies due to their rapidly evolving nature. As Christa Roodt argues in The Role of Digital Technology in the Restitution of Cultural Artifacts, the rapid growth of digital reproduction further complicates the ideas of repatriation, authenticity, and authority over cultural heritage.⁹ Repatriation activists have argued that when Western museums rely on digital repatriation alone, they continue to maintain the status quo of power and domination.¹⁰ Furthermore, with the rise of 3D technologies, a new group of actors now contribute to the repatriation discussion, each with their own motivations, regulations, and objectives. The next two case studies will explore how the unregulated nature of 3D imaging and printing can develop unique ethical challenges to repatriation discussions.

3D Images and Prints and the Continuation of Colonial Ideologies

Climate change, natural disasters, and war all threaten cultural heritage and some of the world’s most precious cultural sites. Many in the field are looking to 3D technologies to help preserve these sites for future generations, through 3D imaging sharing and printing. 3D printing and imaging companies are capitalizing on their technology, often selling the 3D data to large cultural institutions, such as Google Arts & Culture. However, 3D scanning, and printing projects can cost thousands of dollars, putting less resourced nation states, communities, and companies at a disadvantage, regardless of where the cultural site resides. Scholars like Erin Thompson argue that this practice perpetuates colonial ideologies of domination and appropriation.¹¹ To explore the concept of digital colonialism, this paper will look to the work of the UK-based Institute for Digital Archaeology and its 3D recreation of the Palmyra Arch. The Palmyra Arch was a monumental arch located in Palmyra, Syria. In 2015, the arch was destroyed by Islamic State militants in an attempt to erase Syrian history. As the Islamic state continued to destroy antiquities, there was an urgent push to 3D scan what was left. The project was estimated to be around two million US dollars. ¹² Using photogrammetry, a technology that uses photographs to create 3D models, the Institute for Digital Technology was able to create the Palmyra arch once again, only this time, it stood tall in London. The arch then toured to Western countries such as Italy, Geneva, Switzerland, and the United States. Physically, the 3D replicated Palmyra arch was not accessible to the Syrian people, therefore. Their cultural heritage was once again taken from them to benefit Western nations.

Figure 2

Beyond the physical location, Western cultures further asserted their power over the Syrian people through the arch’s descriptions. Roshni Khunti states, “While the reconstructed arch was not accessible for most Syrian people because of the locations where it was exhibited, the language used to describe the arch further distanced Syrian claims to their own heritage.”¹³ While on its Western tour, the 3D replicated arch had little to no text panels to describe the role the arch played in Syrian cultural heritage. The lack of context allowed Western nations to control the Syrian narrative, and therefore Syrian culture through omission. When the arch was discussed by political and cultural leaders, they often used the words and phrases that diminished Syrian peoples and culture. Phrases such as “our heritage”, “our shared story”, and “our human struggles” allowed Western nations to keep dominance over the narrative and perception of anyone who visited the arch. The possibility of 3D printing and imaging is a double-edged sword. When the object is taken out of context and not given proper credit, the object can be transformed into a pawn of digital colonialism; a new way for Western states to retain objects and knowledge of cultural significance.

Gatekeeping and Profiting through Copyright

As more actors enter repatriation discussions, the more complex these positions become. Adding in digital technologies that are rapidly advancing and changing only complications these discussions. One aspect complicating the sector specifically is the role of the copyright. According to the U.S. Copyright Office, copyright is a type of intellectual property that protects original works of authorship as soon as an author fixes the work in a tangible form of expression.¹⁴ Simply, the owner of the copyright is in control of the production, dissemination, and profits of their work, even the metadata that makes up a 3D scan or print. In the case of 3D scans and prints, the museum, or cultural institution, could have control over the 3D production, and can use the legal power to say how that scan is used.

