Information

please report any broken links or other errors to › want to come back later?  click here to add this page to your bookmarks / favourites.

Having trouble finding something? Try ENIAR's search. It comes from Google, which indexes once a month and searches all the text — so you can find all but the most recent pages via search. See also articles + documents| history + culture and multimedia clippings

Repatriation Developments in the UK

By Cressida Fforde and Lyndon Ormond Parker

Requests for the return of ancestral remains have been heard from indigenous communities across the globe. In the United States, the National Museum of the American Indian Act (1989) and the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (1990) have legislated for repatriation for over a decade. In Australia, indigenous communities and individuals have campaigned for the return of ancestral remains for over 30 years, although objection to the collecting of remains is evident throughout the nineteenth and twentieth centuries and various examples exist of early requests for the return of remains. In the UK, some museums and holding institutions have repatriated remains to Australia, some have narrow criteria for allowing the return of remains, some have policies which oppose repatriation, and others have no written policies at all.

Recent developments in the UK have seen repatriation move into the political sphere, a progression which mirrors that which occurred in Australia and the United States 10-15 years ago and which, it could be argued, is what forced the scientific and museum community in those countries to accept that they no longer had sole rights to decide what should happen to the indigenous human remains in their collections.

Australia

Museum Policy
Since the 1970s, continued requests by communities to museums, and intensive lobbying of government, have resulted in the return of a significant number of collections and instigated the development of museum policy and state legislation. Significant steps in this process include the return of Truganini’s remains (1976), the Crowther Collection (1985) and other Tasmanian remains (1988) from the Tasmanian Museum and Art Gallery; the campaign for the return of the Murray Black Collection from the Department of Anatomy of the University of Melbourne in the mid 1980s; the return of the Kow Swamp fossils in 1990 and the return of Mungo Woman in 1992. Today, communities may generally receive ancestral remains when they request them.

Museum organisations and government initiatives
In Australia, there are currently three national policies governing the return of ancestral remains:
the Australian Aboriginal Affairs Council’s draft interim policy on the Return of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Cultural Property and Its Return to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Ownership;
Museum Australia's Previous Possessions, New Obligations policy; and
ATSIC’s Policy for the Protection and Return of Significant Cultural Property, as endorsed by the ATSIC Board of Commissioners in April 1998.

In 1998, the Australian Cultural Ministers Council developed a Strategic Plan for the Return of Indigenous Ancestral Remains (‘the Plan’), which seeks to co-ordinate the efforts of all levels of government and museums. It focuses on government-funded museums and does not apply to holdings overseas. The main objectives the plan , providing a framework whereby indigenous communities can become aware of all ancestral remains and secret/sacred objects from their community held in Commonwealth and State museums around Australia, are:

• the identification, where possible, of the origins of ancestral remains held in museums;
• the notification of all communities who have ancestral remains held in museums; and
• [to have] repatriation arranged where culturally appropriate and when requested.
• In August 2000, the Cultural Ministers Council committed $3 million over three years to implementing the Plan via the Return of Indigenous Cultural Property programme. Arrangements for the return of ancestral remains and secret/sacred objects will be made for their return, where requested, by the end of 2001-02’ via two grant programs:
• the Museums Support Program, which assists museums to identify ancestral remains and secret sacred objects; and
• the Community Support Program, which assists communities with the return of ancestral remains and secret sacred objects.

United Kingdom

Returned remains
Museums in the UK began to receive requests for the repatriation of indigenous remains in the mid 1980s. Visits and representations from the Tasmanian Aboriginal Centre (‘the TAC’) and the Foundation for Aboriginal and Islander Research Action (‘FAIRA’) brought media attention to the issue and resulted in the return of a number of remains to Australia.

Statue of Yagan, a Western Australian warrior shot and beheaded in 1833, in a Perth park

Continued requests, negotiations and campaigns throughout the 1990s led, in 1997, to the return of Truganini’s necklace and bracelet from Exeter City Museum and Art Gallery Museum, Tasmanian hair samples from Edinburgh University, and a Tasmanian skull from Stockholm. In the same year, the skull of Yagan, a Western Australian warrior shot and beheaded in 1833, was exhumed from a Liverpool cemetery (where it had been buried by the Liverpool Museum in the mid 1960s) and returned to Australia. In 2000, Edinburgh University repatriated its remaining collection of Aboriginal remains, and its collection of Hawaiian remains.

