home | news l

Is it altruism or the fear of losing their marbles?

28 December 2002 - "The race is a very degraded one and ... even the coarse traders and cattle-ranchers make no irregular unions with their women so the race remains pure." - Dr Arthur Gedge, circa 1900.

Truganini, Tasmania's most famous Aboriginal woman. A hair sample was returned in 2002 from Britain's Royal College of Surgeons.

Deep in the recesses of London's Natural History Museum rest the skulls and leg bones of two Aboriginal men whose lives were considered so morally "degraded" that, in 1900, they were hunted down and killed by a white expedition.

But, once safely dead, these racially "pure" Allura tribesmen became prized trophies.

Historical records, held by Britain's Royal College of Surgeons, show their skins were boiled off them "on the spot" and the bones given to Dr Arthur Gedge by the expedition's leader, an unnamed patient.

Two decades later Gedge shipped them to Britain where, after first being held by the college, these victims from the Northern Territory's Victoria River ended up among the most valuable parts of the world's largest collection of Aboriginal human remains.

To the museum, the collection is a incomparable scientific asset, a vital resource for the study of evolution and genetic development; to many Aboriginal people, it is a sacrilege, an enduring insult to the souls of the unburied dead and their living descendants.

The question is, who is right?

European and British museums are believed to hold thousands of Aboriginal bones, hair and soft tissues, removed or stolen from Australia as recently as the 1940s, usually against the wishes of local people or without their knowledge.

Recent research has found that at least 60 museums in England alone hold human remains, including the British Museum in London and the Duckworth Collection at Leverhulme Centre at Cambridge University, the second largest after the Natural History Museum. It holds 448 Aboriginal remains, including named or known individuals, such as King Billy, tribal leader from north Queensland.

While there have been some celebrated repatriations, including the head of the West Australian leader Yagan and this year's return of a hair sample from Truganini, Tasmania's most famous Aboriginal woman, by the surgeons' college, many institutions are reluctant to return remains and break up collections.

The director of the Leverhulme Centre, Dr Robert Foley, argues that collections belong to the "world" rather than any one group. His views are shared by many scientists.

"The ultimate justification is that skeletal collections are kept as part of global human heritage, not the preserve of any one culture," he writes in the current edition of the journal Science and Public Affairs.

"Will future generations of Western and Aboriginal cultures be more grateful that the past was preserved rather than lost or intentionally destroyed because of current political fashion? Destroying history is not the answer to the problems of these communities."

But, after decades of pressure by Aboriginal groups and, more latterly, the Australian Government, it appears that Foley's arguments may soon be out of fashion.

In January, an independent British working group of museum directors, lawyers and academics, chaired by the legal academic Professor Norman Palmer and including the Natural History Museum director, Dr Neil Chalmers, is due to report on more than 18 months of investigation into repatriation of human remains. It is expected to recommend the relaxation of laws preventing export of human remains from Britain's national collection, mainly held by the British and Natural History Museum, and the setting up of a tribunal to deliberate on Aboriginal claims.

A working group member, Dr Maurice Davies, the deputy director of Britain's Museums Association, declined to discuss the report but said it be would "sympathetic and understanding" to repatriation claims.

But once the working group is done, it will be over to the politicians. More than two years ago, during a visit to coincide with Australia's Centenary of Federation celebrations, the Prime Minister, John Howard, and the British Prime Minister, Tony Blair, agreed to speed up the return of human remains between the two countries. During a 50-minute meeting at Downing Street, at which the two leaders discussed several key topics including Indonesia's then leader, President Wahid, the G8 summit in Japan and Australia's tax reform agenda, Howard told Blair that he "understood the difficulties involved" in the repatriation issue.

Members of the human remains working group believe these difficulties now include British fears about the Elgin Marbles, the world's most controversial "stolen" cultural artefacts, removed from Greece by the British in the early 19th century.

Davies and another working group member, who declined to be named, told the Herald that the group had been told by senior public servants that the Blair Government would not change laws governing the national collection if the changes assisted Greek claims for the return of the marble sculptures.

"There appears to be nervousness about how legislation on human remains will be perceived in the light of claims for cultural property," Davies said. "Legislation appears to be slipping down the political agenda."

