Virtual Museums and Cultural Preservation in Canadian Aboriginal Context: The Case of Intangible Culture

　　Stephanie Tesio (Canada)

　　Abstract

　　In Canada, the digitalization of information, archives, collection, exhibitions and databases in museums and cultural centers devoted to Aboriginal peoples, while embraced in theory by Aboriginal communities, has been met with varying success. (The Inuit were especially successful; the Western populations less so). Focusing the following assessment only on the technical components of virtual museums as a tool for cultural preservation, I emphasize several of the factors that affected Aboriginal projects, and that would in all likelihood, affect other cultural preservation efforts through virtual means: in Tibet for instance, where the technical challenges are somehow similar to those in Canada. Among those problematic aspects, some are due to the technical components themselves and the needs they engender; others have their roots in a misconception of digital on-line, or virtual, reality, others are due to the nature of the cultural object. If one can achieve with digitalization many projects impossible for a normal (physical) museum, a virtual museum is very expansive especially when one factures the cost of maintenance and training; further, one must go searching for an audience. And, even for one component of the cultural heritage to be locally maintained, its intangible context must be recorded and accessed as well, which requires collaboration with the local community, as intangible culture demands different methods to record, scan, store and share the cultural components in question.

　　Canada, like China, is a large country with culturally and linguistically very diverse minority  peoples: (In Canada, more than 75 different Aboriginal languages are still spoken in about 600 communities.) These communities all welcome new communication tools ; they usually have by now started their own website, but expertise varies from one community to the next. As in Tibet, the Canadian minority communities consider that the preservation of their cultural heritage is an important issue. For many of them, museums are important tools for cultural retention. The following report is based on our experience of the insertion of digital technology in cultural heritage preservation programs

　　Three points must be made for our argument to proceed:

　　1- In Canada, all large museums, at the national and provincial levels, and most small museums and cultural centers use databases to maintain or enrich their collections, and also their ties with their public. The quality of its databases determines the usefulness of the museum.

　　2- It used to be argued that modern technology modifies the culture of Indigenous communities. But it has been shown repeatedly that there is no contradiction between Aboriginal or Indigenous cultures and high technology – the two are quite compatible and enrich each other. (For instance, Northern Canadian Inuit communities have adopted television, computers and helicopters as parts of their world. While the francophones in Québec are struggling to maintain a francophone technical vocabulary, there is an inuit term for every part of a computer or helicopter (Guédon 2008). Similarly, the Cree people in Northern Ontario use lap top computers and smart phones to maintain communication between isolated hunting camps.  Therefore we can and do speak of modern Indigenous cultures carrying ancient traditions, languages and worldviews.

　　3- The twin notions of tangible culture and intangible culture are necessary when considering the preservation of a cultural heritage. Tangible culture, i.e., its material and visible cultural manifestations, is not the only aspect of one’s cultural heritage and identity. Intangible culture is even more precious: Following UNESCO’s definition, “ ‘Intangible cultural heritage’ means the practices, representations, expressions, knowledge, skills – as well as the instruments, objects, artifacts and cultural spaces associated therewith – that communities, groups and, in some cases, individuals recognize as part of their cultural heritage “(UNESCO, 2003: Convention for the Safeguarding of Intangible Cultural Heritage)..

　　The researchers at the InterCulture team in the University of Ottawa deal with conservation programs in Northern Canada, Alaska, Congo, Columbia and Northern Europe. They have observed that an essential focus of intangible culture lies in Indigenous philosophies, (including notions of space, time, body and self), arts, crafts and craftsmanship, and forms of knowledge that are transmitted through experience rather than verbalized. Body language and the use of space (proxemics) are mostly subconscious; this is true also of the sensorium (the senses) that are taken for granted, but molded by culture (see the work of Anne-Marie Gaston on Sacred dance, Edward Hall on proxemics and time). This is where images become most important.

　　Furthermore, those aspects of culture cannot be accessed from the outside: “Intangible culture is that part of culture that cannot be accessed, reproduced or transmitted without the intervention of living members of the cultural community.”(Lucie DuFresne, InterCulture, Vision Statement, 2008)

　　Because they can deal with images and sounds, virtual Museums, as we shall describe, are very useful tools to display and preserve not only the tangible manifestations of culture but also its intangible aspects, in particular, those aspects that are not only intangible but also implicit or subconscious, or at least not verbalized directly. 

