Chapter 13 Virtual Repatriation: It Is Neither Virtual nor Repatriation Robin Boast and Jim Enote Introduction Both of the authors of this chapter have experienced the rise of projects describing what they do as “Virtual Repatriation.” Both of the authors have also been involved for some time in collaborative data sharing between collecting institutions and source communities, so we both have a strong commitment to projects that seek to improve data sharing and even direct engagement of source communities with their patrimony. However, we have also been very concerned with the association of the term Repatriation with these projects of data sharing. In this chapter we seek to explain why we feel that the association of “virtual” and, especially, “repatriation” with these programs of data sharing is both inappropriate and even perilous. We begin by presenting a few examples of data sharing projects as exemplars, and also our own project which seeks a different model of data sharing (the Zuni Collaborative Catalog). We then go on to define repatriation as a process of restitution of autochthonous material objects and practices, and how the use of the terms “virtual” and “repatriation” cannot be used in these contexts without accepting the full impact of the commanding praxis of these terms and their historical legacies. R. Boast (*) Capaciteitsgroep Mediastudies, Universiteit van Amsterdam, Turfdraagsterpad 9, 1012 XT Amsterdam, The Netherlands e-mail: robinboast@gmail.com J. Enote (*) Museum of Archaeology and Anthropology, University of Cambridge, A:shiwi A:wan Museum and Heritage Center, P.O. Box 1009, Zuni, NM 87327, USA e-mail: jimenote@mac.com P.F. Biehl and C. Prescott, Heritage in the Context of Globalization: Europe and the Americas, SpringerBriefs in Archaeology 8, DOI 10.1007/978-1-4614-6077-0_13, © Springer Science+Business Media New York 2013 103 104 R. Boast and J. Enote Programs of Virtual Repatriation Reciprocal Research Network The Reciprocal Research Network (RRN, About. http://www.rrnpilot.org/pages/ about-about_rrn) is a co-development of an online collaborative portal between the Museum of Anthropology (MOA) at the University of British Columbia, the Stó:lo Nation–Tribal Council, the U’mista Cultural Society, and the Musqueam Indian Band, and is supported by several other international institutions and museums (Rowley et al. 2010; http://www.rrnpilot.org/pages/about-about_rrn). The portal is being developed at the MOA as part of their Renewal Project, A Partnership of Peoples and comprises what they describe as a “research network.” On its Web site, the project is described as: …technology-supported research network comprised of communities, researchers, and cultural institutions. It will enable geographically dispersed users and institutions—including originating communities, academics and museum staff – to carry out individual or collaborative cultural heritage research projects. (RRN, Overview. http://www.moa.ubc.ca/RRN/ about_overview.html [accessed 15 Apr 2011]) The goal of the RRN is to extend collections based research, usually the domain of museums and universities, into originating communities. The RRN is still very much “in development” and, as a collaborative project, much work remains to be done. However, it is already seen by many to be a landmark in collaborative collections research between museums and originating communities. First experiences of the RRN Web site (http://www.rrnpilot.org/) show it to be a fairly traditional online museum catalog with an updates feature that allows for comments (“user-submitted information”) from registered users. The catalog includes some images, a title, a brief description, and a secondary information including holding institution, cultures, creators, creation locations, and materials. The language of description is very much the language of the museum catalog, and there is little evidence, yet, that other voices are entering in the descriptions (Houghton 2010). The voices of the collaborators are allowed to enter through the commenting–discussions feature, but these discussions will only enter the museum catalog through the curatorial editor. The system has the usual features of personal collections and saved searches, but the most distinctive feature remains the commenting–discussions associated with the objects, and the discussion forums which give users the means to talk with others about specific objects, or about other relevant topics. Though the RRN does not explicitly refer to itself as Virtual Repatriation, it is often cited as an exemplar of such programs (Basu 2011). It is often associated with Virtual Repatriation as it is not only one of the first projects to develop such digital information sharing but also manifests some of the key features of Virtual Repatriation, such as data sharing, commenting/discussions, and originating community collaboration. 