During April I was at CAA 2019 in Kraków to present two papers and represent the Brazilian CAA chapter. One of the two papers was the result of an invitation to participate in the roundtable “Our Knowledge is All Over the Place!”, hosted by Paul Reilly, Stephen Stead and John Pouncett.
Paul asked each participant to give a five-minute overview on their idea for a knowledge map of archaeology using one slide, followed by an open discussion. He summarised the challenge in a post on his blog: “W(h)ither archaeological knowledge? Towards a (re)Map” (Reilly 2018) after the approach of Huggett et al. (2018) who posed the question:
“how do we know what we know? Or, put another way, how do we tap into disciplinary knowledge?”.
Yet, the specific scope of the discussion was open. Each participant took a different perspective and approach to the question. For my presentation, I agreed to discuss the recovery from a “knowledge disaster” facing Brazil in the wake of the fire at the Museu Nacional, Rio de Janeiro of September 2018.
My preparation took a digital archaeological slant and covered two aspects. Firstly, attempts to recover knowledge following the fire, and secondly, how to best prepare for future catastrophes. My research encompassed the reaction and recovery effort, approaches to knowledge mapping, and issues in digitisation and open data initiatives. In addition, I took the opportunity to interview two scholars involved in the area for different perspectives: Maria Cristina Bruno, a leader in research on museology and past director of MAE-USP, and Andre Strauss, a professor leading a range of palaeoanthropological and archaeological research projects, who is active in 3D and digitisation efforts.
My approach considers the actual aspects of recovery and reconstruction, but extends to ethical considerations, debates over open data and the importance of understanding perspectives from the developing world.
To frame the digital reaction I draw on Huggett et al.’s (2018) “knowledge regimes” which the authors defined as the “‘Ministry of Digital Orthodoxy’; the ‘Academy of Digital Advancement’; the ‘School of Digital Citizenship’; the ‘Commune of Digital Anarchy’” based on the openness of knowledge practices, and experimentation with digital technologies (Fig. 1).
Figure 1: Digital Archaeology and Knowledge Practice scenarios (Huggett et al. 2018, Figure 3).
Below is my knowledge map and a summary of my research in preparation for the discussion. I should clarify that I don’t represent the Museu Nacional: the opinions here are from my perspective as a Brazilian archaeologist (Fig.2).
On the 2nd of September as I arrived in Barcelona for EAA2018, I received news that the Museu Nacional was on fire. The blaze started around 7.30pm, likely due to an electrical problem in the renovated Maxakalisaurus room. The historic building, once home to the Portuguese Royal Family, and to approximately 20 million artefacts encompassing the breadth of Brazilian heritage, was burning.
The disaster came following years of chronic underfunding. The annual budget was already cut to the bone at 120,000 Euros, and even that had not been allocated in most years since 2014. This resulted in a catastrophe, as described by Vilaça (2018):
“Looking at the skeleton of our museum, the image came to me of an immolation, of someone setting fire to their body as a protest, as a revolt against so many mistreatments and neglect….”
The fire reflects a broader neglect of cultural heritage in Brazil: the Ipiranga Museum of São Paulo has been closed since 2013 due to risk of collapse, a 2015 fire destroyed much of the collection of the Museu da Língua Portuguesa: not yet reopened, and the Museu do Índio and its’ 18,000 items and 15,000 publications on indigenous people remain closed to the public, since July 2016.
A pattern of destruction is playing out at heritage and knowledge repositories across the world, see for example the recent events at the Notre Dame. So much so that ICOMOS (2017) recently released updated “Post Trauma Recovery” Guidelines for World Heritage properties, due to the “context of catastrophic events affecting diverse World Heritage properties”. Chip Colwell (2018) summed it up well when he stated: “lesson from Brazil: Museums are not forever”.
The destruction caused deep trauma. A vital knowledge base was gone and with it the work of many people who had contributed to the museum over 200 years as well as the work of present researchers.
Furthermore, visitors, around 46% of whom were of low income (Passarinho 2018), lost an important educational centre, and indigenous communities, who had already lost so much, now “lost many items that we never managed to identify” (Andreoni and Londoño 2018).
Faced with the destruction of one of the most important knowledge repositories in the museum and the anthropological library becoming charcoal and embers, what methods are being used to recover our heritage?
