By Eirini Oikonomidi, Rwanda Projects Manager

During the recent, nearly month-long visit to Rwanda, two successful and highly engaged workshops were conducted under the theme: “Engaging Communities in Cultural Heritage.” The training gathered 37 heritage practitioners who offered valuable insights, exchanged knowledge, and shared on-the-ground experience.

The workshops were led by Lena Stefanou and Aris Anagnostopoulos, whose expertise guided participants through practical strategies for community involvement.

The first workshop took place in the southwestern region of Rwanda, in Nyamasheke. This location was strategically chosen because the area is considerably more remote from Kigali, marking a significant step in expanding our programme’s on-site presence. Partnering with IVOMO, who provided crucial organisation and coordination support, the workshop focused intensely on local needs and specific challenges faced by communities in the Great Lakes region. The week spent in this tropical landscape underscored the importance of reaching remote areas to ensure a broad national impact.

Following the Nyamasheke session, the second workshop was hosted in Kigali, the capital of the country. This session broadened the discussion to encompass a wider range of stakeholders, organisations, and dynamic national applications. Our essential partner, the Rwanda Cultural Heritage Academy (RCHA), as always, provided excellent logistical support, including the necessary room and materials at the Kandt House Museum.

Ultimately, both intensive workshops provided fertile ground for the exchange of knowledge, the development of strategies, and the reinforcement of the role of local communities in the protection, preservation, and utilisation of cultural heritage as a driver for sustainable development.

Field Visits and Strategic Engagement

Following the successful completion of the workshops, the remaining weeks of the mission were dedicated to crucial field visits and high-level stakeholder meetings across Rwanda. As the Country Manager, I embarked on an extensive schedule to personally visit projects on the ground, covering a significant geographical expanse—from the tranquil shores of Lake Kivu in the west, across to the Ngoma District in the east, and down into the Southern Province.

This commitment to comprehensive on-the-ground presence yielded two vital outcomes for both our organisation and our local partners.

First, for me, the visits provided a vastly improved and granular understanding of the actual situation. Observing the projects firsthand allowed me to gain immediate clarity on their evolution, their current state, the specific difficulties local teams face, and their overall trajectory. This practical insight is indispensable for effective strategic planning.

Second, the impact on our local partners and the communities themselves was equally profound. By prioritising this on-site presence, we achieved a deeper connection that served to empower the local teams significantly. Our physical presence demonstrated a genuine interest and commitment, signaling the high value we place on their efforts and achievements. We had the opportunity to meet the dedicated individuals face-to-face, fostering stronger personal and professional relationships that reinforce the communities’ sense of ownership and dedication to the long-term sustainability of their cultural heritage work.

In short, these field visits transformed our theoretical understanding into tangible knowledge, strengthening both our project oversight and the foundational local partnerships necessary for lasting impact in Rwanda.

*** The visit and workshops are part of HERITΛGE’s HerMaP Africa initiative, generously supported by the Mellon Foundation.

From 8 to 11 October 2025, The Heritage Management Organization (HERITΛGE) participated in the 7th Cultural Sustainable Tourism (CST) Conference, hosted in the historic cities of Aswan and Luxor, Egypt. The event brought together experts from across the globe to explore how cultural tourism can foster authentic exchanges, strengthen communities, and advance sustainable development through heritage.

Representing HERITΛGE, Denise Navarro Becerra, Program Manager for M Gambia, presented the paper:“Strengthening Local Capacities for Cultural Tourism Development: The HerMaP Gambia Initiative (2020–2025)”.

 

The presentation highlighted how the EU-funded initiative supported peer-led capacity building, institutional partnerships, and community-based tourism development in The Gambia demonstrating HERITΛGE’s methodology for building locally rooted, sustainable heritage systems.

The CST 2025 program addressed some of the most pressing challenges in heritage and tourism today. Sessions were organized under themes such as:

• Bridging Past and Present: Valuation and Interpretation of Tangible and Intangible Heritage
• Community, Culture, and Local Engagement in Tourism
• From Stones to Stories: Negotiating Tangible and Intangible Heritage Across Continents
• Cultural Heritage, Identity & Interpretation

 

Presenters included researchers and practitioners from Italy, Portugal, Spain, Morocco, Egypt, Lebanon, Taiwan, the Philippines, Mexico, Georgia, and beyond, reflecting the global scope of the dialogue and the relevance of cultural tourism across diverse contexts.