13 Virtual Repatriation: It Is Neither Virtual nor Repatriation 105 The Plateau Peoples’ Web Portal The Plateau Peoples’ Web Portal (The Plateau Peoples’ Web Portal n.d.) is an ambitious collaboration between the Plateau Center for American Indian Studies at Washington State University and tribal consultants from the Umatilla, Coeur d’Alene, and Yakama tribal nations. The portal shares relevant cultural materials, in digital form, held by a variety of collecting institutions (including the Washington State University’s collected libraries, archives, and museums and the National Anthropological Archives at the Smithsonian Institution) on a web portal controlled by the collaborating tribal nations. The Plateau Peoples’ Web Portal goes beyond most portals in that it seeks to create a “…different paradigm for the curation, distribution, and reproduction of Native peoples’ cultural materials”. (The Plateau Peoples’ Web Portal, http://plateauportal.wsulibs.wsu.edu/html/ppp/help.php [accessed 14 Mar 2012].) The portal not only shares the information with the relevant originating communities, but it seeks to give the collaborating tribes the power of curation over the digital resources held on the portal. Once the materials are uploaded to the site, tribal administrators have the ability to add tribal knowledge, edit the existing information, add new content that enriches the materials, add tags, and flag the material as culturally sensitive. Tribes can also upload their own materials to the portal, using the administrative side of the portal, allowing the[m] to decide the level of access to their own private collections. Tribal consultants worked together to decide on the appropriate categories through which to classify their materials. There are nine main categories (users can use the browse section of the portal to view these) within the portal. Each tribe can then add their own subcategories, refining the typology further to allow for greater precision and flexibility in searching. (The Plateau Peoples’ Web Portal, http://plateauportal.wsulibs.wsu.edu/html/ppp/help.php?topic=2 [accessed 14 Mar 2012].) The Plateau Peoples’ Web Portal further allows for registered visitors from outside the project to access much of the material and extend its access through custom tagging and geo-tagging. Integrating web 2.0 technologies to enrich user’s experiences and “drive a collaborative framework for knowledge sharing”. (The Plateau Peoples’ Web Portal, http://plateauportal.wsulibs.wsu.edu/html/ppp/help.php?topic=3 [accessed 14 Mar 2012].) Like the other projects that Christen (2009, 2011a, 2011b) has been involved with, the Plateau Peoples’ Web Portal is an experiment in how to empower indigenous stakeholders by allowing them both access to and management control over information about their patrimony. The Plateau Peoples’ Web Portal goes further than just about any other project—with the exception of the Zuni Collaborative Catalog (see below), to recognize the asymmetry created by many digital information sharing projects. However, as will be discussed below, it is not the sharing that is in question, but the status of what is being shared. 106 R. Boast and J. Enote Artefacts of Encounter, KIWA Artefacts of Encounter, based at the Museum of Archaeology and Anthropology at the University of Cambridge, is an ambitious project that seeks to bring together the artifacts, archives, and texts of more than 40 voyages that entered Polynesia between 1765 and 1840. The primary goal of the research is not simply to construct a portal, but to “use those artefacts as primary evidence of the nature and legacy of encounters between European explorers and Pacific islanders” (Artefacts of Encounter, http://maa.cam.ac.uk/aofe/index.html [accessed 26 Mar 2012]). The digital resource sharing, done through a system called KIWA—an arrogated name of a well-known Polynesian navigator—is designed not simply to make the data accessible to the project partners, as in a usual portal, but to promote a comparative approach between the different voyages, between their contexts, as well as between the dispersed researchers. The goals of the KIWA-enabled comparative approach are to “enable new research conclusions to be drawn not only about the voyages themselves and their immediate aftermath, but about the different trajectories of first imperial, then (post)-colonial relationships” (Artefacts of Encounter, http://maa.cam.ac.uk/aofe/ kiwa.html [accessed 29 Mar 2012]). Though the project collaborates with a number of other international projects, and many key initiatives and institutions in the Pacific (Artefacts of Encounter, http://maa. cam.ac.uk/aofe/team.html), key partners include Toi Hauiti, a working group of the Aitanga-a-Hauiti Charitable Trust in Uawa (Tolaga Bay) on the East Coast of New Zealand. Toi Hauiti is working with the project to build a digital repository of international collections of Hauiti Taonga and providing the collaboration support with other Pacific communities. The second key partner is the RRN (discussed above), which is working closely with KIWA, whose system influence is clearly represented in KIWA. Like RRN, Artefacts of Encounter does not explicitly use the term Virtual Repatriation. Maia Jessop and Carl Hogsden have shied away from the term, preferring “virtual reciprocation” as a more apt term for the project’s goals (Jessop and Hogsden 2010). Reanimating Cultural Heritage in Sierra Leone Reanimating Cultural Heritage: Digital Repatriation, Knowledge Networks and Civil Society Strengthening in Post-Conflict Sierra Leone is a project lead by Paul Basu of University College London with IT development provided by Martin White of the University of Sussex. The project draws