Although BNDES, the national development bank had signed a 4.9 million Euro contract to support the renovation of the museum in June of 2018, the funds were pending release at the time of the fire. Following the event, 750,000 Euros were immediately released for emergency measures, and during 2019 the Museum is to receive at least 19.25 million Euros for reconstruction and renovation from various sources. (4 times more than the 2018 agreement). Furthermore, on 1 October the national development bank launched a public call of 5.6 million Euros for the safety of museums and public collections across Brazil (BNDES 2018).
These changes in funding were significant and may enable us to put in place the basic infrastructure to support a knowledge map, and yet, despite facing the neglect, the funds raised for reconstruction still pale in comparison to those of the Notre Dame: 1 billion-plus Euros: in just hours, the cathedral was able to raise 3875 times more than the Museu Nacional could in seven months (Oliveira 2019). There remains a ‘eurocentricity’ in our values. For example, the National Museum registered 192,000 visitors in 2017 and yet, in the same period, 289,000 Brazilians visited the Louvre, in Paris, France (Barifouse 2018).
However, as the fires were going out, recovery efforts had already begun on the ground. The museum team initiated a detailed excavation of the whole site, run by the archaeologists themselves, with 10 coordinators and 47 collaborators excavating, sieving and processing all remains from the store-rooms and display spaces. Nothing left the site without being checked (Barbon 2019).
According to the coordinator, Claudia Carvalho:
“some collections have been practically lost, such as Entomology, and others, especially resistant materials such as ceramic, metal and stone, remain”.
By February 2019 the team had collected and recorded 2,000 items and were able to exhibit 100 pieces as part of the public outreach exhibition “Museu Nacional Vive”, the National Museum Lives, in February, March and April, while also running another exhibition on Antarctica this year (Museu Nacional 2019).
Crowdsourcing: From Digital Anarchy to Digital Orthodoxy and Back
Beyond the excavation, other efforts for recovery were also underway. From 6 September, the museum, previously rather reserved on social media, began the #MuseuNacionalVive or National Museum Lives campaign online.
Those who found fragments of documents and artefacts across the neighbourhood were encouraged to bring them in, an email address was set up to receive digital copies and photos of artefacts, documents, volunteers and donations were requested. The Friends of the Museum set up a web presence for the first time on 31 October: [https://www.samn.org.br] (SAMN 2019), and the Social Anthropology library, which was completely destroyed, requested a list of more than 23 thousand books requested to rebuild the resource.
The change in approach in social media engagement provoked an impassioned response from the young people of Brazil who protested, sent letters and built replicas of the artefacts (Fig.3, 4, and 6).
Figure 3: Protesting the neglect of national heritage (Pilar Olivares: Reuters)
Figure 4: A symbolic hug for the museum (GloboNews)
Indeed, one papier-mache replica of the Throne of Adandozan, from the ancient African kingdom of Dahomey, was included in the Museu Nacional Vive exhibition, produced by a 13-year-old student from the north of Rio (Agencia Brasil 2019).
Figure 5: Papier-mache replica of the Throne of Adandozan, at the Museu Nacional Vive exhibition. (Fernando Frazão: Agência Brasil 2019)
Figure 6: Letters to the Museum written by children from a public school in Rio. Now a constant reminder of our responsibilities and the social end of our research (Museu Nacional 2019).
“My dear museum … I’m sorry for what happened, I know what it’s like to go through this, I’m really sorry, with all my heart. It must be hard to lose everything you loved. I want to say that. Thanks for hear me. Signed: A B “
“Letter to the National Museum My dear museum … I could not get to know you, but everything inside you is so beautiful and wonderful. I bet that before being burned there was so much cool things and the zoo should be so cool but now it has been destroyed but I believe that everything will return to normal. Signed: T.
“My museum was a very cool place, and there was one important thing: in that museum there was a dinosaur bone and a t-rex, there was a woman who studied that thing, there were many things but everything was burned. she cried, I thank everyone who is reading Signed: A and E.
Figure 7: Staff and supporters alike were even tattooed with the museum logo: these images were shared on social media as a form of support (Instagram 2019)
Others had reacted online themselves, before the fire was even out, beyond the official outreach of digital orthodoxy. Students of the museology course at UNIRIO began conversing on WhatsApp about collecting the photos of the museum artefacts. They had the idea to make a public call for anyone to submit photos via email, and by Monday morning, they had received more than 5,000 emails. They hope to compile a “virtual museum or a memory space” with the images (Solly 2018).