While in Egypt, the HERITΛGE team also had the pleasure of reconnecting with Dr. Hassan Refaat, HERITΛGE fellow and grant awardee, whose ongoing work continues to contribute meaningfully to sustainable heritage development in the region.

HERITΛGE received strong interest from institutions and professionals seeking future collaboration, particularly on integrating heritage training, community engagement, and tourism development. The conference provided a valuable opportunity to share lessons from the HerMaP Gambia initiative and reaffirm HERITΛGE’s commitment to co-creating sustainable, community-led heritage programs in Africa and globally.

HERITΛGE recently hosted an online workshop on Community and Economic Development, bringing together 20 heritage managers from 16 countries across Africa and Asia. The three-day intensive training aimed to strengthen participants’ understanding of how cultural heritage can be mobilised for sustainable economic benefit while supporting community development.

The programme was designed to provide heritage managers worldwide with a firm understanding of the motivations for mobilising cultural resources for economic benefit, the limits of that mobilisation, different strategies for creating economic benefits, and how economic impacts are measured and communicated. Participants were guided through the process of developing plans for their own case studies, including goal setting, strategy selection, assessing economic feasibility, and establishing monitoring and evaluation procedures.

The workshop was led by Dr Paul Burtenshaw and Athena Yannitsas. Dr Burtenshaw is a specialist in heritage economics, heritage tourism, and the relationship between cultural heritage and sustainable community development. He has worked on heritage and tourism projects in a range of countries, focusing on how economic approaches can support long-term preservation and local benefit. Athena Yannitsas, Intercultural Initiatives Manager at HERITΛGE, works on programme development, training facilitation, and cross-cultural collaboration. Her work helps align HERITΛGE’s activities with the cultural contexts of diverse communities. Together, they guided participants through a structured and practical learning process linking economic concepts with real-world application.

The Tutor’s approach to stimulate “Thinking outside the box” ideas among participants to brainstorm, identify, develop, scale-up and enhance economic resilience and profitability of the Cultural Heritage.

Paul Phiri / Executive Director at PAZESA Horticultural Community

In total, the course involved 18 capacity-building cases and 19 case studies across two continents, with participants representing a wide range of organisations from Afghanistan, Cameroon, Egypt, Ethiopia, Eswatini, Kenya, Lesotho, Malawi, Malaysia, Mauritius, Niger, Nigeria, Rwanda, South Africa, Uganda, and Zambia.

Throughout the workshop, participants examined how cultural heritage can serve as an economic asset while ensuring that local communities benefit directly. Sessions covered the main sources of income in heritage, such as public funding, donations, and commercialisation, and discussed approaches to integrating sustainability within these models. A particular focus was placed on addressing local needs and priorities, including job creation, cultural preservation, and youth engagement.

Participants also explored ways to generate economic impact through cultural tourism and artisan production, analysing both the opportunities and challenges of these approaches. Further sessions addressed business viability and sustainability, including market-driven product development, audience segmentation, and the five Ps of marketing. Practical exercises on costing and financial planning helped participants assess the feasibility of their proposed initiatives.

Paul was such a great instructor, got me thinking about many things, especially in skills development, capacity building and governance. Hearing his experiences enriched the course. The session on M&E is particularly something that I have struggled with and I have learnt to keep the tools simple and to invent my own to suit my projects.

Margaret Dear Kasande-Köbel / Crafts Manager at Rwenzori Sustainable Trade Centre Limited

The final part of the training focused on capacity building and long-term sustainability, highlighting the importance of developing skills and confidence within communities to manage heritage enterprises independently. The course concluded with a session on monitoring and evaluation, which covered how to design measurable indicators, track progress, and use data to improve project outcomes.

By the end of the workshop, participants had developed frameworks outlining their project goals, strategies, and measures of success, supporting the implementation of sustainable economic development initiatives in their respective contexts.

For more information about HERITΛGE’s workshops, go to our open courses page, or follow us on Facebook, Twitter / X, LinkedIn or Instagram.

By Vira Orlovska

In times of war, when destruction seems to rewrite the physical and cultural landscape of a nation, a different kind of architecture emerges – one built from knowledge, skill, and an unyielding commitment to protect memory. The project “Architectural Heritage Preservation in Times of War: The Ukrainian Model” stands as a powerful example of what can be accomplished when education, resilience, and international collaboration converge with urgency.

