news | action | information | events | contact | search | news | action | information | events | contact | search |
key indigenous australian issues
| home | news lPanel may rule on museum remains
Arts minister Estelle Morris has launched a consultation on the proposal to deal with contested claims and whether museums need more regulation or a code of practice on holding human remains. Ranging from locks of hair to full skeletons, the remains of more than 10,000 indigenous people were brought back from overseas by scientists, explorers and enthusiastic collectors. Museums have faced mounting demands to hand them over so they can be buried in their tribal homelands. Most are Australian aborigines from the 19th and early 20th centuries but other human remains held include Egyptian mummies and shrunken heads. Some researchers fear many hundreds of specimens that hold vital clues to our evolutionary past could be reburied, burnt or even smashed up. The consultation paper Care of Historic Human Remains is based on the work of the Human Tissue Working Group which reported in November last year. The group's key recommendation - to alter the current law which can sometimes prevent museums from sending back remains even when they want to do so - has already been included by the Government in the Human Tissues Bill which is in the latter stages of passing through Parliament. Ms Morris described the paper as "another important step towards an appropriate response to the claims of indigenous peoples, particularly in Australia, for the return of ancestral remains". "I hope this consultation will ultimately lead to the establishment of a fair and equitable framework for the holding of human remains in UK museums and considering claims for repatriation." The consultation, jointly published by the Department of Culture, Media and Sport and the Welsh Assembly, will end on October 29. It covers England, Wales and Northern Ireland. Source: icberkshire.co.uk
Care of Historic Human Remains Consultation This consultation paper looks at, among other things, current laws relating to collections of human remains in UK museums and claims for their repatriation. The document, jointly published with the Welsh Assembly, is based on the recommendations of the Working Group on Human Remains in a report published in November 2003. The main points of the consultation are:
The consultation runs from Wednesday 28 July 2004 to Friday 29 October 2004. Respondents in England and Northern Ireland should reply to the Department for Culture, Media and Sport at:
Respondents in Wales should reply to the Welsh Assembly Government at:
The Department for Culture, Media and Sport and the National Assembly for Wales intend to publish the responses to this document. Normally, the name and address (or part of the address) of its author are published along with the response, as this gives credibility to the consultation exercise. If you do not wish to be identified as the author of your response, please state this expressly in writing to us and we will remove your name and address from the published response. Source: Department for Culture, Media and Sport
Bone return consultation launched Thousands of ancient human parts - from hair samples to whole skeletons - have been collected by UK museums. The latest initiative will review the report issued last year by the Working Group on Human Remains. It recommended scientists should seek out descendants for permission to hold on to body parts up to 500 years old. Scientists would like to retain materials - some of them thousands of years old - because of what they can reveal about human origins and evolution, and the spread and development of disease. But to indigenous groups, the collections are an affront to their customs and they claim many of the artefacts were effectively stolen by colonial explorers and hunters. The consultation will examine the sufficiency of laws on holding remains and whether a panel should mediate repatriation claims. Some scientists working in the area claim their views were not represented on the Working Group on Human Remains. They argue the advisory group's report took an "extreme" standpoint and that, as a result, the debate around the issue has become polarised. Several experts have welcomed the consultation as a new opportunity to influence the process. But others, who were less than impressed with the 2003 report, are sceptical of the plans. The government said the consultation document, titled Care Of Historic Human Remains, would be another step towards dealing with claims from indigenous people in the most "appropriate" way. "I hope this consultation will ultimately lead to the establishment of a fair and equitable framework for the holding of human remains in UK museums and for considering claims for their repatriation," said arts minister Estelle Morris. "The government has already acted to implement the key recommendation of the Working Group on Human Remains - namely that the law should be changed to allow museums to move human remains out of their collections." Some museums had argued that they were prohibited by legislation from releasing material. The Human Tissue Bill, which has not yet been passed, would give them powers to "de-accession" (or release) the material - knocking down a key hurdle to repatriation. (Some involved in the debate have always regarded this argument as a "smokescreen"). Lyndon Ormond-Parker, a researcher on Australian aboriginal cultural affairs, welcomed the recommendation on de-accessioning. Mr Ormond-Parker said he had not yet seen the consultation document, but said his initial reaction was that the Working Group had covered most of the issues. This group, chaired by Professor Norman Palmer, delivered its report in November 2003. It said scientists should have to examine how the collections held in their institutions came into their possession. They should then have to seek out any possible living descendants to get their consent to keep them or to continue to use them in research. The final 2003 document consisted of a "majority" report and a statement of dissent by the director of the Natural History Museum. This is referred to as the "minority report" and it proposes a number of alternative recommendations to those of Professor Palmer's report. The proposals in this minority report will be considered during the consultation. One insider told BBC News Online: "My feeling is that we should have moved beyond the stage of polarising polemic. We all get a bit heated when we are painted as either emotional and irrational on the one hand or dreadful exploiters on the other. "To answer the question, there is a need for a further round to make sure that point is well made." But many scientists are still fearful that, whatever the outcomes of the consultation, the burden of dealing with multiple claims will cripple institutions. "There is a considerable cost burden associated with the auditing of collections and the seeking out of appropriate contacts. There's a commitment being made there and we need to make sure that it's justified," said one scientist. It will be for scientists to validate any claims to human remains held in collections for which they are custodians. This may be relatively easy for a group or individual living in the UK, say insiders, but it may be nigh-on impossible to authenticate claims from some remote