　　A virtual museum differs form its material counterpart in that

　　1- It is visited or reached through a Website (or DVD) Less spaces and staff are required than are by a physical museum

　　2- It is not limited to one address and can reach very large, or small or even very small communities, and can reach potentially much larger and non-localized audience

　　3- It houses a diversity of media

　　4- It includes virtual displays or exhibition, which allows the representation of performance and other verbal or non verbal intangible aspect of culture

　　5- It require databases, and may include a virtual catalogue and/or collections, which allow for multiple uses: exhibition and catalogues, professional center for teachers and artists, research, education and curriculum material

　　On the plus side, every one of these points contribute to virtual museums being attractive tool for Aboriginal cultural preservation projects in non urbanized or rural communities. On the minus side, a great deal of time, expertise and money is needed for a virtual museum to be planned, built and maintained. Budget and personnel must allow for a) Conception, design, planning, and research, b) Technology and equipment c) Maintenance of the equipment, the website, its content and the various exhibits, and the databases on which it depends

　　Databases are multivalent systems: The organization of a database is guided by its purposes, scale and theme, such as linguistics, genealogies, libraries, history, jurisprudence, ethno-botany, all asking for different organization of data and access.

　　Computerized databases are a central tool for archives, museum, and their audiences. In Canada for instance, Aboriginal communities (like the public in general) have access to Library and Archives Canadaand its hundreds of On line  Databases, supplemented by hundreds of  Digitized Microforms, Electronic Collection, Open Data, Research Aids, Thematic Guides and Virtual Exhibitions, all open to the public.

　　Similarly, the Canadian Museum of Nature provides access to an On line Collections Database, and specialized databases such as CANA Data Online (National Phycology Collection (Algae etc.), and ethno-botanical data.

　　But a database is only as good as the quality of its data, the organization of the data in relevant categories, and for Aboriginal communities, on whether or not it serves their worldview and cultural heritage, i.e, is localized. (For plant knowledge for instance, this would include ethnobotanical data and Aboriginal languages terminology and taxonomies (ethnosciences).

　　Databases are built in part on written documentation and knowledge, but rely for the most part on scanned items, especially when dealing with visual or oral items.

　　From the beginning of the computer era, scanning offered the most efficient way to collect and store data, and preserve information on documents, artifacts, photographs, landscapes and performances in a digitalized format. This impacts both storage and access: As every library, museum or business know, storage implies space as support: Digitalizing allows storage of much material in virtual space, i.e., without spending too much space. Computer technology also allows for easy access from remote places to online material. And access to scanned items does not damage documents, artifacts or sites, since it is done through duplicates.

　　All these traits are useful for a Aboriginal communities: A rural village can for example assemble a full library of scanned references and scanned material to document its history and culture ( See Yakutat Project, A Tlingit Village, Alaska, assisted by InterCulture

　　In order for scanned items to be usable, scanning norms have been established nationally and even for museums and archives. One can then

　　–Access the data and retrieving the information;

　　–Share images and disseminating knowledge;

　　–Construct representation and complex models;

　　–Update the websites.

　　Today, scanning therefore implies precise and shared (internationally) norms in the handling of the imaging procedures. These procedures have to be learned and require technical training. So, in Canada, scanning and other museum norms are taught through Virtual Museum of Canada, and Museology programs for Aboriginal communities established in Ottawa, Vancouver and Québec, among other centers.

　　In the same way as a museum collection of artifacts does not replace a live culture (a culture with people able to make and use the artifacts in question) one cannot scan culture. But scanning and preserving a copy of tangible cultural items is a start, the equivalent of a museum storing artifacts. And today, we do not only scan photographs, we can scan the objects directly. Progress is making its ways into the museum community in various ways:

　　-Scanning (or digital replica) is an obvious process for obtaining a visual image of objects, but one can also supplement it with data obtained though Xrays and other imaging techniques.

　　-In Canada, 2D scanning is used to preserve not only documents, photographs and films, and artifacts, or even sites; but as 3D scanning becomes more available, site scanning becomes more precise (especially useful for endangered or short lasting items - as for instance for documenting root cellar in Québec). One can also go in situ and collect the representation of artifacts, for instance pictographs or cave painting without removing them from their community of origin (which is illegal in Canada).

　　-Scanning can be done on a large scale”: “Google street view” is built on scanning. Remote satellite viewing allows us to identify land and land occupation present or past, or land affected by desertification, or flood.