Launched in September 2024 by HERITΛGE in collaboration with the Kharkiv School of Architecture (operating from Lviv) and 3D documentation experts of Skeiron, this project set out to train a new generation of heritage architects and educators equipped with the technical and ethical tools needed to preserve Ukraine’s imperiled architectural heritage.

Building knowledge amid collapse

As buildings fall and monuments come under attack, the project focused on something less visible but deeply enduring: education. Over the course of the academic year, it reached 30 students and 10 educators from across Ukraine – Chernivtsi, Dnipro, Kharkiv, Kherson, Poltava, Zaporizhzhia, Kyiv, Odesa, Lviv and Vinnytsia regions – through an intensive curriculum that merged theory with fieldwork. Topics ranged from cutting-edge techniques like photogrammetry and 3D laser scanning to international conservation standards and legal frameworks.

Field internships in Western Ukraine led by Skeiron gave students hands-on experience in documenting heritage sites. They produced high-resolution digital scans and architectural records that now serve both as tools for future conservation efforts and as acts of cultural preservation in their own right.

In parallel, the programme’s educator training combined online learning with in-person workshops coordinated and hosted by the Kharkiv School of Architecture and practical exercises. This dual approach enabled participating teachers to develop their own heritage-focused curricula – tailored to their institutions – and expand the reach of conservation education across the country.

The urgency of this work is echoed in the April 2025 report “The Ukrainian Cultural Sector in Wartimes: Emergencies – Needs – Measures”, which highlights a critical shortage of qualified professionals in conservation, restoration, and heritage protection. The report calls for systemic investment in education, especially in frontline regions where remote-only instruction has left gaps in competencies. Against this backdrop, the project addressed not just a wartime emergency, but a long-standing structural need for enhanced education in architectural heritage conservation.

The project’s broader legacy

Though limited to one academic year, the project’s impact far outstrips its timeline. It catalysed the development of a reproducible curriculum, created a set of digital documentation of 15 heritage sites, and introduced conservation methodologies to institutions that previously had limited access to such tools. Perhaps most importantly, it demonstrated how cultural preservation can be reframed as a form of resistance and recovery.

A series of public webinars and lectures – featuring experts from Ukraine and abroad – helped bridge gaps in knowledge and connect students and instructors with global heritage preservation communities. The programme didn’t just train students; it helped cultivate a network of professionals who carry forward the mission of architectural conservation with firsthand experience and shared purpose.

A call to sustain what was started

Despite its success, the project ended in 2025 due to funding limitations. Its early closure is a sobering reminder of the fragility of cultural preservation efforts in conflict zones. Yet it also underscores a core truth: the preservation of architectural heritage is not a one-off intervention. It is a long-term commitment that demands sustained investment, institutional backing, and policy support.

The tools have been built. The knowledge has been shared. What remains is the will to continue – through new programs, policy reform, and the support of international allies.

Final thoughts

In Ukraine today, every carved facade, every war-scarred cornice tells a story – not only of destruction but of survival. The “Architectural Heritage Preservation in Times of War” project ensured that these stories are not lost. As Ukraine continues its path through war toward recovery, the architects trained through this programme will stand among its quiet heroes – those who understand that rebuilding is not just about walls, but about the memory those walls hold.

Now, more than ever, we must ask: what kind of future do we build if we let the past be erased?

Find out more about our projects here.

 

We are delighted to invite you to the closing presentation of the International Summer School on Engaging Communities in Cultural Heritage, taking place on Sunday, July 6, 2025, at 20:00, at the Dimitrakopoulos Building in Paroikia, Paros.

Over the past two weeks, a dynamic group of heritage professionals and students from around the world has been working closely with the island’s local communities. Through hands-on fieldwork and ethnographic research, they’ve explored how communities engage with their cultural heritage and how local initiatives contribute to its preservation and promotion.

This special event will showcase the results of their field research, offering insights into the role that local voices play in shaping the narratives and practices of heritage management. It is an opportunity to hear directly from participants about their experiences, findings, and reflections—and to learn how community engagement can enrich the global conversation around cultural heritage.