territories of the globe. And there are some who fear that the potential for blanket claims demanding the return of whole collections would inevitably be disputes similar to the Kennewick Man case in the US. This has concerned the 9,000-year-old skeleton discovered in 1996 in Washington State which has been the subject of a legal wrangle between scientists and native American groups for eight years. Other researchers also want claims to material weighed up against their importance to science. "One ultimately wants to have a dialogue over the future of this material, but there will always be a gulf as long as there is an unwillingness to accept that this material is of tremendous scientific value," said one insider. "The problem with Kennewick Man was that you couldn't say: 'this is phenomenally interesting'. You either had to say: 'it belongs to this group' or 'it doesn't belong to this group'. Now that tips the whole balance." The Palmer report also proposed that any institution holding human remains should have to be licensed and meet requirements for making information available to possible claimants. Dr Sebastian Payne, chief scientist at English Heritage, commented that it was important to be clear "about how closely a group needs to be related to the remains in order for a claim to become pre-eminent". "It's easy enough to see that a descendent or close relative can speak legitimately for the remains of a dead human being, and their views should in principle be pre-eminent," he told BBC News Online. "But it's more difficult when one starts to consider the position of groups that are more distantly related. "Groups are made up of individuals and are not necessarily unanimous in their views, and more than one group can claim to speak for the same human remains." Dr Payne cited an example in which archaeologists discovered a medieval Jewish cemetery near York. Although the archaeologists were in consultation with the chief rabbi on how best to investigate the human remains in a sensitive manner, orthodox groups stepped in and successfully demanded that the remains were reburied as soon as possible. The consultation period will run from 28 July until 29 October 2004. Source: BBC
Ancestral remains to 'go home' 29th July 2004 - A collection of more than 100 sets of human remains stored at Manchester Museum could be "repatriated" under a government scheme. Museum staff are reviewing a number of artefacts and exhibits as part of a nationwide drive to return culturally-sensitive pieces to their countries of origin. Museum director Tristram Besterman believes the review may affect about 100 items. It includes remains such as Aboriginal bones, regarded as stolen goods by Aborigine communities in Australia today. Mr Besterman said: "We are carrying out a full audit of all the human remains in this museum, and will know what remains are affected when it is completed." The move comes after Arts Minister Estelle Morris launched a consultation document that may allow museums to return items that have been claimed back. She said: "This consultation is another important step towards an appropriate response to the claims of indigenous peoples for the return of ancestral remains." Manchester Museum, opened in 1888, holds six million artefacts and exhibits. Contention As with many Victorian museums round the country, many of the items are from the spoils of the British Empire which are now being demanded back. The British Museum in London has been in dispute with Greece over the Elgin Marbles for decades. A similar row has raged over Egypt's Rosetta Stone. Manchester Museum's stock includes large Egyptian, oriental and archaeological collections. But Mr Besterman says he believes the only items in contention would be the Aboriginal human remains. Last year the museum returned four tattooed skulls and two limb bones. The skulls were taken from the Aboriginal tribes by colonial explorers who brought them back to England as souvenirs. Mr Besterman said: "The Aboriginal communities still think of these bones as their ancestors, and see them as stolen objects. The new proposals will allow museums to return human remains if they see fit - it does not order them to do so. "This will only affect human remains that may be claimed by their ancestors, such as Aboriginal bones. It is very unlikely that Egyptian remains will have any claims made upon them." Mr Besterman claims that handing back the remains has led to new opportunities for the museum. He said: "The result of handing back Aboriginal human remains has opened up an exciting new cultural exchange with those communities. We hope to hold future events involving Aboriginal communities educating local schoolchildren about their native culture." Should all culturally-sensitive artefacts be returned to their country of origin? Source: Manchester Evening News
Australian Government Welcomes Latest Milestone for the Repatriation of Indigenous Human Remains from the United Kingdom Media Release - Minister for Indigenous Affairs, Senator Amanda Vanstone 30 July 2004 - Minister for Indigenous Affairs, Senator Amanda Vanstone, today welcomed the release by the UK Government of a consultation paper, Care of Historic Human Remains, saying it was a significant step in the repatriation of Australian Indigenous human remains held in public museums in the UK. In launching the consultation paper, the UK's Arts Minister, the Rt Hon Estelle Morris, reaffirmed the UK Government's commitment to progress the intentions of the joint declaration in July 2000 by British Prime Minister Tony Blair and Australian Prime Minister John Howard to increase efforts to repatriate human remains to Australian Indigenous communities. In the spirit of the Prime Ministers' Joint Statement, Minister Morris established in 2001 the UK Working Group on Human Remains to consider legislative changes that allow museums and galleries to repatriate remains if they so wish, and to provide guidelines on the safe keeping of human remains and the handling of requests for returns. The UK Government has subsequently introduced the Human Tissue Bill which, if passed by their Parliament, will enable nine major institutions to legally repatriate their human remains collections. The Working Group's recommendations, which were publicly released last November, form the basis of the consultation paper launched by Minister Morris. 'The Australian Government intends to make a formal response to the consultation paper,' Senator Vanstone said. 'Our Government is committed to ensuring that the repatriation of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander human remains held in UK museums is treated with the importance, urgency, and cultural sensitivity that it deserves. 'The Australian Government's commitment to the repatriation of Indigenous human remains is part of its broader strategy to make a positive difference to the lives of Indigenous Australians by addressing their concerns through a process of practical reconciliation.' Source: Minister for Indigenous Affairs
|
its one year on from the Australian Governments controversial intervention into NT Indigenous communities
action Roll back, listen to Indigenous community voices speaking about the intervention |
|
July 28 2004 - An advisory panel could be set up to adjudicate in cases where museums refuse to repatriate human remains to their country of origin.