　　-The French archaeological site of Lascaux and its prehistoric cave art (17 000-18 000 BCE) offer an interesting example of scanning used to protect a site. This prehistoric painting site was endangered by tourists and fungi stemming from human contamination; it was scanned to build a precise replica for a new tourist site, Lascaux IV, a virtual reconstruction that will open in 2016 (Le Centre International d’Art Pariétal Lascaux IV – Google: More images for Lascaux)

　　Scanning costs vary according to the nature and scale of the project:

　　For documents, one can use regular scanner 2D, photography, or top scanner (as used in the Museum of Natural History of Paris for plates of plants that cannot be moved). For artifacts: Camera photography is supplemented by 3D LAMIC scanner (Laval University, Québec)

　　For 3 D space, rooms and buildings, one could use 3D cameras with software allowing the viewer to turn around and move from room to room (as used in Pompei site (in Italy), or in the Louvre Museum in Paris). Technology evolves very fast: One can now scan tipis in a camp site, fishing sites, or sacred sites, or scan paintings in a very precise manner.

　　But what about whale songs, water noises, street noise, or musical instruments? Digitalizing sound, audio-visual material, performances and other forms of dynamic data requires its own technologies and equipment. Recording is an old but fast-evolving form of reproduction. From wax cylinders to tapes to videotapes and films, progress has been steady, and concurrent with the evolution of cinematography (For languages and verbal material, it is best to record both the sounds and the visuals).

　　But one should be aware of the fact that audio-visual records deteriorate relatively rapidly. They require the same environmentally controlled storage as the material artifacts. Formats like Betamax, reel-to-reel and VHS have become obsolete. The machines that can play or read them are disappearing. “Transportation” (from one system to a new one) is required on a regular basis to keep the collections in existence. Unfortunately, we know of many cases where entire recording collections acquired by Aboriginal communities (and some larger museums) have disappeared because the communities in question would not afford full time care of their archives.

　　Databases using scanned and digitalized material instead of just written data have their own needs, and the handling of both the data and its material support requires specialized training (including the curatorial work dealing with filing systems, from Accession files identifying the items, to the  catalogues files (by categories) with their formal descriptive procedures - since artifacts, whether physical or virtual, are useless without data). Coding content of items is an even more specialized task (coding dancing moves, coding lace and embroidery etc. has to be handled by experts.) In my own work, Artifact Canada is one centralized reference tool for technical vocabulary. When dealing with cultural heritage, one must consider local Aboriginal categories to strengthen cultural preservation, and “localize” the information in the language of origin.

　　When databases, and their supporting websites are well constructed, databases can be shared, commented on, and corrected or added to by members of local communities

　　We have several very successful Canadian examples such as the Aboriginal Inuit Canada Portal (2001 until 2013) in partnership with ITK and other National Aboriginal Organizations) where Inuit communities still have their own portals working as virtual community centers. The Aboriginal Tourism British Columbia website and networking project links the Aboriginal cultural and tourist centers on the tourist routes in British Columbia. The most frequent use of shared Aboriginal database is for language and culture retention programs. This is an issue in Tibet as much as in Aboriginal Canada

　　Aboriginal school and language training programs have began to use data bases, and virtual displays, to help alleviate several major and recurrent obstacles to language and culture retention, obstacle that re found in almost all minority contexts:

　　1- The lack of curriculum material (the process of preparing a bilingual curriculum is expensive in terms of time, expert personnel, and salaries): The curriculum and the class can be accessed long distance by all interested, even remote communities

　　2- Access to fluent speakers: Instructors, at best older members of the community, at worst  strangers who do not really speak the local language, could access formal teacher and language  training 

　　3- Access to literature and normal language use: The children need to hear their language used in a living culture and literature, including writers, singers and other artists, and, for the older students, to related fields of specialized knowledge, such as medicine, farming, ethno-sciences (ethno-botany), psychology and various forms of arts and crafts that depend on the survival of Indigenous languages to maintain themselves.

　　4- Lack of cultural context: A language cannot be divorced from the distinctive cultural meanings it carries and is more easily accessed through images, video films and interactive displays. (See Jim Cummings and Marcel Danesi, 1990, Heritage Languages, the development and Denial of Canada Linguistic ressources, for an early assessment of technical potential.)

　　Collective memory requires the dissemination of information, and the reconstruction of specific cultural product, event, or valued cultural expression. Virtual exhibitions and interactive displays can enhance this process both as record, and in the communal process of research and discussion that is needed for reconstructing events, traditions, skills and cultural items. In Aboriginal Canada, virtual displays have become an important mean of expressing and recording cultural heritage for minorities. Some would not have the means to build physical museums and exhibitions; others wish to construct exhibits they can easily share with neighbors. (The Inuit interactive model is very successful in reaching small mobile communities, and in supplementing school curricula.) In the Canadian Aboriginal experience, it is not enough to present data to others: One must be able to assemble one’s community around its collective memory.