In parallel, Wikimedia called on users to upload their personal snapshots of the museum to Wikimedia Commons, an open access repository of images (Solly 2018) and others began sharing their own photos on other social platforms (Queiroga 2018). A collection of models associated with the museum was even curated on SketchFab (https://sketchfab.com/nebulousflynn/collections/museu-nacional-do-rio-de-janeiro) (2018).
The Digital Academy was also involved in some way too, as in 2016, Google Arts & Culture had begun working with the museum to bring their collection online, and they released the data that they had gathered in a virtual exhibit including photos and Street View imagery inside the museum (Coughenour 2018).
Amazing work continues in the recovery excavations and has even provided material for exhibitions already as mentioned above. But, what were the outcomes of these different approaches?
Luana Santos, one of the UNIRIO students who made the public call for photo submissions, made it clear her idea was to work with the museum, but was waiting for their response (Mori 2018).
The museum had requested on 6 September to not send documents to email addresses other than their own, the “ministry” trying to close out the “commune” (Museu Nacional Facebook Page 2019). Given that on Wikipedia Commons there are only 169 files now listed in the “Campaign: Museu Nacional” (Wikimedia Commons 2019) we can assume the UNIRIO approach obtained the greatest share of the images. What has become of the student-led research is unclear, with little news since October of 2018.
The recovery effort also revealed the lack of prioritization of digitization when it became clear that the focus of 3D scanning had been Egyptian mummies rather than other materials. By chance, Luiza had been scanned and a copy made of the facial reconstruction, which was 3D printed for a new display.
Figure 8: The burned remains of Luzia Recovered (Julia Barbon: Folhapress)
These efforts revealed the risk of a “new digital dark age” to quote Jeffrey (2012). Furthermore, many museums and Institutions that host culture heritage in Brazil still do not have clear mitigations for the risks posed by such disasters. We now require much more effective planning, which a knowledge map could support.
And the Knowledge Map?
When considering the fundamental question posed by Huggett et al. (2018): “How do we build resilience, flexibility and agility into our organisations, our systems, our work practices and, especially, our precious knowledge bases?”, we should first acknowledge that we have been discussing knowledge maps as a solution for some time. In 1989 Howard proposed a knowledge map as a way “to get fragmented information out of people’s heads, onto paper, and ultimately into a computer”. In fact, institutions such as NASA have built knowledge maps to support knowledge sharing (cf. NASA Knowledge Map n.d.)
In this light, responding to Paul’s challenge, of how to map our knowledge: I argue that scientific journals and publications are the original academic knowledge map, the medium through which researchers communicated progress and new questions. Only now the volumes of data and capabilities, and numbers of researchers are much greater, and we are still learning how to manage this “data deluge” which extends beyond papers into datasets and analytical applications (Bevan 2015).
Understanding that publications and datasets are the digital or physical embodiment of our knowledge map, we know that there is a huge risk to our knowledge base, given that, for example, at the Museum, thousands of documents in the anthropological library were destroyed in the fire.
The risk of destruction means that digitisation must be a priority for these knowledge bases, and to map them I propose we could start with bibliometric studies. For example, Sinclair (2016) used bibliometric research based on Persson (1994) to demonstrate the active research fronts in archaeology of researchers working on a similar problem by using bibliographic coupling (two documents share a reference to a common third document), and used co-citation to expose the documents forming a research core of ‘classic’ works developed over a long time span as defined by researchers themselves, (two documents are co-cited when they both appear in the reference list of a third document). Sinclair (2016) also mapped the vocabulary of the discipline using terms extracted from titles and abstracts. The bibliometric approach may not replace “carefully crafted intellectual histories”, but can create a “landscape survey of archaeology” (Sinclair 2016) and form the base of our knowledge map.
If we adopt the fundament that “there should be no limits on what is deemed mappable”. (Gillings et al. 2019) and the precepts of “open archaeology” (Beck and Neylon 2012) then we may extend the bibliometric approach to types of data too. Such an approach will be dependent on open “data taking on more of the “formal trappings of “publication”, rather than informal “sharing”…or…”archiving”” as proposed by Atici et al. (2012) and Kansa (2010), which will, in principle, allow a level of quality control just as other academic works are quality controlled via peer review.