Now in its second year of in-person implementation on the island, the program places special emphasis on interaction with local cultural organizations. A central aim of the Summer School is to highlight, through the educational process, the work of local cultural institutions as case studies that can enrich the international dialogue on the protection and promotion of cultural heritage.

The Summer School is made possible thanks to the generous support of the Municipality of Paros, which has provided access to local venues, including the Dimitrakopoulos Building and the Municipal Library.

We warmly invite local residents, cultural professionals, and visitors to join us for this celebratory and insightful evening. Come meet the next generation of heritage managers, discover the rich cultural fabric of Paros through fresh perspectives, and take part in a growing dialogue on how communities shape their heritage futures.

Date: Sunday, July 6, 2025
Time: 20:00
Location: Dimitrakopoulos Building, Paroikia, Paros

We look forward to seeing you there!

* By Ahmad Mohammed, PhD Researcher, Department of Archaeology, Durham University

Digital repatriation, referring refers to the return of cultural heritage in digital form and, has emerged as a pivotal innovation within digital humanities and heritage studies over the past decade (Poske 2024). Traditionally rooted in anthropological practices, digital repatriation has evolved to encompass diverse modes of reconnecting communities with ancestral heritage that has been displaced through the removal of cultural objects, utilizing photographs, audio recordings, 3D scans, virtual reality experiences, and online databases. This practice is fundamentally reshaping the landscape of cultural heritage management, museum curation, and archival practices by challenging traditional notions of ownership, stewardship, and access.

At its core, digital repatriation seeks to address the historical injustices that resulted in the displacement and appropriation of cultural objects during periods of colonialism, conflict, and globalization. Through digital surrogates, source communities are afforded renewed access to their material culture, linguistic traditions, and spiritual practices, often enabling revitalization efforts that strengthen cultural identity and continuity. Advances in digital technology offer transformative possibilities for democratizing access, fostering intercultural dialogue, and supporting community-driven heritage management.

However, digital repatriation is not without profound ethical, legal, and political dilemmas. Critics caution that without genuine power shifts toward originating communities, digital repatriation risks reinforcing colonial hierarchies under the veneer of technological progress (Lixinski 2020; Vapnarsky and Noûus 2021). The creation and circulation of digital surrogates, while offering symbolic returns, may simultaneously allow institutions to retain control over original artifacts, thus perpetuating structural inequalities.

Moreover, issues surrounding intellectual property rights, ethical data management, cultural sensitivity, and digital divides further complicate the landscape. Who controls the digital replicas? Who decides how they are accessed, interpreted, and shared? Can digital copies ever replace the spiritual and material significance of original artifacts? These questions remain at the heart of ongoing scholarly debates.

Understanding digital repatriation, therefore, requires a holistic exploration of its transformative potential, systemic risks, and the critical frameworks necessary for its ethical realization. This study examines both the promises and paradoxes of digital repatriation, emphasizing that truly decolonial digital practices must center the sovereignty, authority, and cultural values of source communities at every stage of the process.

Opportunities and Innovations

Digital repatriation initiatives have opened unprecedented opportunities for re-establishing connections between communities and their dispersed cultural heritage. The ability to access, interact with, and reinterpret heritage materials through digital means has empowered communities to reclaim narratives historically marginalized or misrepresented in institutional settings. Virtual museums, augmented reality exhibitions, and open-access repositories have emerged as platforms that democratize heritage access, facilitating intercultural understanding and knowledge sharing (Wikipedia 2023; Vapnarsky and Noûus 2021).

Moreover, community-led initiatives such as Princeton University’s “Naming and Claiming” project have demonstrated how Indigenous communities can actively participate in reauthoring the digital representation of their heritage (Young 2018). Platforms like Mukurtu offer customizable tools that allow for the imposition of cultural protocols, ensuring that sensitive materials are managed in accordance with traditional knowledge systems (Krupa and Grimm 2021).

Emerging frameworks emphasizing Indigenous data sovereignty (Owan et al. 2023) further enhance these opportunities, providing communities with the mechanisms to govern their digital heritage autonomously. Blockchain technologies and NFTs have also been explored as innovative methods for asserting Indigenous rights and “activating refusal,” allowing communities to control the circulation of their digital heritage and challenge exploitative practices (Feld 2023).

