Last week, the remains of some 300 Aborigines were ceremoniously handed over to the Ngarrindjeri people in South Australia – the vast majority of these were recently returned from Edinburgh University and the Royal College of Surgeons in London. As a working group in the UK prepares to hand down recommendations to the British Government on the potential return of human remains now in museums and university collections, opinions are divided on whether to allow such collections to be claimed, or whether they should be retained for scientific and research purposes.
In Part 2 of this feature, key figures from the scientific and museums sectors in the UK explain why this issue is an incredibly complex one.
CLICK HERE to read Part 1.
Opinions across the sectors are, in the broadest sense, divided between those who believe it is important to repatriate remains when a biological link to living ancestors can be determined, and those who deem it important to retain remains for the furthering of human knowledge.
Tristram Besterman is the Director of the Manchester University Museum and a member of the working party. He tells Arts Hub – while emphasising the point of view is his own and independent of the working party – that although he comes from a scientific background, most of his career has been devoted to museum ethics, and therefore this topic is one he feels strongly about.
‘I’m very interested in these claims, and tend to take a very sympathetic view that the material was, on the whole, lifted from parts of what was then the British Empire during the colonial era, and was done so at a time of great inequality of power,’ he says.
‘We have had some impassioned representations [from visiting Indigenous peoples], where the connection is made by the Aboriginal representatives between a sense of social disposession and disquiet, which cannot be settled until these human remains are returned. I think this is a very interesting and important point which is being made, and we have to listen very carefully to it.’
The Manchester University Museum, not restrained by the same act as the national museums, has returned some mokomokai (tattooed heads) to Maori communities in New Zealand, and also agreed to return Aboriginal skulls to Australia some years ago. This was also reported in a Daily Telegraph article in August 2001. But, Besterman says, the skulls have not yet been claimed.
June Sculthorpe, an Evironment and Heritage officer at the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Commission (ATSIC), which funds the repatriation programme, said efforts had been concentrated on gathering the larger collections from institutions such as the Royal College of Surgeons (RCS). As a result of a hasty trip to collect the remains before renovations were due to start at the RCS, there had been insufficient time to organise collections from other institutions, she said.
However, since Part 1 of this article was published last week, the Queensland-based Foundation for Aboriginal and Islander Reseach Action (FAIRA) – which was also contacted by this reporter during efforts to determine whether details regarding the Manchester collection existed on any human remains databases – has contacted Besterman, and is sending a representative to Manchester Museum later this month to begin to arrange the transfer of the Aboriginal skulls back to Australia.
Dr Neil Chalmers is Director of the Natural History Museum, which, under current legislation, is not permitted to return remains. The museum collection contains over 20,000 human remains from all around the world, about half of which (around 11,000) come from the UK. Remains of Indigenous Australians and Torres Strait Islanders total about 450. Chalmers is also part of the working group advising the government on the status of human remains. Independent of this, he says both his and the Natural History Museum’s stance on this issue is that the concerns of Indigenous claimants are ‘fully understood’, but against that, the scientific and medical value of skeletal remains must be balanced.
‘We feel there are great benefits to humankind as a whole, in improving our understanding of our human diversity and our own ability to treat various medical conditions,’ Chalmers believes, adding that the collection at the Natural History Museum has and still is used for research purposes.
But when asked whether there is a case for returning remains which can be biologically linked to living ancestors, Chalmers replies: ‘I think if you have human remains in your collection that are directly identifiable and can be directly linked to present descendents, then that is a very powerful claim.’
‘If we can get a relaxation of the legislation to enable us to selectively return some items where we feel that is in the best interests of everyone, that is something we would welcome,’ he said.
Sebastian Payne, a scientist with English Heritage, recently joined Besterman on a panel to debate the repatriation issue and whether it will be a detriment to the world of science.
Payne forms part of group working to produce guidelines on the treatment of human remains from churchyards and cemeteries. He echoes Chalmer’s research viewpoint to a degree, citing a recent case in which Medieval remains found in Yorkshire showed that osteoporosis was just as common among women then as it is today. However, he too added there was a case for the rights and beliefs of groups who want human remains repatriated when they can be clearly linked to living ancestors, but not when a distinct relationship cannot be determined.
Tristram Besterman has attempted to go some way towards formally addressing this imbalance. He has drafted a set of proposals to define what he believes are three categories human remains could possibly fit into, and hopes these will help clarify thinking and approaches when dealing with the range of institutions possessing human remains.
The first category considers remains from antiquity, such as Egyptian mummies, which he believes have a set of issues but are not subject to claims. The second concerns ancient remains with cultural ancestors, which may be subject to claims by cultural descendents, but are not likely to have biological links. The third regards ‘recent’ human remains likely to be found in ‘first nations’ such as Australia, New Zealand and North America, where there are strong cultural claims and biological connections to living communities.
Towards the end of our interview, Besterman is eager to conclude with a point he feels most strongly about. It is a somewhat surprising revelation, and one which is likely to floor, I suspect, most Australians – both Indigenous and non-Indigenous.
It’s not just a matter of handing the bones back, Besterman stresses, but the whole process and dialogue entered into between the museums and the Indigenous community is just as important.
‘One of the arguments which I use is that this is not just a matter of letting things go, it is a matter of the museum gaining through a better relationship with the communities it is dealing with. I fully expect when our Aboriginal material goes back to Australia that we can then build bridges with Australian Aborigines, that will enable, perhaps, groups to come over to Manchester, so that we can learn more about their culture – which will be absolutely wonderful for local communities here. And that’s the kind of relationship that we should be developing,’ he continues.
‘In a sense, to use a metaphor, this is about healing, and really ancient and festering wounds. Once you’ve gone through a process of healing then you have a healthier relationship, and that’s what museums should be into.’
Related Articles
28.04.03 COMMENT: Don’t bury the bones