A spokeswoman for the Department of Culture, Media and Sport denied pressure had been placed on the working group. It is still expected to push for law changes, but whether the Blair Government accepts its recommendations is another matter.

Without law reform, the Natural History Museum will be able to continue to deny repatriation claims in the national interest - and years of Australian pressure may came to nought.

Lyndon Ormond Parker, a London-based Aboriginal researcher who has worked extensively in Britain and Australia on repatriation, called on the Australian Government to step up pressure on the British.

"Aboriginal people are not going to give up on this issue," he said. "It's a matter of having respect for the wishes of Aboriginal communities concerned."

Source:The Sydney Morning Herald

Science or dignity? It remains to be seen

Peter Fray
Europe Correspondent

26 December 2002 - The skulls and bones of two Northern Territory Aborigines, now "trophies" in a British museum, are at the centre of a controversial inquiry, reports Peter Fray.

Deep inside London's Natural History Museum are the skulls and leg bones of two Aboriginal men whose lives were considered so morally "degraded" that in 1900 they were hunted down and killed by a white expedition.

Once dead, these racially "pure" Allura tribesmen became prized trophies. Historical records held by the Royal College of Surgeons show that their skins were boiled off them "on the spot", and the bones given to a Dr Gedge by the expedition's leader, an unnamed patient.

Two decades later, Dr Gedge shipped them to Britain and, after a spell at the college, these victims from the Northern Territory's Victoria River ended up among the most valuable parts of the world's largest collection of Aboriginal human remains.

To the museum, the collection is an incomparable scientific asset; to many Aboriginal people, it is sacrilege, an enduring insult.

Who is right?

European and British museums are believed to hold thousands of Aboriginal bones, hair and soft tissue removed or stolen from Australia as recently as the 1940s, usually against the wishes of local people or without their knowledge.

Recent research has found that at least 60 museums in England alone hold human remains.

Many are reluctant to return remains and break up collections.

The director of the Leverhulme Centre at Cambridge University, Robert Foley, argues that collections belong to the "world" rather than any one group. His views are shared by many scientists.

"The ultimate justification is that skeletal collections are kept as part of global human heritage, not the preserve of any one culture," he writes in the latest edition of the journal Science and Public Affairs.

"Will future generations of Western and Aboriginal cultures be more grateful that the past was preserved rather than lost or intentionally destroyed because of current political fashion?

"Destroying history is not the answer to the problems of these communities."

But, after decades of pressure by Aboriginal groups, and more recently the Australian Government, things are changing.

In January, an independent British working group of museum directors, lawyers and academics, chaired by legal academic Norman Palmer and including Natural History Museum director Neil Chalmers, is due to report on the more than 18 months of investigation.

It is expected to recommend relaxing the laws that prevent the export of human remains from Britain's national collection, mainly held by the British and Natural History museums.

It may also suggest setting up a tribunal to look into Aboriginal claims.

Once its work is done, it will be over to the politicians.

More than two years ago, during a visit to coincide with Australia's centenary celebrations, Prime Minister John Howard and his British counterpart, Tony Blair, agreed to speed up the return of human remains.

During a 50-minute meeting at Downing Street, at which the two leaders discussed several key topics, including Indonesia's then president, Abdurrahman Wahid, the G8 summit in Japan and Australia's tax reform, Mr Howard told Mr Blair that he "understood the difficulties involved" in the issue.

Members of the working group believe these difficulties now include British fears about the Elgin Marbles, the world's most controversial "stolen" cultural artefact, removed from Greece by the British in the early 19th century.

Dr Davies and another working group member, who declined to be named, told The Age that the group had been told by senior public servants that the Blair Government would not change laws governing the national collection if they assist Greek claims for the return of the marble sculptures.

"There appears to be nervousness about how legislation on human remains will be perceived in the light of claims for cultural property," Dr Davies said. "Legislation appears to be slipping down the political agenda."

The Department of Culture, Media and Sport denies that pressure has been put on the working group. The group is still expected to push for law changes, but whether the government accepts its recommendations is another matter.