Importantly, projects like Sípnuuk, developed by the Karuk Tribe, exemplify how Indigenous-controlled digital archives can become vital spaces for cultural preservation, education, and intergenerational knowledge transfer (Hillman et al. 2017).

Challenges and Critiques

Despite the promising potential of digital repatriation, significant challenges persist that threaten to undermine its transformative aspirations. A major concern is the risk of “virtual restitution” replacing demands for the physical return of cultural artifacts. Scholars argue that offering digital surrogates without relinquishing ownership of original items can serve to placate repatriation claims without addressing the deeper injustices of colonial dispossession (Poske 2024; Open GLAM 2021).

Furthermore, institutional control over digital surrogates remains pervasive. Digitization often occurs within frameworks that prioritize institutional narratives and archival standards, thereby marginalizing Indigenous epistemologies and cultural protocols (Allahyari 2016; Vapnarsky and Noûus 2021). This dynamic perpetuates “digital colonialism,” wherein Western institutions retain authority over how digitized heritage is categorized, accessed, and interpreted.

The ethical risks associated with the digitization of sacred and sensitive materials also present critical challenges. Without robust community consultation and consent, digital repatriation can result in the unintentional exposure of knowledge that communities deem private or sacred (Leditschke et al. 2024).

Legal ambiguities surrounding ownership and copyright further complicate digital repatriation efforts. Institutions often assert intellectual property rights over digital representations, effectively creating new forms of dispossession and reinforcing “intellectual property imperialism” (Oruç 2023).

Moreover, digital divides continue to hinder equitable participation in digital repatriation initiatives. Many communities face barriers related to infrastructure, technological capacity, and digital literacy, limiting their ability to access, manage, and benefit from digital heritage (Shepardson 2023; Smith and Ristya 2023).

Ownership, Control, Ethical Governance, and Justice

The success of digital repatriation depends fundamentally on reconceptualizing ownership, control, and ethical governance. True digital repatriation must prioritize the sovereignty of source communities over their digital and physical heritage. This requires dismantling traditional hierarchies of knowledge production and curatorship that have historically marginalized Indigenous voices.

Frameworks such as Traditional Knowledge Labels (Local Contexts 2021) offer practical mechanisms for communities to assert cultural authority over digital content, specifying conditions of access, attribution, and usage. Community-led governance models based on principles of free, prior, and informed consent, reciprocal benefit, and cultural sensitivity are essential for ensuring that digital repatriation initiatives respect Indigenous legal and ethical systems (Owan et al. 2023).

Innovative approaches leveraging blockchain and NFTs provide additional tools for Indigenous communities to control the circulation of their digital heritage and resist unauthorized appropriation (Feld 2023). However, technological solutions must be embedded within broader frameworks of ethical collaboration and decolonial practice to avoid replicating existing inequities.

Justice in the context of digital repatriation demands more than technological fixes; it requires meaningful restitution, recognition of historical harms, and the establishment of equitable partnerships between institutions and source communities. As Sarr and Savoy (2018) argue, digital repatriation should complement, not replace, physical returns and broader decolonization efforts.

Ultimately, digital repatriation can serve as a powerful catalyst for restorative justice, cultural revitalization, and global solidarity. However, achieving these goals necessitates a sustained commitment to centering community agency, respecting cultural protocols, and challenging the legacies of colonialism embedded within heritage institutions and digital infrastructures.

Conclusion

Digital repatriation stands at the intersection of innovation and restitution, offering unprecedented opportunities to bridge historical divides and empower communities historically marginalized in cultural heritage discourses. As digital technologies increasingly permeate every aspect of cultural management, digital repatriation offers a means for Indigenous and source communities to reengage with dispersed heritage, revitalize endangered traditions, and assert cultural sovereignty in new and dynamic ways.

Nevertheless, digital repatriation is fraught with complexity. Access to digitized heritage, while important, cannot substitute for genuine restitution of physical objects nor can it rectify the profound harms caused by centuries of cultural dispossession. Without structural transformations in ownership, control, and governance, digital initiatives risk becoming superficial gestures that maintain institutional dominance under the guise of innovation.

True decolonization demands more than the proliferation of digital surrogates; it requires reimagining the ethical frameworks that underpin cultural heritage practices. Institutions must move beyond extractive models of stewardship toward equitable, consent-based collaborations that center the epistemologies, rights, and aspirations of source communities. This includes embracing Indigenous frameworks of knowledge governance, recognizing cultural protocols surrounding access and use, and committing to processes of physical restitution wherever possible.