In addition, this decade saw the repatriation to descendant communities in the USA of the remains of Native Americans Chief Long Wolf and Star, which were disinterred from a London cemetery in 1997, and the repatriation of a Ghostdance shirt from Kelvingrove Museum in Glasgow to the Lakota Sioux in 1999.

Policy
Repatriation policies held by British institutions, if they exist, can range from that of the University of Edinburgh, which will repatriate all remains to representatives of those cultures with which they have a continuing significance, to that of the Royal College of Surgeons of England, which will consider the repatriation of named individuals (provided certain key criteria are met), to that of the Natural History Museum, which argues that it is prohibited from repatriating remains by the British Museum Act of 1963.

With the notable exception of the University of Edinburgh, remains have been returned by institutions with very small holdings of human remains. Typically, those institutions’ main collections are concerned with subjects other than physical anthropology, anatomy, or other sciences interested in the study of human remains. Larger collections, for example, that of the Natural History Museum in London (which contains over 450 remains from Australia and the Torres Strait, including approximately 75 hair samples and at least 5 skeletal remains of named individuals), the Duckworth collection at the University of Cambridge (which contains at least 68 ‘specimens’ from Australia and 27 from Torres Straits), and the Royal College of Surgeons of England (which holds over 50 skulls from Australia), have not repatriated any remains to Australia.

Campaigning by indigenous groups led to various developments within the UK museum community in the 1990s. The Museum’s Association undertook two research projects to determine its members’ views about repatriation. In 1998, the Museums and Galleries Commission in association with the Museums Association and the National Museums Directors’ Conference commissioned a set of guidelines to assist museum practitioners dealing with repatriation requests.

Access and Provenance
UK institutions also differ in their policies regarding access to collection documentation. With some exceptions, many institutions, and particularly those with large collections, are still sensitive about fully divulging their holdings and, in particular, allowing access to relevant archives.

For indigenous communities, access to archives is of crucial importance. Without this, the necessary research required to provenance ancestral remains as far as possible cannot be undertaken, and ancestors cannot be identified. The question of what to do with unprovenanced remains, or those with only meagre accompanying provenance information, has emerged as one of the greatest problems associated with the repatriation issue.

In the authors’ experience, rigorous archival research consistently produces a higher level of provenance information than is initially ascribed. The University of Edinburgh’s collection is a good example. In 1991, the University repatriated over 300 remains with few accompanying records. Subsequent research uncovered additional documentation that not only provided more detailed provenance information for over half the collection and identified a further seven named individuals, but also led to the location of additional Aboriginal remains at the University that had not been repatriated. These were returned to Australia in 2000.

Recent UK developments

House of Commons Select Committee
In 1999, the UK government announced that it was convening a House of Commons Select Committee on Culture Media and Sport (‘the Committee’) to consider issues relating to Cultural Property: Return and Illicit Trade. In 2000 the Committee accepted written and oral evidence from a range of interest groups. Having considered this evidence, the committee made certain recommendations in reference to human remains, and in particular recognised that human remains were a distinct category of cultural property:
Our approach to the return of cultural property during this inquiry has been based on a broad consideration of the many types of cultural property concerned. However, as the inquiry progressed, we became convinced that a category of return claims deserves separate analysis-that of human remains.

While commending the guidelines, the Committee considered that restitution and repatriation did not give sufficient weight to the particular issues relating to requests for the return of human remains. It recommended that:
the Department for Culture, Media and Sport initiate discussions with appropriate representatives of museums, of claimant communities and of appropriate Governments to prepare a statement of principles and accompanying guidance relating to the care and safe-keeping of human remains and to the handling of requests for return of human remains.
The Committee recognised that, as in America and Australia, identification of human remains in UK collections and the provision of such information to all interested parties should be the first step towards such discussions.

Giving great weight to the importance of such provision, the Committee considered that this action would contribute to a crucial aim of the discussion process - that of the strengthening of relations and of mutual understanding between those institutions in the United Kingdom which hold indigenous human remains and the indigenous communities themselves. To this end, the Committee recommended that the Department for Culture, Media and Sport (‘the Department’) seek commitments ‘from all holding institutions in the United Kingdom about access to information on holdings of indigenous human remains for all interested parties, including potential claimants’.

The initial government response agreed that there was a need for further guidance on the specific issue of the care of human remains and the handling of requests for their return, and requested the Department to ‘initiate discussions with relevant bodies on this issue, and on the issue of access to information about holdings of human remains’.