on collections from UK museums (British Museum, Brighton Museum and Art Gallery, Glasgow Museums, the World Museum Liverpool, and the British Library Sound Archive) and from the Sierra Leone National Museum. The goal of the project is to build: …on research in anthropology, museum studies, informatics and beyond, the project considers how objects that have become isolated from the oral and performative contexts that 13 Virtual Repatriation: It Is Neither Virtual nor Repatriation 107 originally animated them can be reanimated in digital space alongside associated images, video clips, sounds, texts and other media, and thereby be given new life. (Reanimating Cultural Heritage, http://www.sierraleoneheritage.org/about/ [accessed 9 Mar 2012]) Like other projects that associate themselves with Virtual Repatriation, Reanimating Cultural Heritage is intently devoted to “(re)connect object in museum collections with disparate communities …” (Reanimating Cultural Heritage, http://www.sierraleoneheritage.org/about/ [accessed 9 Mar 2012]). This reconnection, through social computing, is seen as a key technique to foster what these projects see as a missing reciprocal knowledge exchange. The goal is not simply to reengage source communities with their now-dispersed patrimony, or simply to reanimate these objects with their “source” contexts, but to create a shared space between the holding institutions, the communities of origin, the interested academics, and the public at large (Basu 2011). The goal is not only to “return” these objects to their source communities but also to deploy these digital objects as extended research resources and public education devices. The Zuni Collaborative Catalog The problem with the usual mode of data sharing, including those presented above, is that it is highly circumscribed, reductive, and commensurating (posts from http:// www.digital-diversity.org/). It is circumscribed in the sense that it will necessarily limit the parties who can participate in its construction. Collections are of interest to a vast number, and diversity, of interest and expert groups. Each constructed, shared catalog can only accommodate a small sample of these interests. It is reductive in the sense that even though it is circumscribed to a single or small number of interest groups, it has to create a single model to accommodate both the collecting institution and the interest group(s). It also has to reduce the diverse needs that always exist within and between different interest groups to a single model, thus being at least doubly reductive. Finally, it is commensurating in the sense that it assumes that the meaningful identity of the object, the information that is used to describe the object, can be commensurate across different interests, intentions, and uses. The Zuni Collaborative Catalog is a project that explicitly seeks to overcome these limitations of a constructed, shared catalog for the benefit of all the groups interested in using collections for research, study, or simply access. Therefore, what this project is doing is explicitly not creating a constructed, shared catalog of any sort. The Zuni Collaborative Catalog has been created as a system first in-service to the Zuni community. Developed with attention to authentic Zuni concepts of knowledge and sharing of knowledge the system builds on and extends experiences of other collection data sharing systems. Based at the A:shiwi A:wan Museum and Heritage Center (AAMHC) the Zuni system puts all control and power of adding and sharing knowledge about Zuni objects in the hands of Zuni. Part of an ongoing research collaboration between the A:shiwi A:wan Museum and Heritage Center, the Graduate School of Information Studies and Education at 108 R. Boast and J. Enote UCLA, the Museum of Archaeology and Anthropology at the University of Cambridge, as well as a growing number of other participating museums, the CCC project (Srinivasan et al. 2010, http://www.digital-diversity.org/) has devised a radically different model of working with collection information. Drawing on developments in social computing (Boast et al. 2007), PuSH technologies (PuSH Technology, http://code.google.com/p/pubsubhubbub/), and emergent systems theory (Turnbull 2007), collaborative catalogs seek to overcome the problems of centralized databases by distributing both the information and its systemization to the interest groups. In this mode, rather than sitting down and working out a common, and much reduced, information model, the collections data is given to those individuals or groups who need to use it, and it is they who do the systemization locally. It has been understood for some time that younger Zuni are learning about themselves via the internet and viewing online Zuni collections. Occasionally these Zuni come to the AAMHC and share information they learned about Zuni that is known to be incorrect. When these Zuni say that they find information about Zuni online, it was clear that there was needed a local system that would empower Zuni to set the record straight. No doubt modern Zuni are assuming a part of Zuni identity online; therefore collaboration and partnership with holding institutions is very important. However, the Zuni Collaborative Catalog development is additive, building on lessons learned and