The future of digital repatriation lies in forging partnerships grounded in trust, reciprocity, and mutual respect. Technology, when harnessed ethically, can serve as a powerful tool for restorative justice, cultural healing, and global solidarity. However, it must always be deployed in ways that prioritize community agency, ensure cultural continuity, and challenge the legacies of colonialism rather than perpetuating them.

As digital heritage practices continue to evolve, it is imperative that scholars, heritage professionals, and policymakers remain critically engaged, ensuring that digital repatriation becomes a catalyst for genuine empowerment and not merely a digital reflection of historical inequities. By centering the sovereignty and visions of source communities, digital repatriation can fulfill its transformative potential and contribute meaningfully to a more just and equitable heritage future.

---

References

• Allahyari, M. (2016). Digital Colonialism [Lecture and interviews]. Available at: https://morehshin.com/digital-colonialism/ 
• Feld, L. (2023). Activating Refusal: Exploring NFTs to Disrupt Colonial Heritage Systems. International Journal of Heritage Studies, 30(1), 103–114. https://doi.org/10.1080/13527258.2023.2277794 
• Hillman, L.J., Hillman, L., Harling, A., Talley, B., & McLaughlin, A. (2017). Building Sípnuuk: A Digital Library, Archives, and Museum for Indigenous Peoples. Collection Management, 42(3–4), 294–316. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/01462679.2017.1331870 
• Krupa, K.L. & Grimm, K.T. (2021). Digital Repatriation as a Decolonizing Practice in the Archaeological Archive. Across the Disciplines, 18(1/2). https://wac.colostate.edu/docs/atd/volume18/Krupa,Grimm.pdf
• Leditschke, A., Nichols, J., Farrow, K., & Brown, Q. (2024). The Ethics and Cultural Sensitivities of Data Management in Indigenous Cultural Heritage. Advances in Librarianship, 23–39. https://doi.org/10.1108/S0065-283020240000054003 
• Local Contexts. (2021). Traditional Knowledge Labels. [Online] Available at: https://localcontexts.org/tk-labels/ 
• Open GLAM. (2021). Decolonization and Indigenization. Open GLAM PubPub Platform. https://openglam.pubpub.org/pub/decolonization 
• Oruç, P. (2023). Who Holds Copyright in 3D Copies of Repatriated Cultural Heritage? Kluwer Copyright Blog. https://copyrightblog.kluweriplaw.com/2023/01/05/who-holds-copyright-in-3d-copies-of-repatriated-cultural-heritage/
• Owan, V.J., Ogar, J.O., et al. (2023). Indigenous Research and Data Management in Electronic Environments. In Advances in Information Quality and Management, pp. 342–362. https://doi.org/10.4018/978-1-6684-7024-4.ch018 
• Poske, C. (2024). Digital Repatriation of Cultural Heritage. In The Palgrave Encyclopedia of Cultural Heritage and Conflict. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-67932-6_130-1 
• Sarr, F. & Savoy, B. (2018). Report on the Restitution of African Cultural Heritage: Toward a New Relational Ethics. https://www.about-africa.de/images/sonstiges/2018/sarr_savoy_en.pdf
• Shepardson, Britton L., et al. “Terevaka Archaeological Outreach (TAO) 2019 Field Report: Creating Digital Access to Cultural Heritage.” Rapa Nui Journal 32, no. 1 (2019): 118-134. https://dx.doi.org/10.1353/rnj.2019.0003.
• Smith, E.C.H. & Ristya, R. (2023). Protection and Repatriation of Cultural Heritage: Digital Access and Indigenous Rights. https://doi.org/10.4467/2450050XSNR.22.025.17038
• Vapnarsky, V. & Noûus, C. (2021). Digital Repatriation, Amerindian Reappropriations. Journal de la Société des Américanistes, 107(1), 303–315. https://doi.org/10.4000/jsa.19794
• Wikipedia. (2023). Digital Repatriation. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_repatriation
• Young, I. (2018). Naming and Claiming: Indigenous Language in Digital Repatriation. MW18: Museums and the Web 2018. https://mw18.mwconf.org/proposal/naming-and-claiming-indigenous-language-in-digital-repatriation/index.html