Finding an object for the Four Views project was not as easy as I thought it would be. The first challenge was to find the object that is dated before 1870. Although there are thousands of objects in the collection (the collection I looked at was the National Museum of the American Indian), I noticed the lack of information for lots of the objects, especially the information about when they were created and the sources of the collection. Thus, it took lots of time to find an object whose created date meets the date requirement for the project. I think the website would be more convenient and helpful if there is a filter for the date of the object together with the objects’ category. At the same time, I realized that with many objects with missing information, these filters would not be as useful. Besides the challenges in searching for objects, the other challenges lied in interpreting the objects. For instance, although I know that each region/ culture has a different art style, the differences in the painting and decorated patterns between regions are not super clear to me.
The lack of information regarding the source and the context under which the object was obtained raises my concerns about the ethical aspect of the collection process. Thus, I think that it is important to recover the missing information and return the object to the right community, just as what NAGPRA (2024) is trying to do although more effective measures in returning the object should be taken.
In my opinion, there is a difference between a physical and electronic version of an object. Although the general details of the object can be conveyed by the electronic version, the texture of the material and the overall presentation are not the same as the physical object. In addition, the picture of the object can be enhanced with software which can give false impressions about the date and the current state of the object. However, the electronic collection allows an instant view of the object without having to be at the museum or specific locations to observe and learn about the culture of Native Americans. Thus, in terms of the usefulness, I prefer the digital version.
References
Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act. (2024, April 29). Facilitating Respectful Return. National Park Service. https://www.nps.gov/subjects/nagpra/index.htm
Hi Thy! Thank you for sharing these thoughts. It’s funny how we can feel both overwhelmed and underwhelmed by digital historical research. Yes, there is SO much available online– thousands of objects and documents– that we can easily search with a custom search field, and yet information about those sources can be left sparse. There are additional issues when working with Indigenous-produced objects, such as the exclusion (intentional and not) of important information about the creator, their community, and the cultural significance. Many museums and libraries still use the Library of Congress’ subject headings of “Indians of North America” without specifying specific communities. In such cases, metadata can often replicate colonial ways of preserving and presenting knowledge. It is up to us to make digital history more representative and equitable for all.