We could then include an assessment of quality within these knowledge maps, which prioritizes “small, slow and sure data” (Huggett 2019), that which is “situated, reflexive and nuanced” and embraces “data-mindfulness” (Caraher 2019), considering data specificity and the moral, aesthetic and political implications of the data. Once these datasets are prioritized, they might be supported by a broader base of more unrefined data where AI/ML could help us to map information across a semantic web.
Opening and exposing these data sources may have a secondary impact with unforeseen future benefits, as Beck and Neylon (2012) state: “the ability to turn these data into knowledge for a variety of different communities will be transformative and lead to greater, and sometimes unanticipated, impact.”, which supports Gillings et al. (2019) statement that: “how we map shapes what is possible to do with the maps we create”: in other words, we create our own opportunities in mapping. We need only to look to other fields, to see such opportunities, such as in criminal cases where big data approaches have provided the solutions to various cold cases such as the Golden State Killer (Zhang 2018).
But openness raises several other issues beyond questions of data quality, traceability and reusability.
We must acknowledge that all stages of archaeological practice involve theory, assumptions and biases, and that data and interpretation are entwined (Costa et al. 2013). As Reilly (2015, 232) notes, “In this multi-vocal world, some actants could be marginalised and others brought to centre stage. The testimony of artefacts, assemblages and contexts, in particular, could be either disrupted or enhanced depending on the material qualities or properties around which archaeologists, curators or conservators decide to shape their interpretations”. Indeed, we must understand that “our maps can be affective as well as effective” (Gillings et al. 2019), and will often reflect the biases, research questions or approaches of the investigators themselves.
Another key principle for this type of work will be openness, but there are other facets to the archaeological value chain which must be addressed before all researchers are ready to embrace the open movement, particularly in the developing and post-colonial world. Perry and Beale (2015, 162) summarized the issue well when they noted that:
“the social web extends far beyond a series of communicative platforms. It entangles archaeology in relations of production, consumption and world-making that have deep repercussions”.
We need to acknowledge that although we often want to believe in an open digital world of equality and access, digital technology and the web have also enabled the concentration of resources in the hands of a few powerful organisations and people.
In 2015, Bevan noted that “a more pernicious feature of…digital archaeological information is the risk that it will make us less, not more, equal as researchers”, and this plays out today in the fears of many researchers in the developing world.
The disparity is visible in other places. For example, in the preparations for CAA this year, a tweet from the organisers sparked a discussion about the lack of participation from the global south (@KrakCAA2019 Twitter 2019), as only Brazil and Australia/New Zealand represented the southern hemisphere, yet many researchers are “doing” digital archaeology in those “non-participant” countries.
Figure 10: CAA 2019 Krakow attendance map highlights the lack of engagement in the global south (CAA 2019 Krakow).
In reality the playing field is not level, and while we desire to be open and support free movement of data, in particular, because “public-funded initiatives should be public access” (Costa et al. 2013) a completely libertarian model, might allow unfair advantage to those with most resources to access and exploit all data inequitably. Archaeologists have proposed some types of incentive or reward for sharing to override the feeling of being scooped or data “not ready” (Beck and Neylon 2012; Atici et al. 2012).
In this light, the solution needs to address the years of investment by researchers in curating data, and ensure they are also able to publish syntheses, to realise the value of their work themselves.
Our “pyramids” of effort and value need to become squarer – placing more emphasis on the value of data collection and recognising data publication as a value-adding activity.
Until steps are taken to square the value pyramids there may be a reluctance to share and sense of digital colonialism for those providing the data.
Building the “data-mindfulness” and quality control required to incorporate datasets as publications, ensuring they are reusable, will be vital to creating a broader knowledge map. The publication of datasets may serve as a backup mechanism, which is another critical issue. In my interviews with Brazilian scholars, I certainly found that continuity plans are not in place in all institutions, and without datasets, we do not know what is already recorded or not, nor whether there is a backup of the data. Thus, “digitisation for digitisation sake is important” (Strauss, pers. comm. 2019): that is, making a complete copy of all records and artefacts in digital form, in contrast to digitisation for a specific research question.
Indeed, systematic digitisation was not completed at the Museu and left researchers at risk of losing all data on important individuals such as Luzia who was luckily at least partially scanned in 3D before the fire.