changes in Zuni sensibilities pertaining to data transfer technologies. It was also realized that until the Zuni would have local control of the information, that collaboration with all institutions holding Zuni objects would always be incomplete. As various systems evolved to enable data sharing, ethics about source community involvement must continue to evolve as well. What is Repatriation? For centuries, Repatriation has had a very specific and singular meaning of “The return or restoration of a person to his or her native country…” (OED, repatriation, 1.a). This meaning of repatriation, as associated with a person or persons, could be applied equally to those who were simply returning to their native lands, as well as to those who were returning from exile or enslavement. The meaning of the return of a person to their rightful and just home has always been a core connotation of repatriation, as the actual corporeal being of that who is returning has been a core denotation. With the welcome rise of indigenous sovereignty, or at least self-determination, the term has, over the last 20–30 years, taken on a much broader meaning. The original meaning, now rarely used, has been largely replaced with meanings that refer either to the transfer of “control over a constitution or constitutional legislation from a mother country to a former dependency…” (OED, repatriation, 2) or to “The return or restoration of money, historical artefacts, etc., to their country of origin: …” (OED, repatriation, 1.b). It is the latter definition that refers to cultural patrimony. 13 Virtual Repatriation: It Is Neither Virtual nor Repatriation 109 If we explore key definitions of the term through one of the most successful, though not unproblematic (Nash and Colwell-Chanthaphonh 2010), pieces of repatriation legislation, the US Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA 1991), we find an inalienable association between patrimony and the autochthonal object. The NAGPRA Glossary defines cultural patrimony as “An object having ongoing historical, traditional, or cultural importance central to the Native American group or culture itself…” (emphasis added; NAGPRA Glossary 1991). To Repatriate an object, according to NAGPRA, “…means to transfer physical custody of and legal interest in Native American cultural items to lineal descendants, culturally affiliated Indian tribes, and Native Hawaiian organizations” (emphasis added; NAGPRA Glossary 1991). Patrimony can refer to both the tangible, the material, and the intangible (OED, patrimony, 2.b). However, repatriation always refers to the corporeal, material person, thing, or practice. This may seem like so much lexicological positioning and categorical overkill. However, our position is that the association of “repatriation” with digital representations of museum collections, digital museum catalog information, and digitized scholarly productions not only misunderstands the meaning of “repatriation” but also misrepresents the process and intent. Therefore, we most strongly insist that the objects denoted by repatriation in law, in convention, and in practice are those autochthonal objects created by the source community or culture of origin. It could be successfully argued that digital objects are autochthonal, material entities that could be repatriated. This is certainly true if the digital objects were created in the source community and collected and removed to an institutional collection. There is nothing immaterial about digital objects or digital data. The problem being is that the digital object and digital data that are being “returned” in the name of Virtual Repatriation did not originate in the source community. These digital objects and data originate both from the collecting institutions and from the academy. Therefore, though data sharing is taking place, there is no restitution or repatriation. Why There Cannot Be a “Virtual” Repatriation The first problem with designating shared digital objects as Virtual Repatriation is the concept of the “Virtual.” The use of the term “virtual” in designating “a notional image or environment generated by computer software, with which a user can interact realistically…” (OED Additions Series, “Virtual”), is very recent; its first use appeared in the Whole Earth Review (Garb 1987) in relation to the possibility, then, of interactive Virtual Realities. However, this new use of the term retains some of its original meaning as “Possessed of certain physical virtues or capacities; effective in respect of inherent natural qualities or powers; capable of exerting influence by means of such qualities” (OED, “Virtual,” 1.a). The problem with the idea of the virtual, in its application to digital objects, is not only that it designates to the digital object qualities of the ephemeral but also 110 R. Boast and J. Enote that these ephemeral qualities are endowed with capacities to effect as though the digital object was the original. In other words, the virtual object, in everyday use, not only represents the material object in the sense of being an image, likeness, or reconstruction but also represents the material object in the sense of effectively standing in for it. Of course, digital objects do not have these qualities nor these capacities. As a legion of studies have shown, over