Major museums from the Louvre to the Smithsonian Institution have collected high quality 3D scans of their collections, however, many institutions have kept the data under strict lock and key to profit from and to control the object. For an example of museums adding copyright to their scans, one can look to the Neues Museum, located in Germany, and the 3D scans of their Nefertiti bust. The three-thousand-year-old statue was discovered by German archaeologists in 1912 and was claimed by a Western museum. Since its public exhibit in 1924, Egyptian authorities have called for its return. The Nefertiti bust is arguably the most important object within the Neues Museum, however, the museum prohibited visitors from taking photos to retain control over its image, despite it being a public domain artwork.¹⁵ Though the public could not take photos, the museum conducted high end 3D scanning of the bust for their own purposes, keeping the scan data under lock and key. In 2016, artists Nora Al-Badri and Jan Nikolai Nelles snuck a 3D scanner into the museum and reportedly scanned the Nefertiti bust, where they released the files under a Creative Commons open license (CC0), essentially allowing anyone to access the files and print a facsimile of the bust for their own use. Once the scans were released, however, the museum made a startling claim. ¹⁶ The digital data that was released was too high of quality for the 3D scanner the artists used. To put it in other words, it was not their 3D scan data, but the museum’s scan data that was released.

According to copyright eligibility, the data is a piece of code that can be copyrighted, just as one could have a copyright over a sketch of a sculpture from the museum.¹⁷ While the Neues Museum ultimately released their 3D scans to the public for broad use after the “Nefertiti Hack” of 2016, the scans have an interesting add; a copyright notice at the bottom of the 3D model scan, stating that while one can copy, redistribute and build upon the material, one must give appropriate credit (i.e. the museum) and cannot use it for monetary purposes. When looking at 3D prints and scans, wealthy Western nations have more resources and funding opportunities to develop and benefit from 3D technologies, and therefore, can copyright these scans for their own profits. In short, the copyright license still allows the Western museums control over the object. Regarding the Nefertiti scan, Cosmo Wenman argued that the Neues Museum policy around the object copyright is informed by fear of loss of control as well as fear of the unknown.¹⁸ The Western museum’s need for control over an object limits the power of the Indigenous community, in this case, the Egyptian people, of how the scan and associated data of the Nefertiti bust can, or should, be used.

Figure 3

Furthermore, museums and cultural institutions can use a copyright to scare Indigenous communities with legal action to slow or deter repatriation. Indigenous communities often do not have the resources to fight against some of the larger, wealthier cultural institutions. In the context of 3D scans and prints, copyrighting could be seen as the new form of domination and control, muddying the waters when it comes to discussions of object ownership and repatriation.

Conclusion

The digital technologies of 3D scans and prints offer unique challenges and unique opportunities to the repatriation discussion and process. Using 3D technologies, in many ways can help, or hinder, Indigenous communities. These technologies are evolving rapidly and the museum field is working to keep up. On the one hand, 3D digital technologies can reconnect source communities with lost knowledge and develop stronger partnerships with museums and other cultural institutions. On the other hand, 3D scans and prints can raise new ethical questions around ownership, public access, and the continuation of colonial ideologies. In the coming years, interested parties will continue to use 3D technologies in new and innovative ways to address repatriation claims, and reunite objects, and knowledge, with their rightful owners. As the calls for repatriation grow louder, museums, cultural institutuions, and Indigenous communities will have to ask themselves, will the digital do?

Notes

---

1. Mark Oppenneer, “Preserving Aboriginal Heritage: Technical & Traditional Approaches,” The Ethnos Project, August 26, 2013, https://www.ethnosproject.org/preserving-aboriginal-heritage-technical-traditional-approaches/. ↩︎

2. Miriam Clavir, Preserving What Is Valued: Museums, Conservation, and First Nations. Vancouver: UBC Press, 2002. accessed October 12, 2022. ProQuest Ebook Central. ↩︎

3. Pierre Losson, “‘Opening Pandora’s Box: Will the Return of Cultural Heritage Objects to Their Country of Origin Empty Western Museums?,’” The Journal of Arts Management, Law, and Society 51, no. 6 (July 1, 2021): 379–92, https://doi.org/10.1080/10632921.2021.1941467. ↩︎