What is clear, is that the fire in the Museu Nacional had a disastrous impact on our knowledge and cultural heritage, particularly for Brazilian archaeology. However, the fire also exposed issues and provoked questions that require a clear response. In general terms, the fire is symptomatic of neglect, a lack of funding and support in the heritage sector which many archaeologists in Brazil are working hard to change, in spite of very harsh funding cuts this year.
Specifically, the museum provoked a strong emotional response which translated into a range of reactions which may cover some of the scenarios outlined in Huggett et al.’s (2018) scenarios.
The museum maintained a position closer to the approach of the Ministry of Digital Orthodoxy to the recovery, even requesting that photos and submissions of data only be directed to them where they would have control of the information.
Meanwhile, it is important to highlight the amazing work that is ongoing in the recovery excavations where museum specialists, along with volunteers are scrutinising every speck of dust for potential recovery, and the museum also stepped up their outreach and media campaigns to drive engagement around the Museu Nacional Vive theme.
Other institutions such as Google and Wikimedia were also involved to in supporting an approach similar to the Academy of Digital Advancement although their interventions are minor due to the fact that they didn’t hold many records of the Museum’s data prior to the incident.
The Commune of Digital Anarchism may have also played out to some extent with the different approaches to gathering data, such as the independent initiative of the students from UNIRIO. The effort was laudable, but nothing has been heard since, and it’s not clear if they have contact with the museum about the archive that was built.
A strong knowledge map of the surviving material, new materials, as well as what was lost will be required in order for Brazilian archaeology to recover from this incident. To support the work, digital techniques and open archaeology will be paramount.
Current plans for digital and open work at the museum are unclear, but what is very clear is the requirement to develop digital infrastructure and training in Brazil, both to mitigate these type of disasters, but also to enable future collaboration and research.
There are still many more challenges to overcome, not only related to funding. Specific archaeology courses hardly existed in Brazilian universities between the 1980s and 2011, and although digital disciplines exist, there are still challenges in terms of teaching, and a mystique or superficial understanding of digital work. For example, some professors would argue that blogs are not for research, only “lipstick” and models, VR experience and 3D imaging are simply visual aids. We still have some way to go towards a better understanding of digital archaeology in general, and it’s theoretical framework in particular. With an improved understanding and training we might be able to move towards a more balanced scenario enabling open crowd-sourced platforms where institutions, researchers and students can collaborate.
We will require incentives and a reformulation of the value chain, to encourage all to open their data and contribute to our future knowledge map. Last, but not least we also need to be trained to better support our immaterial relationships with the material, and the trauma caused by the loss of cultural heritage, which we all can argue should endure much longer than us.
I would like to thank Maria Cristina Bruno and Andre M. Strauss for their time and for their valuable contributions raised in our interviews, without which, this work would be much less relevant. The interview transcripts and audio will be made available here following final revision and review.
