Museum and collections catalogues commonly include information about geographic data, which helps determine the location of where a rock or mineral sample was collected. This information can involve various details such as road names, quarries, landmarks, country boundaries, addresses, and altitudes. Most of this data is presented in written form, such as labels, notebooks, or specimen records. However, there are also other formats that may provide visual representations, such as marks on archival maps, field sketches, or drawings. The descriptions of the collection localities can range from very precise, using GPS coordinates or latitude/longitude, to more general, like “South East Asia.”
In order to fit the geospatial data into pre-defined collection database categories, curators, collectors, and scientists often break down the information. This is typically done using hierarchical systems that include continents, countries, counties, and towns. More descriptive and original data may be placed in notes or details fields, rather than the main database categories.
Addressing the limitations of these classification systems requires a more inclusive and collaborative approach that recognizes and incorporates indigenous and alternative knowledge systems. This involves actively engaging with local communities, respecting their traditional knowledge, and integrating their perspectives into the classification and interpretation of geological collections. It is crucial to establish partnerships and ensure the involvement of indigenous peoples and holders of alternative knowledge in the management, research, and decision-making processes related to geological collections. By doing so, a more comprehensive understanding of the geological heritage can be achieved, benefiting both scientific and traditional knowledge systems.
While the use of geographic classification systems in geological collections is a valuable tool, there are certain limitations when it comes to incorporating indigenous and alternative knowledge. These limitations include:
- Eurocentrism and Western Bias: The development and structure of geographic classification systems and mapping practices used in geological collecting have historically been influenced by Eurocentric perspectives and Western scientific paradigms. This can lead to the marginalization or exclusion of indigenous and alternative knowledge systems and their conceptualizations of land, geology, and natural resources. [see Brooks, 2018; Smith, 2018].
- Lack of Cultural Context: Geographic classification systems may overlook the cultural and spiritual significance of geological sites and formations to indigenous communities. These communities often possess rich oral traditions and knowledge systems that incorporate geological features into their cultural narratives and practices. Additionally, these communities and their cultures have been impacted by resource extraction and exploitation. Failing to consider and document this cultural context can result in a limited understanding of the geological significance of a particular area.
- Disregard for Traditional Knowledge: Indigenous and alternative knowledge systems often hold deep understandings of local geology, including the properties and uses of rocks and minerals. This knowledge, passed down through generations, may not align with the scientific classifications and terminology used in mainstream geology. By solely relying on geographic classification systems, there is a risk of disregarding or undervaluing existing indigenous knowledge. Indigenous place-names and maps also offer insights into a comprehensive understanding of place.
- Meaning, Ownership, and Guardianship of Land and Samples: The use of geographic classification systems in geological collections can raise issues regarding access and control over specimens. Indigenous communities may have ancestral connections to specific geographic regions but may not have control over the collections or the authority to determine their usage. This can create a disconnection between the specimens and the communities from whose traditional lands they originate.
Broader geographic terms like “Saharan desert” or “Mesopotamia” are often seen as ambiguous and may not easily fit into existing data structures. Additionally, original descriptions, if captured initially, have sometimes been edited, reworded, updated, and often stripped of any cultural or local significance to conform to modern classification systems.
Image and words by Jordon Engel