The Natural History Museum has a vast collection of human remains - the largest in the UK. Courtesy NHM.
Nine national museums have been given powers to move human remains out of their collections, as the Government brought section 47 of the Human Tissues Act 2004 into force.
Prior to the new legislation, the museums – which include the British Museum and the Natural History Museum – did not have the power to decide independently if remains that were significant to certain communities and cultures could be returned to them. The move is supported by UK museums, most of which already have the discretionary power to respond to such claims.
Now the BM, NHM, National Maritime Museum, Imperial War Museum, Royal Armouries, Museum of London, V&A, Science Museum, and National Museums Liverpool may not only decide whether a claim is valid, but can turn to a (non-statutory) guidance framework drawn up by experts from museums, the Department for Culture, Media and Sport and the Welsh Assembly. An Advisory Service is also being established by the DCMS, to help smaller museums in decision-making.
The British Museum is one of the nine national museums that will now have the discretionary power to return remains to claimants. Courtesy BM.
“This announcement is the right response to the claims of indigenous peoples, particularly in Australia, for the return of ancestral remains,” said culture minister David Lammy. “It fulfils the terms of the joint declaration made by Tony Blair and John Howard.”
The British and Australian prime ministers made a joint statement in July 2000 that both countries would work harder to bring Aboriginal remains back to their descendants. Notably, Manchester Museum gave back four tattooed skulls and two limb bones to Australian Aborigines in 2004 (though it is not covered by the new Act).
The legislation only refers to remains reasonably believed to be under 1,000 years old. Indeed, it is chiefly those that were taken during colonial times in the last few hundred years whose ownership is contested.
For a claim to be valid, the guidance stipulates that it would be expected for a group to demonstrate the remains are associated to them, and that their treatment has cultural, spiritual or religious significance.
The Pitt Rivers, not subject to the new legislation, has to be sensitive about displaying items made from human remains.
“We have established a fair and equitable framework for the holding of human remains in UK museums,” Mr Lammy continued, “and for museums to consider claims for their repatriation. I hope that this will lead to renewed and mutually beneficial relations between our major institutions and claimant groups.”
Remains in museums – which for the most part originate in the UK and were acquired in uncontentious circumstances - are used for research and teaching, and sometimes for display. The popularity of the Egyptian mummies at the British Museum pays testament to the public interest in seeing the ‘material memory’ of past lives.
Remains often have extra meaning for people, though, be it personal, cultural, symbolic, spiritual or religious – which means they are subject to special consideration when held by museums. The Pitt Rivers Museum in Oxford, for example, accorded respect to Maori people by taking tattooed heads (moko makai) off display and replacing them with explanatory text, when recommended.
“The guidance will be extremely valuable for museums in addressing this culturally sensitive matter,” said Alun Pugh, Minister for Culture, Welsh Language and Sport in the Welsh Assembly, “and I hope it will reassure claimant groups that their concerns are being treated with proper respect.”
The Natural History Museum's collection of human remains goes back 500,000 years. Courtesy NHM.
The Natural History Museum could be particularly affected by the new powers, as its collection of human remains stretches to nearly 20,000 items, 46 per cent of which are from overseas.
None of the collection is on display, but is used for scientific research, offering an insight into human diversity in both terms of geography and time. The invaluable collection has been used in forensic investigation and in the creation of a computer programme that can almost completely accurately identify the ethnic origin of a skull, for example.
Most claims for remains so far have been from Australian Aboriginals and Native Americans.
‘Guidance for the Care of Human Remains in Museums’ can be found at www.culture.gov.uk.
The Human Tissue Act 2004 is primarily concerned with making consent the fundamental principle behind the lawful retention and use of body parts, organs and tissue from the living or deceased for medical purposes or public display.