　　Some exhibits are supported by large or national institutions, like Virtual Museum Canada or the Museum of Canadian History, who have programs to assist those who are engaged in virtual programming, and to produce exhibits meant for the public in general (for instance: Steeling the Gaze: Portraits by Aboriginal Artists - Fine Arts National Gallery, Ottawa, about Contemporary Aboriginal artists)

　　At the other end of the spectrum, many small displays are meant for and prepared by local communities who want to represent themselves, or to strengthen their cultural heritage. For instance, Inuit Prints from Cape Dorset  (Inuit Art), Gwadàl’ Zheii: Belongings from the Land (about DeneTechnology), or http://wherearethechildren.ca (about residential schools, a sad chapter in the history of Canada).

　　The following chart comparing physical and virtual museums brings into evidence the advantages for small communities.

　　Questions of budget, one must adjust one’s plans to cover phases that are often forgotten because they are not similar to what is  required in a physical exhibit or museum, espcially

　　creation, maintenance, and promotion phases:

　　1- Creation requires expertise and research that may take several years of work to build. Launching the site cannot be done as if one were opening a new room in a physical exhibition hall. It has to involve virtual media as well. In Canada, we are used to an audience that is segmented through 3 components: age (school age/adult), language (French, English, others), status (researcher, general public). This division may be handled different in other societies such as China. Whether in a museum, a virtual exhibition, or a database, one is working for an audience, i.e, the public, and for specific goals. But, first, the site has to be easily navigated; it will be abandoned by the public if it is not ergonomically sound.

　　Aboriginal communities have to navigate the added problems of tourism and find their way into and around tourist websites.

　　Tourists are catered through specific locations/routes/themes/activities… and websites. Displays meant for tourists are supposed to follow their own rules, norms and ethical guidelines. But most of the time, these specialized displays are controlled by tourism entrepreneurs working for their own gain rather than for the protection of the communities targeted be the touristic industry (Martin Kalulambi-Pongo, 2014, has described how stereotypes of primitive or exotic cultures are used to boost tourism in African Indigenous sites. See also in China the example of the Mosuo people in Lugu lake, Yunnan-Sichuan). Aboriginal communities may have to spend energy, time and money – or build their own website- to counteract those misleading presentations of themselves.

　　2- Maintenance must prepare for several necessary tasks: updating technology and transferring data to new supports; updating sites; updating exhibit content; updating databases: It has been estimated that a website not cared for will die by itself within 4 years. In addition to regular staff, one must also anticipate salaries for the local communities who need to access the virtual museum, its database, or its displays. The Aboriginal communities, like the others, need a trained and stable manpower to maintain the equipment, the displays, and the institution.

　　3- Promotion plans:

　　Because databases, virtual exhibitions and virtual museums do not have a permanent street address, even when hosted by an actual institution, they must rely on virtual, social and official media for being visited electronically and used: Internet Sites, social medias, databases/email listing, paper support (flyers, posters, letters), newspapers, mailing, and Radio, TV networks, Airwaves, reportages and interviews, film support, in a planned organized process. In the Canadian Aboriginal context, promotion is done through through a network of community centers, local museums, cultural centers and through specialized Radio and TV Channels (APTN or Aboriginal Peoples Television Network). In places like Tibet, one could involve local news media and the school system.

　　Conclusions:

　　Aboriginal Database and Virtual Museums fit nicely within Aboriginal and ethnic minority contexts. They facilitate cultural transmission at two levels: On the one hand, virtual programs allows the collecting, sharing and exhibiting of tangible as well as intangible culture, including behaviors, physical, spoken, or sung performances, daily processes of life, and technology at work.  On the other hand, virtual museums facilitate the participation of the local communities.

　　In this way, they may allow the communities to reaffirm, as is the case in Canadian Aboriginal communities “that a strong culture is necessary for a strong economic development. The stronger and richer its cultural context, and its modes of communication and transmission of knowledge, the more creative the community and the more it adapts to new conditions” (Guédon, 2008). It has been repeatedly demonstrated, by the Inuit, the Dene and the Gitksan among others Canadian Aboriginal people, that new information technology and new communication channels actually reinforce traditional cultures; it also reinforces local governance by promoting traditional social values. This however depends on how the new tools of communication are used, on what kind of message they carry, and on who decides the content of the cultural heritage one is allowed to transmit.

　　（Stéphanie Tésio, Associated Researcher of Interculture Center, University of Ottawa）