Lyndon Ormond Parker, a London-based Aboriginal researcher who has worked extensively in Britain and Australia on repatriation, called on the Australian Government to step up pressure on the British. "Aboriginal people are not going to give up on this issue," he said.

Source: The Age

Return of remains at risk

By Peter Fray
Europe Correspondent
London

18 December 2002 - Britain's long-running dispute with Greece over the return of the Elgin Marbles sculptures threatens to stall Australian efforts to repatriate thousands of Aboriginal remains from leading British museums.

Members of an independent British working group, due to report on the export of human remains, say they have recently been warned against recommending law reforms that might indirectly assist the Greeks.

British laws now effectively prevent the return of remains from the British and Natural History Museums, which house the country's largest collections of Aboriginal remains.

The Greek Government has recently renewed efforts to have the marbles, given to the British Museum by the Earl of Elgin in 1816, returned in time for the Athens Olympics in 2004.

The working group of prominent academics, museum curators and lawyers is expected early next year to recommend repatriation of human bones and other tissues, often taken without the permission or knowledge of Aboriginal people during the 19th and 20th centuries.

But group members told The Age a government official had recently warned them not to compromise Britain's position on the Elgin Marbles.

The deputy director of the British Museums Association, Maurice Davis, said the Blair Government appeared nervous about introducing legislation that could be used by Greece.

"It was made clear to us that the Department of Culture is worried that campaigners may make a link between any legislation about (returning) human remains and the Elgin Marbles," he said.

Dr Davies would not discuss the report but said it would be "sympathetic and understanding" to repatriation. A survey by the group has found human remains, including Aboriginal, in more than 60 British museums.

A government spokeswoman denied that any attempt had been made to link repatriation of human remains with the Elgin Marbles. She said the marbles were owned by the British Museum and their return to Greece was a matter for the museum's board. "The issues are not linked and the working group has not had this type of warning," she said.

But another group member backed up Dr Davies and said it was "not the first time" the department had expressed concerns about the Elgin Marbles.

Britain's reluctance to reform museum laws appears to undermine the joint statement in favour of repatriations made by Prime Minister John Howard and British Prime Minister Tony Blair in July, 2000. At the meeting, Mr Howard said he "understood the difficulties involved".

Lyndon Ormond Parker, a London-based Aboriginal researcher and postgraduate student, called on Australia to step up diplomatic pressure on the British Government to return human remains.

Aboriginal people would pursue British museums through European courts if the Blair Government proved incapable of dealing with the issue, he said.

Source: The Age

Transparency and glass cases

EDITORIAL

December 15 2002 - Museums that seek to retain plundered or culturally sensitive artefacts should think again.

The model of anthropologist Baldwin Spencer, which sits in a glass case in the Melbourne Museum's Aboriginal centre, Bunjilaka, challenges us to ask what he might be doing there. The words painted on the glass - "We do not choose to be enshrined in a glass case with our story told by an alien institution which has appointed itself ambassador for our culture" - are from the Tasmanian Aboriginal Centre.

Under Tasmanian law - the first of its kind in the world - indigenous Tasmanian remains must be returned to Tasmania. The skeleton of Truganini, long described as the last Tasmanian Aborigine, was displayed in a glass case in the Tasmanian Museum until 1947. But a revolution in understanding has taken place since then; a revolution that has changed, and also enriched, our ideas about what a museum might be. The Melbourne Museum had its own extensive collection of Aboriginal artefacts, but has returned objects of cultural significance to their traditional owners. It also houses a "keeping place" where precious objects are kept in trust for their communities.

The Melbourne Museum's progressive attitude, and its willingness to adapt to changing circumstances, provide an interesting contrast to the declaration by a group of leading American and European museums last week. Although the declaration opposes the traffic in illegal artefacts, it argues that "objects acquired in earlier times must be viewed in the light of different sensitivities and values reflective of that earlier era". It says the decision to repatriate objects must be made on a case-by-case basis; that museums have played an important role in educating the public about ancient civilisations and "serve not just the citizens of one nation but the people of every nation".

