From Roots to Digital Realms: Jordan Jamieson on Revitalising Indigenous Culture through Archaeology and Technology
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This interview with Jordan Jamieson explores the intersections of archaeology, technology, and the revitalisation of Indigenous cultural practices. With over ten years of experience in archaeology and cultural resource management (CRM), Jamieson reflects on the role of his upbringing in a community actively reclaiming its cultural practices and situates his work within wider trends towards decolonising archaeology in Canada. The interview begins with an overview of Jamieson’s own story and how those formative experiences have led him to where he is now advocating for Indigenous perspectives in archaeology. He stresses the positive potential of technology — particularly its ability to challenge the androcentric, colonial structures that have often been imposed on the discipline. This interview examines tools like virtual reality, digital archives and 3D printing, and how these tools are used to preserve cultural heritage, by rematriating artefacts and engaging youth in Indigenous knowledge through cultural education. In addition to promoting community-based archaeological standards and procedures formed by Indigenous voices, Jamieson draws attention to the ethical concerns associated with digitisation, including ownership, authenticity, and accessibility. For the purpose of cultural preservation, he places a strong emphasis on the role that young people play as guardians of their emerging traditions and knowledge systems. This interview broadens the discussion of archaeology to include cultural themes, engaging readers beyond the traditional archaeological audience. The conversation also explores the roles of music, storytelling, and the creation of new spiritual spaces in cultural revitalisation. For Jamieson, technology is a tool that bridges traditional knowledge and modern innovation, creating a deeper connection to Indigenous heritage and inspiring collective learning and empowerment for generations to come. This interview offers a compelling narrative for readers interested in the evolving intersections of archaeology, culture, and technology through decolonisation.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.025 | 0.019 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.008 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.009 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".