the past decades, representation—digital or otherwise—is not a capacity or quality of the media, but arises from many different complex social processes of “representing” (Lynch and Woolgar 1990; Harraway 1991; Pickering 1992; Lynch 1994; Banks and Morphy 1999). Digital objects do not represent anything, in either sense, but gain roles and capacities in their use in different social settings. In this way, representation is an emergent effect of use, and digital objects are material objects that can be used in representing and often are used in this way in the post-enlightenment Western tradition. Of course, this sense of having the virtues of the object represented is not universal nor is the use of the image as an effective representative. An example from the Zuni Collaborative Catalog shows how even openly shared data and images of collected objects can cause both confusion and disillusionment. We sometimes loan sacred items to other Zuni. The person that allows the borrowing understands the item(s) will be used for sacred purposes and the item(s) will be refreshed and further empowered from ceremonial use. When sacred items are returned blessings are given to the owner in the Zuni language. Zuni have no authentic concept to describe a sacred item that was taken by a non-Zuni and then sympathetically returned. When the force of NAGPRA took effect Zuni was confronted with informing Zuni religious leaders what repatriation means. The word repatriation was very problematic because it was not a Zuni idea and it forced Zuni to participate in a system of ownership that was not of Zuni making. After a great deal of discussion and coaching by Zuni translators the word repatriation finally became understood as the bodily, material, and actual return of a Zuni item or items back to Zuni land and people. It is not an ideal spiritual return but this idea of repatriation has been accepted under modern and less-than-perfect circumstances. The first time I described digital repatriation to Zuni religious leaders they asked if it meant selecting from the digital images so the items could be physically returned. When I told them no they became confused and antagonized saying that museums were intent on confusing the idea of repatriation. One Zuni leader said, “I don’t get it. Does repatriation mean the things will come back to Zuni or not?” Other tribes have their own particular concepts of ownership and ways to process what digital repatriation means to them. But clearly for Zuni where English is still a second language for many, the English words digital and repatriation should not be used together (J. Enote, pers. comm.). This example clearly shows how the question is not only one of virtuality. It is not merely a matter of representational practices, which have been ubiquitous in both the collected communities as well as the collecting institutions, but much more a question of the return of patrimony. There is no necessary association between the 13 Virtual Repatriation: It Is Neither Virtual nor Repatriation 111 image and information about an object held in a collecting institution—information gathered by that institution, written by that institution, and structured by that institution—and the object itself. Epilogue Just as the very first use of the term “Virtual” was to refer to Virtual Realities (Garb 1987), 3D computer-generated spaces that operated “as if they were the real thing,” the first use of the term “Virtual Repatriation,” by Tony Gill, Program Officer of the UK Research Libraries Group, was used to designate the possibility of 3D computergenerated reconstructions of objects that were so accurate as to stand in for the original (Gill 2001). Though Gill was referring to the sharing of rare, and fragile, manuscripts between libraries, the idea of virtual repatriation grew out of the goal of accommodating the needs of stakeholder communities without actually having to give the thing back. In 2003, 6 months after becoming the Director of the British Museum, Neil MacGregor proposed, in a move to deflect attention from the Elgin Marbles held at the BM, that the Parthenon should be reconstructed virtually (BBC News 2003). This was clearly an extension of Gill’s idea “return” objects virtually, as the technologies were becoming so advanced as to ensure the fidelity with the original (Boast 2002). What these two examples share is what was pointed out above, that the notion of the virtual retains aspects of the term’s original meaning of having the power to act. When associated with repatriation, these two examples explicitly allege the power of the virtual object to act, or represent, the original in all important respects. Of course, we do not suggest that any of the projects discussed above believe that the digital objects and data they are sharing “stand in” for the originals in this, or any other, sense. Nor do we wish to imply that these projects, which are excellent examples of data sharing, fail because they associate, or are associated, with a process designated as Virtual Repatriation. This would not only misrepresent these projects but also would do a major disservice to the excellent work they are doing. The point we wish to make here is that the term Virtual Repatriation cannot be appropriated without cost—it cannot be used or even