Museums are being accused of delaying the return of human remains despite their ability to legally dispose of these items from their collections, according to an Aboriginal community organisation.
National museums in England had previously argued that they were legally prevented from returning human remains, but this position has changed following the passing of the Human Tissue Act 2004. This legislation allows national museums to deaccession remains belonging to indigenous communities if a case is presented to an individual museum.
It was this legislation that allowed the British Museum (BM) to give back two bundles of ashes belonging to Tasmanian Aborigines last month - the first return from England since the Act came into force in autumn 2005.
Delegates from the Tasmanian Aboriginal Centre (TAC), an organisation appointed by the Tasmanian community and recognised by the Australian government, were in the UK to receive the remains from the BM. They also visited several other museums to discuss
pending claims.
Adam Thompson from the TAC told Museums Journal: 'Museums are hiding behind procedural matters. If we don't get a clear indication that return is more likely than before [the Human Tissue Act was passed], then we will call on the British government to review enabling powers and call again for mandatory return.'
Tristram Besterman, who prepared one of the independent reports for the BM on the TAC's claim, said: 'No conscientious ethical museum should be doing anything less than finding a way to repatriate human remains.'
Thompson and his colleague visited the Natural History Museum (NHM) in London to discuss the claim they had made for the return of one skeleton and nine skulls. In a statement, the NHM, said: 'Museum staff are currently working with the relevant communities, including the TAC, to develop full information on the remains.' And it continued: 'The museum is encouraging the TAC to deliver the information to enable its claim to be considered at the next meeting of the advisory panel.'
Thompson said that there had been a 20-year campaign for the return of the remains, and the information has already been submitted to the NHM and other museums. He accused the NHM of stalling.
Richard Lane, the director of science at the NHM, said: 'We are absolutely not resistant to return. We wish to balance the need for claimant communities with the broader needs of science and society at large in understanding our communities.' He stressed the issue wasn't simply scientific.
Besterman said: 'The Natural History Museum appears to be much more cautious and reactive than perhaps the circumstances call for.'
Commenting on the BM's return of ashes to Tasmanian Aborigines, Maurice Davies, the deputy director of the Museums Association, said: 'I'm sure it will reassure and encourage museums that return is the right thing to do.'
He said the return showed leadership and would make museums more confident to follow suit. But Lane was clear that the BM's decision would have 'no impact' on this current case. 'They are a different set of objects with a different ability to tell us about the world,' he said. 'If objects had little scientific and social value, we would expect to return them.' The NHM trustees will meet in mid-November to discuss the case.
Felicity Heywood
National museums in England had previously argued that they were legally prevented from returning human remains, but this position has changed following the passing of the Human Tissue Act 2004. This legislation allows national museums to deaccession remains belonging to indigenous communities if a case is presented to an individual museum.
It was this legislation that allowed the British Museum (BM) to give back two bundles of ashes belonging to Tasmanian Aborigines last month - the first return from England since the Act came into force in autumn 2005.
Delegates from the Tasmanian Aboriginal Centre (TAC), an organisation appointed by the Tasmanian community and recognised by the Australian government, were in the UK to receive the remains from the BM. They also visited several other museums to discuss
pending claims.
Adam Thompson from the TAC told Museums Journal: 'Museums are hiding behind procedural matters. If we don't get a clear indication that return is more likely than before [the Human Tissue Act was passed], then we will call on the British government to review enabling powers and call again for mandatory return.'
Tristram Besterman, who prepared one of the independent reports for the BM on the TAC's claim, said: 'No conscientious ethical museum should be doing anything less than finding a way to repatriate human remains.'
Thompson and his colleague visited the Natural History Museum (NHM) in London to discuss the claim they had made for the return of one skeleton and nine skulls. In a statement, the NHM, said: 'Museum staff are currently working with the relevant communities, including the TAC, to develop full information on the remains.' And it continued: 'The museum is encouraging the TAC to deliver the information to enable its claim to be considered at the next meeting of the advisory panel.'
Thompson said that there had been a 20-year campaign for the return of the remains, and the information has already been submitted to the NHM and other museums. He accused the NHM of stalling.
Richard Lane, the director of science at the NHM, said: 'We are absolutely not resistant to return. We wish to balance the need for claimant communities with the broader needs of science and society at large in understanding our communities.' He stressed the issue wasn't simply scientific.
Besterman said: 'The Natural History Museum appears to be much more cautious and reactive than perhaps the circumstances call for.'
Commenting on the BM's return of ashes to Tasmanian Aborigines, Maurice Davies, the deputy director of the Museums Association, said: 'I'm sure it will reassure and encourage museums that return is the right thing to do.'
He said the return showed leadership and would make museums more confident to follow suit. But Lane was clear that the BM's decision would have 'no impact' on this current case. 'They are a different set of objects with a different ability to tell us about the world,' he said. 'If objects had little scientific and social value, we would expect to return them.' The NHM trustees will meet in mid-November to discuss the case.
Felicity Heywood
