Appearance
Decolonising collections description means rewriting the catalogue so it stops reproducing the worldview of the colonisers who created the records, while still preserving the evidence of that worldview for study. The best practice is not deletion but layering: separate the archive's present-day voice from the creator's original language, give source communities authority over their own naming, and document every change so the work is consistent and reversible.
What does decolonised description actually change?
It changes three things: the words the institution uses in its own voice, the authority over who decides those words, and the visibility of the colonial framing itself. A finding aid that calls a community by a slur "because that is what the 1890 register said" has confused two distinct voices. The register's word is evidence; the catalogue's word is a choice the archive makes today and is accountable for.
How do I separate creator voice from archivist voice?
Quarantine original language so it informs without endorsing. In an EAD or TEI record, contain creator-supplied terms in a clearly marked element and write the institutional description in modern, accurate terms.
xml
<scopecontent>
<p>Correspondence concerning Aboriginal communities in the region.</p>
<p>The original register uses the term
<foreign rend="creator-term">[historical slur retained for context]</foreign>;
this catalogue uses community-preferred terminology.</p>
</scopecontent>The reader sees both layers and understands which voice is speaking. Researchers studying colonial administration still find the original term; everyone else is not assaulted by it as the archive's own description.
Which vocabularies should replace colonial subject headings?
Legacy schemes such as the Library of Congress Subject Headings carry well-known harms. Map them to community-led alternatives and keep the crosswalk.
| Legacy term | Preferred source | Notes |
|---|---|---|
| LCSH outdated ethnonyms | First Nations / local community thesaurus | community holds authority |
| LGBTQ+ pathologising terms | Homosaurus | actively maintained |
| Generic "natives", "tribes" | named nation/people | use the group's own name |
| Colonial place names | historical gazetteer + current name | record both, link to authority |
Record the mapping as data, not just prose, so it is auditable and you can re-run it as vocabularies evolve.
How do I keep redescription consistent across a backlog?
A one-off heroic rewrite of a few records is easy; a consistent pass over 40,000 is the real challenge. Three controls keep it defensible:
- A written style guide naming preferred terms and the rationale.
- A controlled substitution table in a spreadsheet or CSV.
- A change log capturing old value, new value, date and reviewer.
Where a substitution is unambiguous, batch it:
python
import csv, re
subs = {row["old"]: row["new"]
for row in csv.DictReader(open("term_map.csv"))}
def redescribe(text):
for old, new in subs.items():
text = re.sub(rf"\b{re.escape(old)}\b", new, text)
return textReserve judgement calls — anything involving sacred, ceremonial or contested material — for human review with community input. Never let the script touch the quarantined creator-voice fields.
Who holds authority over the new descriptions?
Source and descendant communities do. Decolonisation that is decided unilaterally by the institution simply replaces one colonial voice with another. Build formal consultation into the workflow: co-curation agreements, community review of draft descriptions, and the option for a community to specify access protocols. The archivist's job shifts from arbiter to facilitator and record-keeper.
How do I prove the work is defensible later?
Keep the evidence trail. Version your catalogue in Git, retain the original records untouched, and publish a description policy that states your principles and the date you adopted them. When someone asks "why did you change this term?", you should be able to point to the policy, the community consultation, the substitution table and the commit that made the change.
Key Takeaways
- Decolonising description is layering, not deletion — preserve creator voice as evidence, fix the institutional voice.
- Quarantine original colonial language in clearly marked elements so it informs without endorsing.
- Map legacy headings (LCSH and similar) to community-led vocabularies and keep the crosswalk as data.
- Maintain a style guide, substitution table and change log to stay consistent across a large backlog.
- Source and descendant communities hold authority; archivists facilitate and document.
- Version the catalogue and publish a description policy so changes are auditable and defensible.
Frequently Asked Questions
Does decolonising description mean deleting historical terms?
No. The original creator-supplied language is often retained for context but clearly attributed and contained, while the archive's own voice uses respectful, accurate terms. Erasing the original can hide the very colonial logic researchers need to study.
Who should lead decolonial redescription work?
Source and descendant communities should hold authority over how their material is named, ideally through formal consultation or co-curation. Archivists facilitate and document rather than decide unilaterally.
What is the difference between creator voice and archivist voice?
Creator voice is language from the records themselves; archivist voice is the description the institution writes today. Separating them lets you preserve evidence while taking responsibility for present-day framing.
How do I handle outdated subject headings like LCSH?
Map offensive or imprecise headings to community-preferred vocabularies such as the First Nations or Homosaurus thesauri, and record the crosswalk so the change is reversible and auditable.
How do I keep redescription consistent across a large backlog?
Use a written style guide, a controlled list of replacement terms, and a change log. Batch-process with a script where the substitution is unambiguous, and flag judgement calls for human review.