Museums based in England that wish to return human remains to Aboriginal groups have been promised an easier way to carry out the task by the Australian government.
The Office of Indigenous Policy Coordination (OIPC), a government agency, will take responsibility for finding the ancestors of the remains. Previously, the onus was on the institutions to seek out the correct Aboriginal communities.
Wayne Gibbons, the head of the OIPC, said several institutions, including museums, have indicated a willingness to return remains, but none were sure how to approach the communities. The Australian High Commission in London has said it will field enquiries. 'Ring the High Commission and we will follow up,' Gibbons said. In some cases, the institutions will help to provenance the remains.
Last month Exeter City Council returned four skulls to Australia. These were the latest in a line of indigenous repatriations by Exeter and they were part of ten years of negotiations. Len Pole, the collections and interpretation officer based at the Royal Albert Memorial Museum and Art Gallery, organised the return.
He said the ten-year process involved research to provenance the skulls. Although the regions of Australia where the skulls belong are known, the exact indigenous communities are unclear. They will be held at the National Museum of Australia in Canberra until research is complete.
For some institutions, return is further complicated by legal constraints. It is anticipated that by spring the Human Tissue bill will become law. The bill contains a clause to remove the legal impediment to return, which some national museums are under.
Gibbons described this as a 'watershed', but it would still mean museums must be willing to return.
The Natural History Museum has said the British Museum Act prevented it from returning any of its 461 Australian and Torres Strait Islander remains (2 per cent of the human remains in its collection).
John Jackson, the science policy coordinator, said: 'What it will mean is that we will be able to give serious consideration to claims for return.' He added that the human remains were used for research and all requests would be looked at separately.
Paul Harvey, a fellow of the Royal Society, an independent scientific academy, said: 'The cultural case [for the return of Aboriginal remains] appears to be stronger than the scientific case.'
The Office of Indigenous Policy Coordination (OIPC), a government agency, will take responsibility for finding the ancestors of the remains. Previously, the onus was on the institutions to seek out the correct Aboriginal communities.
Wayne Gibbons, the head of the OIPC, said several institutions, including museums, have indicated a willingness to return remains, but none were sure how to approach the communities. The Australian High Commission in London has said it will field enquiries. 'Ring the High Commission and we will follow up,' Gibbons said. In some cases, the institutions will help to provenance the remains.
Last month Exeter City Council returned four skulls to Australia. These were the latest in a line of indigenous repatriations by Exeter and they were part of ten years of negotiations. Len Pole, the collections and interpretation officer based at the Royal Albert Memorial Museum and Art Gallery, organised the return.
He said the ten-year process involved research to provenance the skulls. Although the regions of Australia where the skulls belong are known, the exact indigenous communities are unclear. They will be held at the National Museum of Australia in Canberra until research is complete.
For some institutions, return is further complicated by legal constraints. It is anticipated that by spring the Human Tissue bill will become law. The bill contains a clause to remove the legal impediment to return, which some national museums are under.
Gibbons described this as a 'watershed', but it would still mean museums must be willing to return.
The Natural History Museum has said the British Museum Act prevented it from returning any of its 461 Australian and Torres Strait Islander remains (2 per cent of the human remains in its collection).
John Jackson, the science policy coordinator, said: 'What it will mean is that we will be able to give serious consideration to claims for return.' He added that the human remains were used for research and all requests would be looked at separately.
Paul Harvey, a fellow of the Royal Society, an independent scientific academy, said: 'The cultural case [for the return of Aboriginal remains] appears to be stronger than the scientific case.'
