Proposed changes to human remains law could have ‘unintended consequences’

Archaeology sector bodies have called for cross-sector input to inform any potential changes to human remains law and policy in the UK.

In a joint statement, eight archaeological organisations from across the UK said a “cross-sector consultative forum” should be established to enable a wide range of viewpoints to be heard on any proposed changes to human remains legislation and practice.

Referencing a policy brief issued by the All-Party Parliamentary Group for Afrikan Reparations (APPG-AR) in March, the statement said that “recent calls for changes to legislation and practice have raised important questions and concerns that we wish to address”.

While the policy brief focused specifically on African ancestral remains, it made a number of recommendations that would apply to all human remains.

These included calling for the Human Tissue Act 2004, which covers England, Wales and Northern Ireland, to be amended to make it an offence to publicly display any human remains, irrespective of age or provenance, without “appropriate consent”; and further amending the act to require museums and other institutions to obtain a licence for any human remains held in their collections – a requirement that at present applies only to human remains dated to within the past 100 years.

• Museums Journal feature | Perspectives on human remains: a look at the moral, ethical and scientific arguments that surround the issue

The group of archaeological organisations said they “do not support the particular recommended changes to the Human Tissue Act 2004 as they stand”.

“We recognise that whilst the policy brief published by APPG-AR focussed its attention on African ancestral remains we note that it also included a specific recommendation for several changes that reference ‘all human remains,’ and ‘without exceptions’,” said the statement.

“Without clarification, the proposed wording would have far-reaching and potentially unintended consequences for the study, management, care, and public engagement with, all British archaeologically derived remains, irrespective of provenance.”

The statement acknowledged that the brief “does not constitute government policy” and that “any change to legislation that may arise from the discussions it has provoked” would be subject to consultation.

“In this respect we believe the formulation of a cross-sector consultative forum should be a priority to inform any proposed changes at the earliest possible opportunity, as well as to enable a wide range of viewpoints to be articulated,” said the statement.

The joint statement also called for greater clarity around the use of the term “ancestral remains” in any proposed legislative and policy changes.

“We recognise that the term ‘African ancestral remains’ holds specific meaning and especially within the context of the APPG-AR policy brief document, but the recommendations that are made within it do not use that terminology consistently or exclusively throughout,” said the statement.

“References to ‘ancestral remains’ without qualification leads to ambiguity and is open to a wide variety of interpretations particularly by those who seek to use the term ancestor in support of ideological or political beliefs. This ambiguity needs to be addressed to avoid confusion and unintended consequences.”

The statement also called for a review of the government's non-statutory guidance on the care of human remains in museums, which was published in 2005. The organisations said the guidance does not address emerging challenges, particularly regarding DNA research and geneaological descendency.

Referencing a recent Museums Journal article highlighting complexities with identifying genetic direct descent, and the challenges this can pose for institutions holding human remains, the statement said “there is a specific need for revision of the Department for Culture, Media and Sport’s Guidance for the Care of Human Remains for Museums, and especially with regard to genealogical descendancy”.

The statement called on culture secretary Lisa Nandy to initiate such a review, and said a similar review would be required in the devolved nations.

The statement emphasised that “all work that involves human remains is rightly predicated on ethical stewardship, dignity, and respect, and undertaken within a legal framework”.

“Archaeologists do not seek to excavate burial sites without good reason, and where removal is deemed absolutely necessary it is often the case that human remains are reburied after study,” said the statement.

It said there was also “evidence-based public support for the continued curation and display of human remains from archaeological contexts within museums”.

The group of organisations added that they “fully support ‘the principle of open and constructive dialogue between museums and communities and consideration of requests for return’ and ‘the appropriate and ethically considered retention of human remains that follows established guidance’”.

They said they also supported the move in government to consider a ban on the sale of human remains, a practice they described as “unethical”.  

The joint statement was signed by Ben Donnelly-Symes, chair of the Society for Museum Archaeology; Neil Redfern, executive director at the Council for British Archaeology; John Lawson, chair of the Association of Local Government Archaeological Officers UK; Jelena Bekvalac, president of the British Association for Biological Anthropology and Osteoarchaeology; Simon Gilmour, director of the Society of Antiquaries of Scotland; Martin Smith, chair of the Advisory Panel on the Archaeology of Burials in England; Laura Basell, chair of University Archaeology UK; and Natasha McEnroe, general secretary of the Society of Antiquaries of London.