In relation to collections in general, and in its initial response to the Committee’s report, the government fully endorsed the recommendation that information on collections should not unreasonably be withheld and that in setting priorities for the conduct of research on collections and making information about collections accessible, museums should give consideration to the interests of originating communities. The government stated that the Minister for the Arts would write to the national collections, to Resource and to the Museums Association, endorsing this recommendation, and asking Resource to take it into account in considering applications to the Designated Museums Challenge Fund for funding for research into collections. Such a recommendation challenges institutions like the Natural History Museum and the University of Cambridge to make information about their collections accessible to indigenous groups.

In March 2001, the UK government published a further, more detailed, response to the Committee’s report and recommendations of July 2000. In relation specifically to human remains, the Government appointed a Working Group on Human Remains in March 2001 to:

• examine the current legal status of human remains within the collections of publicly-funded Museums and Galleries in the United Kingdom;
• examine the powers of museums and galleries governed by statute to de-accession, or otherwise release from their possession, human remains within their collections and to consider the desirability and possible form of legislative change in this area;
• consider the circumstances in which material other than, but associated with, human remains might properly be included within any proposed legislative change in respect of human remains;
• take advice from interested parties as necessary;
• consider the desirability of a Statement of Principles (and supporting guidance) relating to the care and safe-keeping of human remains and to the handling of requests for return. If the Panel considers appropriate, to draw up the terms of such a Statement and guidance; and to
• prepare a report for the Minister for the Arts and to make recommendations as to proposals which might form the basis for a consultation document as part of the procedure required under the Regulatory Reform Bill.

The government’s latest response indicates its commitment to further discussions on the issue of the repatriation of human remains. In particular, it appears committed to ensuring access to information about collections and to considering the possibilities of legislative change in order to underpin the Committee’s conclusion that human remains are a distinct type of cultural property and that claims for the repatriation of remains should be considered apart from the repatriation of other items. It is presumed, but not certain, that the Working Group on Human Remains will consult with indigenous communities in the formulation of its report to the Minister for the Arts. It is expected to report its findings by August 2001.

Joint Statement on Repatriation
In addition to its endorsement of the Committee’s recommendations, a joint UK/Australia Prime Ministerial statement on Aboriginal remains was issued in July 2000 during Australian Prime Minister John Howard’s visit to the UK during Australia week, stating in part:

• The Australian and British governments agree to increase efforts to repatriate human remains to Australian indigenous communities.

We agree that the way ahead in this area is a cooperative approach between our governments.

More research is required to identify indigenous human remains held in British collections. Extensive consultation must also be undertaken to determine the relevant traditional custodians, their aspirations regarding treatment of the remains and a means for addressing these.

The governments agree to encourage the development of protocols for the sharing of information between British and Australian institutions and indigenous people. In this respect we welcome the initiative of the British Natural History Museum which has catalogued 450 indigenous human remains.

Recent developments in the UK have seen the repatriation debate move into the political sphere. Whether, and how, this will facilitate the return of ancestral remains is yet to be seen. What is clear is that recent discussions appear to agree on the need for further information about collections - a requirement that descendant communities, and others, have campaigned for many years, and have made considerable progress in compiling under their own initiatives. Access to relevant archives appears to be firmly on the agenda. What is now required is a programme by which data is compiled and can be effectively disseminated to requesting communities.

Also evident, at least in the Committee’s report and the Joint Prime Ministerial statement, is an understanding that indigenous communities must be consulted and engaged as part of developing repatriation policy and discussion in the UK. If such consultation occurs, this will be a significant step forward, as previous discussions by museums and museum organisations in Britain have, in almost all cases, been restricted to the museum community.

What is of primary concern is that government actions in repatriation, and particularly joint governmental initiatives, do not exclude indigenous communities and individuals from effective participation in the repatriation process but instead recognise and support their right to play a pre-eminent role in decision making. Given the frequent wish of overseas museums to only deal with government authorities and the frequent desire of overseas museums for the Australian government to validate indigenous claimants, there is a very real danger that communities may be at least partly excluded from the process. Such criticisms have been levelled in the past. While it is movement into the political sphere that may push repatriation forward in the UK, it is crucial that government involvement and policy development in this area places the wishes of descendants communities first.

Cressida Fforde PhD has worked on repatriation issues for over 10 years. She has been involved in various projects to locate and document indigenous remains in UK and European institutions. Lyndon Ormond Parker had previously worked as a Research Officer for FAIRA on projects in both in Australia and the UK. They have also worked together on several documentation projects and have assisted communities to repatriate indigenous remains.

This article is from the Indigenous Law Bulletin



Further information:

• search for documents.

  search term here

  submit ignore button