You can cite the paper as: Ulguim, P. F. 2019. A Brazilian Perspective in the Wake of a Knowledge Catastrophe: Does the Museum Live? Paper Presented at the 47th Annual Conference of Computer Applications and Quantitative Methods in Archaeology (CAA), Kraków, 23-26 April 2019. DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.2677827
Andreoni, M. and Londoño, E. 2018. Loss of Indigenous Works in Brazil Museum Fire Felt ‘Like a New Genocide’. The New York Times [Online]. [Accessed 22 April 2019]. Available from: https://www.nytimes.com/2018/09/13/world/americas/brazil-museum-fire-indigenous.html
Atici, L. Kansa, S. W. Lev-Tov, J. Kansa, E. C. 2012. Other People’s Data: A Demonstration of the Imperative of Publishing Primary Data. Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory 20(4). DOI: 10.1007/s10816-012-9132-9
Barbon, J. 2019. Museu Nacional inaugura exposição sobre Antártida, a primeira após incêndio. Folha UOL. [Online]. [Accessed 25 March 2019]. Available from: https://www1.folha.uol.com.br/ciencia/2019/01/museu-nacional-inaugura-exposicao-sobre-antartida-a-primeira-apos-incendio.shtml
Barifouse, R. 2018. Em 2017, mais brasileiros foram ao Louvre, em Paris, do que ao Museu Nacional. BBC News Brasil. [Online]. [Accessed 25 March 2019]. Available from: https://www.bbc.com/portuguese/brasil-45402234
Beck A. Neylon, C. 2012. A vision for Open Archaeology. World Archaeology 44:479-497. DOI: 10.1080/00438243.2012.737581
Bevan, A. 2015. The data deluge. Antiquity 89: 1473-1484. DOI:10.15184/aqy.2015.102
BNDES. 2018. BNDES lança chamada pública de R$ 25 milhões para segurança de museus e acervos públicos BNDES. [Online]. [Accessed 27 March 2019]. Available from: https://www.bndes.gov.br/wps/portal/site/home/imprensa/noticias/conteudo/bndes-lanca-chamada-publica-de-r-25-milhoes-para-seguranca-de-museus-e-acervos-publicos
Caraher, B. 2019. Twitter [Online]. [Accessed 7 May 2019]. Available from: https://twitter.com/BillCaraher/status/1114591876563263488
Colwell, C. 2018. Lesson from Brazil: Museums are not forever. The Conversation. [Online]. [Accessed 22 April 2019]. Available from: https://theconversation.com/lesson-from-brazil-museums-are-not-forever-102692
Costa, S. Beck, A. Bevan, A. Ogden, J. 2013. Defining and advocating open data in archaeology. In: Earl, G. Sly, T. Chrysanthi, A. Murrieta Flores, P. Papadopoulos, C. Romanowska, I. Wheatley, D. (eds.) Archaeology in the Digital Era; Papers from the 40th Annual Conference of Computer Applications and Quantitative Methods in Archaeology (CAA), Southampton, 26-29 March 2012. Amsterdam University Press, pp.449-456.
Coughenour, C. 2018. Inside Brazil’s National Museum on Google Arts & Culture. Google Arts & Culture. [Online]. [Accessed 24 March 2019]. Available from: https://www.blog.google/outreach-initiatives/arts-culture/inside-brazils-national-museum-google-arts-culture/
Gillings, M. Hacıgüzeller, P. and Lock, G. 2018. On Maps and Mapping. In: Gillings, M. Hacıgüzeller, P. Lock, G. (eds.) Re-Mapping Archaeology: Critical Perspectives, Alternative Mappings. London: Routledge, pp.1-16.
Howard, R. 1989. Knowledge Maps. Management Science 35(8). DOI: 10.1287/mnsc.35.8.903
Huggett, J. Reilly, P. Lock, G. 2018. Whither Digital Archaeological Knowledge? The Challenge of Unstable Futures’, Journal of Computer Applications in Archaeology 1(1):42-54. DOI: 10.5334/jcaa.7r
Huggett, J. 2019. Is less more? Slow data and datafication in archaeology. Paper given at 12th Institute for European and Mediterranean Archaeology International Conference. University at Buffalo, Buffalo, NY. 6-7 April, 2019.
ICOMOS. 2017. Guidance on Post trauma recovery and reconstruction for World Heritage Cultural Properties. Working Paper. ICOMOS. [Online]. [Accessed 22 April 2019]. Available from: http://openarchive.icomos.org/1763/
Jeffrey, S. 2012. A new Digital Dark Age? Collaborative web tools, social media and long-term preservation, World Archaeology 44(4):553-570. DOI: 10.1080/00438243.2012.737579
Kansa, E. 2010. Open Context in Context: Cyberindrastructure and Distributed Approaches to Publish and Preserve Archaeological data. The SAA Archaeological Record 10(5):12-16.
