Digitaalse kultuuripärandi autentsuse tagamine
Ensuring the authenticity of digital cultural heritage
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.12697/AA.2025.2.02Keywords:
digitaalse kultuuripärandi autentsus, digiarhiivindus, digiobjek¬tid, institutsionaalne usaldus, digiobjekti olulised omadused, digital heritage authenticity, digital archiving, digital objects, institutional trust, significant propertiesAbstract
This article examines the concept of authenticity in the preservation of digital cultural heritage, arguing that authenticity in digital environments cannot be reduced to technical fixity or bit-level integrity alone. Drawing on archival theory, international standards, and developments in digital preservation, the study traces the historical evolution of authenticity from provenance- and object-based criteria toward institutional, procedural, and context-dependent models. Particular attention is paid to the layered nature of digital objects—physical, logical, and conceptual—and to the role of metadata, preservation workflows, and documented chains of custody in sustaining authenticity over time.
The article further demonstrates that authenticity in digital cultural heritage operates simultaneously on technical, institutional, and cultural levels. While archival systems rely on formal mechanisms such as checksums, controlled workflows, and standardised metadata, users often assess authenticity through contextual clarity, narrative coherence, and institutional trust rather than through technical evidence. This divergence highlights authenticity as a relational and performative quality, shaped by interactions between objects, custodial institutions, and users.
Using the Estonian memory institutions sector as a contextual frame, including archival and museum information systems, the article shows how authenticity is actively produced and maintained through institutional responsibility, standardised yet flexible preservation practices, and transparent documentation. The study concludes that digital authenticity should be understood as a dynamic, multi-layered process rather than a fixed attribute, requiring continuous management, contextualisation, and critical reflection. This reconceptualisation has implications not only for digital heritage, but also for broader historical and museological approaches to authenticity.