October 8, 2005

Change in the law regarding human remains in Britain’s Museums

Posted at 11:05 am in British Museum, Similar cases

Section 47 of the Human Tissue Act 2004 came into force in the UK last week. Although most of the act deals with storage of human tissue by hospitals, this specific section covers a change in the law that gives nine specified museums the discretionary right to de-accession human remains in their collections if it is believed that these remains were less than one thousand years old at the time the act came into force. In short, museums will be allowed to return items such as Aboriginal remains to their place of origin, without being prevented from doing so by the Museum’s Act 1964, which this act now supersedes (where human remains are involved).
Whether or not any human remains are returned as a result of this change in the law remains to be seen. However, no longer can institutions avoid the issue by suggest that they would love to return the items if they were allowed to.
Gradually cases such as this, that of the Feldmann paintings & the Benevento Missal. are highlighting how flawed the Museums Act is in its anti de-accessioning provisions. Rather than tacking individual issues (human remains, Nazi looting) as they become a problem, surely the whole act needs to be reconsidered as a whole & rewritten in a way that is more appropriate for the values of today’s society?

Sydney Morning Herald

UK museums to return Aboriginal remains
October 6, 2005 – 8:54PM

British museums have welcomed a change in law that is expected to lead to Aboriginal remains being returned from their collections to Australia.

Implementation of the 2004 Human Tissue Act will allow nine museums to repatriate remains, superseding the British Museums Act of 1964 which forbade such returns even if the museums believed the remains to be of little scientific value.

The new law allows for the return of items considered to be less than 1,000 years old.

Aboriginal groups in Australia will now have applications for such returns actively considered.

The Natural History Museum, which has the most extensive collection in Britain of about 400 items – ranging from skeletons to hair clippings – welcomed the change.

However it said claims would be balanced against the scientific value of the items.

“In each case, the interests and wishes of the claimant and the importance of the item to scientific research will be taken into consideration,” the Natural History Museum said in a statement.

“(The museum) believes its unique collection will continue to be of immense value to scientific research in the future for the benefit of society.”

The British Museum said it also approved of the effect of the new law.

“We have to wait to receive claims for the material,” a British Museum spokesperson said.

“The Museum welcomes the legislation because it will allow us to fully consider those claims we do get.”

Much of the collection of Aboriginal remains were taken from Australian by scientists and explorers from the early 19th century into the 20th century.

The genesis of the law came in 2000, when British Prime Minister Tony Blair and Australian counterpart John Howard made a joint declaration to increase efforts to repatriate human remains to Australian indigenous groups.

“This announcement is the right response to the claims of indigenous peoples, particularly in Australia, for the return of ancestral remains,” British Culture Minister David Lammey said.

© 2005 AAP

VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
Rating: 0.0/5 (0 votes cast)

Possibly related articles


  1. George Vardas said,

    10.17.05 at 1:34 pm

    It is interesting to follow the course of debate in the House of Lords when the Human Tissue Bill was first introduced. Given that the Bill did not provide for any time limit on claims for return of human remains, the British Museum went into apoplexy and started lobbying. During debate in October 2004, some of the Lords and Baronesses made their fears well-known:

    Baroness Kennedy of The Shaws: “I endorse what has just been said. I declare an interest in that I am a trustee of the British Museum. We are concerned that the clause as it stands is insufficient because it is too broad in its temporal scope. The clause encompasses human remains of any age, as it currently stands. We know and understand that the reason for the inclusion of this clause was to do with the agreement between our Prime Minister and the Prime Minister of Australia on a very sensitive issue regarding claims from Australian Aborigines. However, the clause encompasses not just human remains but also human remains bound up with other materials. It automatically indicates to us that items such as ancient Egyptian mummies will fall within the remit of the proposed legislation … We are not trying to close down the debate surrounding the return of human remains in particular circumstances. What we seek to say here is that, first, one would not want to see our museums exposed to huge numbers of claims. Further, it takes us back to the argument that I hope all of us would endorse; namely, that the British Museum is not just a resource for our nation, it is a world resource and a world museum. It holds artefacts and antiquities for human kind. To start the piecemeal taking apart of that could have very serious implications for our world.”

    Lord Redsdale obviously saw some kind of conspiracy:

    “The Egyptian artefacts in the British Museum could be a particular issue. Under the Bill, it would be not be impossible for a Minister of State in Egypt to find DNA evidence linking those remains to somebody living in Egypt now and therefore making a family claim on those remains. I do not think that that was the purpose of the Bill. The amendment would also give some degree of guidance over somewhat more contentious issues in this country …, claims might be put on the British Museum over whether these should be de-accessions—whether the British Museum has a right to these artefacts. This matter could cause smiles. However, one could be on the receiving end of a contentious and litigious group of people who wanted to prove a point. The Elgin Marbles show how deeply divisive certain issues can be.”

    As a result, the 1000 year time limit was introduced to appease the Britsih Museum and its supporters. But the cracks are starting to appear.

  2. sumitra said,

    06.02.12 at 1:34 am

    should musuems be allowed to give back collections to their collectorss if they wish? please elp me with this topic.

RSS feed for comments on this post · TrackBack URL

Leave a Comment

We want to hear your views. Be as critical or controversial as you like, but please don't get personal or offensive. Remember this is for feedback and constructive discussion!
Comments may be edited or removed if they do not meet these guidelines. Repeat offenders will be blocked from posting further comments. Any comment deemed libellous by Elginism's editors will be removed.
The commenting system uses some automatic spam detection and occasionally comments do not appear instantly - please do not repost comments if they do not show up straight away