KrakCAA2019. 2019. Tweet [Online]. [Accessed 7 May 2019]. Available from: https://twitter.com/KrakCAA2019/status/1116990181276553217
Lisboa, V. 2019. Exposição sobre Museu Nacional tem peça refeita por estudante. Agencia Brasil. [Online]. [Accessed 24 March 2019]. Available from: http://agenciabrasil.ebc.com.br/geral/noticia/2019-02/exposicao-sobre-museu-nacional-tem-peca-refeita-por-estudante
Mori, L. 2018. Museu Nacional: Como fotos pessoais podem ajudar a resgatar a memória destruída pelo fogo. BBC News Brasil. [Online]. [Accessed 22 April 2019]. Available from: https://www.bbc.com/portuguese/brasil-45403524
Museu Nacional. 2019. Facebook Page. Facebook. [Online]. [Accessed 27 March 2019]. Available from: https://www.facebook.com/MuseuNacionalUFRJ/
NASA Knowledge Map. N.d. NASA. [Online]. [Accessed 25 March 2019]. Available from: https://www.nasa.gov/externalflash/knowledge_map/
Passarinho, N. 2018. Mais pobres eram quase metade dos frequentadores do Museu Nacional. BBC/Globo. [Online]. [Accessed 25 March 2019]. Available from: https://g1.globo.com/rj/rio-de-janeiro/noticia/2018/09/10/mais-pobres-eram-quase-metade-dos-frequentadores-do-museu-nacional.ghtml
Perry, S. Beale, N. 2015. The Social Web and Archaeology’s Restructuring: Impact, Exploitation, Disciplinary Change. Open Archaeology 1: 153-165. DOI 10.1515/opar-2015-0009
Persson, O. 1994. The intellectual base and research fronts of JASIS 1986–1990. J. Am. Soc. Inf. Sci. 45:31-38. DOI:10.1002/(SICI)1097-4571(199401)45:13.0.CO;2-G
Oliveira, T. 2019. [Online]. [Accessed 7 May 2019]. Available from: https://www.cartacapital.com.br/politica/museu-nacional-recebeu-3-900-vezes-menos-em-doacoes-que-notre-dame/
Queiroga, L. 2018. Alunos de Museologia da Unirio recolhem fotos do Museu Nacional para preservar sua memória. O Globo. [Online]. [Accessed 22 March 2019]. Available from: https://oglobo.globo.com/rio/alunos-de-museologia-da-unirio-recolhem-fotos-do-museu-nacional-para-preservar-sua-memoria-23033247
Reilly, P. 2015. Additive Archaeology: An Alternative Framework for Recontextualising Archaeological Entities. Open Archaeology 1(1):225-235 doi:10.1515/opar-2015-0013
Reilly, P. 2018. “W(h)ither archaeological knowledge? Towards a (re)Map”. Musings of a virtual archaeologist. [Online]. [Accessed 10 March 2019]. Available from: https://drpaulreilly.wordpress.com/2018/11/06/wither-archaeological-knowledge-towards-a-remap/
SAMN. 2019. Associação Amigos do Museu Nacional. [Online]. [Accessed 24 March 2019]. Available from: https://www.samn.org.br
Sinclair, A. 2016. The Intellectual Base of Archaeological Research 2004-2013: a visualisation and analysis of its disciplinary links, networks of authors and conceptual language. Internet Archaeology 42. DOI: 10.11141/ia.42.8
SketchFab. 2018. Museu Nacional do Rio de Janeiro. SketchFab. [Online]. [Accessed 22 April 2019]. Available from: https://sketchfab.com/nebulousflynn/collections/museu-nacional-do-rio-de-janeiro
Solly, M. 2018. Five Things We’ve Learned Since Brazil’s Devastating National Museum Fire. Smithsonian.com. [Online]. [Accessed 27 March 2019]. Available from: https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/these-are-latest-updates-brazils-devastating-national-museum-fire-180970232/#8GbXJR0Wo3qe4zWI.99
Ulguim, P. F. 2019. A Brazilian Perspective in the Wake of a Knowledge Catastrophe: Does the Museum Live? Paper Presented at the 47th Annual Conference of Computer Applications and Quantitative Methods in Archaeology (CAA), Kraków, 23-26 April 2019. DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.2677827
Vilaça, A. 2018. A Museum in Flames, As Viewed by One of its Anthropologists. Nexo Journal. [Online]. [Accessed 22 April 2019]. Available from: https://www.nexojornal.com.br/ensaio/2018/Um-museu-em-chamas-visto-por-uma-desuas-antrop%C3%B3logas Translated by Conklin, B. 2018. http://s3.amazonaws.com/rdcms-aaa/files/production/public/Nexo_Aparecida_Vilaca_Museum_in_Flames.pdf
Wikimedia Commons. N.d. “Campaign: MuseuNacional”. Wikimedia Commons. [Online]. [Accessed 27 March 2019]. Available from: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Campaign:MuseuNacional
Zhang, S. 2018. How a Genealogy Website Led to the Alleged Golden State Killer. The Atlantic. [Online]. [Accessed 7 May 2019]. Available from: https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2018/04/golden-state-killer-east-area-rapist-dna-genealogy/559070/
Background Image Knowledge Map after Thiago Ribeiro/AGIF