The declaration was not signed by the British Museum, which is under intense pressure to return the Parthenon marbles to Greece, but its director, Neil MacGregor, said he supported the declaration's intent. The British Museum has a collection of Aboriginal remains. The question of the repatriation of human remains held by British institutions is being examined by a House of Commons working group and its report will be released soon. Some overseas institutions - including London's Natural History Museum - have resisted returning human remains to their descendants in other countries. Although the issue of human remains raises questions quite separate from that involved in the repatriation of artworks, the reasons given by those institutions keen on keeping their collections intact are often the same in both cases: they argue that it is the integrity of the collection- rather than the concerns of the traditional owners - that should take precedence.

In the case of the Parthenon marbles, the Greek Government counters, quite rightly, that the statues belong on the site from which they were taken. A new museum built to house the marbles stands on the Acropolis; the room designed for the statues has a glass wall showing the backdrop of the Parthenon behind them. Although it is understandable that the British are reluctant to give up such a splendid exhibit, they have no moral or cultural justification for not doing so. Philhellenes such as Lord Byron viewed Lord Elgin's taking of the marbles in 1806 as an act of vandalism and theft at the time. Even taking into account the "sensitivities and values of an earlier era", the acquisition was a dubious one.

In the case of human remains, the "sensitivities and values" that allowed themto be taken and displayed in the first place have been so thoroughly discredited that a decision to keep such collections intact would appear, at this stage, like an endorsement of the racism and cultural imperialism that allowed such collections to be amassed. A London-based Aboriginal researcher and postgraduate student, Lyndon Ormond Parker, says the museums' declaration is a sign that they believe themselves to be under serious threat from the repatriation movement.

The case that the museums put for their own cause - "The universal admiration for ancient civilisations would not be so deeply established today were it not for the influence exercised by the artefacts of these cultures, widely available to an international public in major museums" - is not without merit. Museums have played an important role in scholarship and education, but, as the case of the Melbourne Museum demonstrates, this role can be enhanced if museums are prepared to take an honest look at their past practices and to make a call on the most ethical way to settle mistakes made by their predecessors. This is not to endorse the wholesale repatriation of artefacts - it may well be that some collections will be better off in a well-funded museum than in their land of origin. It would be wrong to assume, however, that this is automatically the case. As the Baldwin Spencer exhibit eloquently demonstrates, some cultural practices are not only outdated, but offensive. They are best kept in a glass case.

Source: The Age

Australians happy to return

By Gabriella Coslovich

11 December 2002 - Australian museums are among the most progressive in the world when it comes to returning human remains and cultural objects to their original homes.

Unlike the key international museums that have declared their opposition to the wholesale repatriation of cultural artefacts, the National Museum of Australia and Museum Victoria have repatriation policies in place and actively seek to return human remains and secret and sacred objects to indigenous people.

Most recently, the NMA identified in its collection the remains of a native American Indian, which it will return to the United States next year. The NMA and Museum Victoria also work closely with Australia's indigenous communities on the repatriation of ancestral remains and secret and sacred objects.

"The museums in Australia have as a priority, with the support of Federal Government funding, the repatriation of individual human remains to communities and there are substantial numbers being returned, including by our museum, in most cases to provide a dignified burial," NMA director Dawn Casey said.

Recent examples include the NMA's return in August of 85 sets of Aboriginal remains to the Larrakeyah tribe of Darwin and Museum Victoria's repatriation of seven Aboriginal skulls to Tasmania.

Most of the Larrakeyah remains were collected in the early 1900s by Adelaide coroner William Ramsay Smith - whose collecting practices were condemned at the time. They came to the National Museum from the former Institute of Anatomy in Canberra and Edinburgh University.

Some are 200 years old.

Neither the NMA nor Museum Victoria were asked to sign the declaration issued by the overseas group opposed to repatriation.

Museum Victoria director Patrick Greene disagreed with the stance and said it did not reflect the views of the wider museum community.

"We are not one of the signatories of this declaration and we have not been consulted about it," Dr Greene said.

"It certainly does not represent the views of the entire museum community and it certainly does not represent the views of Museum
Victoria."

Source: The Age

Further information: repatriation issues page - includes news index and external links

|| click to go to the top of this page