reoriented away from the commanding praxis of these terms nor their historical legacies (Houghton 2010). In addition to deviating the term Repatriation away from the corporeal, material person, thing, or practice—a very dangerous political move that runs counter to the intentions of these projects—the appropriation of Virtual Repatriation for projects of data sharing confuses the context of sharing with programs of restitution, thus potentially playing into the hands of those voices which seek to maintain the centralized, universal enlightenment collection (Geismar 2008: 110). That source communities seek to collaborate with collecting institutions over the information held about their cultural patrimony should be seen as an opportunity to better address the problems of post-enlightenment, neocolonial collecting, and 112 R. Boast and J. Enote representation. The problem with designating these collaborative endeavors as repatriation—virtual, digital, or otherwise—is to firmly, and uncritically, orient the collaboration within the historical and constitutional space of the universal collection. This is a space that we feel should not be accommodated, even inadvertently. References Banks, M., & Morphy, H. (1999). Rethinking visual anthropology. Hartford: Yale University Press. Basu, P. (2011). Object diasporas, resourcing communities: Sierra Leonean collections in the global museumscape. Museum Anthropology, 34(1), 28–42. BBC News. (2003). ‘No return’ for Elgin Marbles. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/entertainment/2791877.stm [Last Updated: 23 Sunday Feb 2003, 13:40 GMT]. Accessed 29 Apr 2012. Boast, R. (2002). Computing futures: a vision of the past. In B. Cunliffe, W. Davies, & C. Renfrew (Eds.), Archaeology: the widening debate (pp. 567–592). London: British Academy. Boast, R., Bravo, M., & Srinivasan, R. (2007). Return to Babel: emergent diversity, digital resources, and local knowledge. The Information Society, 23(5), 395–403. Christen, K. (2009). Access and accountability: the ecology of information sharing in the digital age. Anthropology News, “Visual Ethics”. 4–5 Apr 2009. Christen, K. (2010). “Digital Repatriation: Practices and Possibilities” invited session as part of the protocols for native American archival materials. Society of American Archivists annual conference, Washington DC, 12 Aug 2010. Christen, K. (2011a) Opening archives: respectful repatriation. American Archivist. 74, 185–210. Christen, K. (2011b). Opening archives: respectful repatriation. The American Archivist, 74, 185–210. Garb, Y. (1987). Virtual reality computers encourage substitution of symbols for the world. Whole Earth Review, 57, 118–125. Geismar, H. (2008). Cultural property, museums, and the Pacific: reframing the debates. International Journal of Cultural Property, 15, 109–122. Gill, T. (2001). 3D culture on the Web. RLG DigiNews 5(3). http://webdoc.gwdg.de/edoc/aw/ rlgdn/preserv/diginews/diginews5-3.html. Accessed 29 Apr 2012. Harraway, D. (1991). Simians, Cyborgs, and women: the reinvention of nature. London: Free Association Books. Houghton, D. (2010). What is virtual repatriation? museumsandtheweb.com: The Online Space for Museum Informatics. http://www.museumsandtheweb.com/forum/what_virtual_repatriation. Accessed 29 Apr 2012. Jessop, M. & Hogsden, C. (2010). ‘Virtual repatriation’ – what is it? can it work? Unpublished paper presented at the Pacific Arts Association Xth International Symposium: Pacific Art in the 21st century: museums, new global communities and future trends, 9–11 Aug 2010, Rarotonga, Cook Islands. Lynch, M. (1994). Representation is overrated. Configurations, 2, 137–149. Lynch, M., & Woolgar, S. (1990). Representation in scientific practice. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press. NAGPRA Glossary. (1991). National Park Service, US Department of the Interior. http://www. nps.gov/nagpra/TRAINING/GLOSSARY.HTM. Accessed 14 Apr 2012. Nash, S., & Colwell-Chanthaphonh, C. (2010). NAGPRA after two decades. Museum Anthropology, 33(2), 99–104. Oxford English Dictionary Additions Series. 1997. OED Online. Oxford University Press. http:// dictionary.oed.com. Accessed 11 Sept. 2012. Oxford English Dictionary. 2nd ed. 1989. OED Online. Oxford University Press. http://dictionary. oed.com. Accessed 11 Sept. 2012. 13 Virtual Repatriation: It Is Neither Virtual nor Repatriation 113 Pickering, A. (1992). From science as knowledge to science as practice. In A. Pickering (Ed.), Science and practice and culture (pp. 1–28). Chicago: Chicago University Press. Rowley, S., Schaepe, D., Sparrow, L., Sanborn, A., Tadermacher, U., Wallace, R., Jakobsen, N., et al. (2010). ‘Building an on-line research community’: the reciprocal research network. http://www.archimuse.com/mw2010/papers/rowley/rowley.html. Accessed 25 Oct 2012. Srinivasan, R., Becvar, K. M., Boast, R., & Enote, J. (2010). Diverse knowledges and contact zones within the digital museum. Science, Technology, and Human Values, 35(5), 735–768. The Plateau Peoples’ Web Portal. (n.d.) About. http://plateauportal.wsulibs.wsu.edu/html/ppp/ index.php. Accessed 29 Mar 2012. Turnbull, D. (2007). Maps narratives and trails: performativity, hodology and distributed knowledges in complex adaptive systems – an approach to emergent mapping. Geographical Research, 45(2), 140–149.