4. Megan Zhang, “Could 3D Scanning Further Complicate Art Repatriation?,” Hyperallergic, December 9, 2021, https://hyperallergic.com/695572/could-3d-scanning-further-complicate-art-repatriation/. ↩︎

5. Sam Davies, “Repatriations & Restorations: The Growing Role of Digital Manufacturing Technology in Cultural Heritage,” TCT Magazine, December 21, 2021, https://www.tctmagazine.com/additive-manufacturing-3d-printing-industry-insights/technology-insights/repatriations-restorations-digital-manufacturing-cultural-heritage/. ↩︎

6. Rachel Parsons, “How Indigenous Groups Are Using 3-D Technology to Preserve Ancient Practices,” Scientific American (Scientific American, June 29, 2022), https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/how-Indigenous-groups-are-using-3-d-technology-to-preserve-ancient-practices/. ↩︎

7. Karina Rodriguez Echavarria and Myrsini Samaroudi, “How 3D Printing Is Transforming Our Relationship with Cultural Heritage,” The Conversation, April 1, 2019, https://theconversation.com/how-3d-printing-is-transforming-our-relationship-with-cultural-heritage-112642. ↩︎

8. R. Eric Hollinger et al., “Tlingit-Smithsonian Collaborations with 3D Digitization of Cultural Objects,” Museum Anthropology Review 7, no. 1-2 (2013): 201–53, https://scholarworks.iu.edu/journals/index.php/mar/article/view/2173/4567. ↩︎

9. Christa Roodt, “The Role of Digital Technology in the Restitution of Cultural Artifacts,” Georgetown Journal of International Affairs, July 18, 2022, https://gjia.georgetown.edu/2022/07/18/the-role-of-digital-technology-in-the-restitution-of-cultural-artifacts/#:~:text=Digital%20technology%20could%20widen%20public. ↩︎

10. Roodt, “Role of Digital Technology in Restitution of Cultural Artifacts”. ↩︎

11. Laura Sydell, “3D Scans Help Preserve History, but Who Should Own Them?,” Npr.org, 2020, https://www.npr.org/sections/alltechconsidered/2018/05/21/609084578/3d-scans-help-preserve-history-but-who-should-own-them. ↩︎

12. Ann Simmons, “As Islamic State Destroys Antiquities, a Rush to Get 3-D Images of What’s Left,” Los Angeles Times, September 2, 2015, https://www.latimes.com/world/middleeast/la-fg-antiquities-3d-preservation-20150901-htmlstory.html. ↩︎

13. Roshni Khunti, “The Problem with Printing Palmyra: Exploring the Ethics of Using 3D Printing Technology to Reconstruct Heritage,” Studies in Digital Heritage 2, no. 1 (September 26, 2018): 1–12, https://doi.org/10.14434/sdh.v2i1.24590. ↩︎

14. U.S. Copyright Office, “What Is Copyright?,” www.copyright.gov, 2022, https://www.copyright.gov/what-is-copyright/. ↩︎

15. Manuel Charr, “Legal Case Concerning a 3D Scan of a Museum Artefact May Impact on All Institutions,” MuseumNext, November 29, 2019, https://www.museumnext.com/article/legal-case-concerning-a-3d-scan-of-a-museum-artefact-may-impact-on-all-institutions/. ↩︎

16. Annalee Newitz, “One of the Greatest Art Heists of Our Time Was Actually a Data Hack,” Ars Technica, March 11, 2016, https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2016/03/one-of-the-greatest-art-heists-of-our-time-was-actually-a-data-hack/. ↩︎

17. Sketchfab, “3D Scanning and the Law: Cultural Heritage,” Sketchfab Community Blog, March 11, 2015, https://sketchfab.com/blogs/community/3d-scanning-and-the-law-cultural-heritage/#:~:text=In%20the%20end%2C%20a%203D. ↩︎

18. Naomi Rea, “An Artist Has Won a Legal Battle to Force a German Museum to Publicly Release Its 3D Scan of an Ancient Bust of Nefertiti,” Artnet News, November 17, 2019, https://news.artnet.com/art-world/3d-scans-museums-nefertiti-1706181. ↩︎