The Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport (DCMS) has announced a review of its Guidance for the Care of Human Remains in Museums, which was published in 2005.
In a written statement to parliament on 16 September, arts minister Ruth Mackenzie, who is reportedly taking over the museums brief at DCMS, said the legal, ethical and moral debate around human remains had changed since the original guidance came out.
Mackenzie wrote: "Since we first issued the guidance over twenty years ago, the legal, ethical, and moral conversations regarding the treatment and care of human remains in museum collections have evolved significantly. While the 2005 guidance has served as a strong foundational framework, it is vital that our national standards reflect contemporary best practice, particularly surrounding the display and return of ancestral remains."
The existing guidance applies to museums and other institutions in England, Wales and Northern Ireland. It covers the legal and ethical framework for human remains, their curation, care and use, and the handling of claims for their return. It was also issued in support of provisions in the Human Tissue Act 2004 allowing nine named national museums to deaccession human remains less than 1,000 years old.
The review will focus particularly on contemporary best practice around the display and return of ancestral remains, according to the government.
Crossbench peer Sue Black, a forensic anthropologist and president of St John's College, Oxford, has been appointed chair of an independent working group overseeing the review. The group will include representatives from museums across the UK and will take evidence from independent experts and community representatives.
Advertisement
The review is expected to take 12 months, with revised guidance due to be published by the government in autumn 2027.
The announcement comes amid significant changes in the way some UK museums are approaching the care and treatment human remains.
Earlier this month, Manchester Museum confirmed that it had removed the mummified remains of an Ancient Egyptian woman known as Asru from public display. First unwrapped in 1825, the remains could previously be seen in the museum's Egypt and Sudan Gallery and were the last set of mummified remains on display at the museum.
At the same time, the Pitt Rivers Museum announced plans to return 39 ancestral human remains to Nagaland in north-eastern India. The remains were largely acquired during the colonial period.
The University of Oxford museum had already removed all human remains from its exhibition floors in 2020 and committed not to display remains without the consent of communities of origin. The Naga repatriation subsequently developed through a community-led process involving dialogue, research and reconciliation.
The government has previously acknowledged the changing landscape around repatriation.
Advertisement
In response to a parliamentary question in December 2025, DCMS said it was considering how best to update the 2005 document.
Mackenzie said the revised guidance is intended to provide museums in England, Wales and Northern Ireland with a “practical, relevant and ethically robust” framework for managing human remains.
"This review represents a significant step in ensuring our cultural institutions manage human remains with sensitivity and transparency," she said.
I strongly support the review of Guidance for the Care of Human Remains in Museums.
A matter which should inform contemporary best practice relating to human remains is the fact that museums do not own the human remains of Indigenous groups taken during the colonial period and brought to the UK. The one minor exception related to anatomical items, lawfully altered by surgeons and other medical professionals, applying complex dissection or preservation techniques so that they have different attributes.
The law has been confused on the question of ownership for years. I have now carried out the necessary legal research to prove that museums do not own Indigenous remains.
The fact that museums do not own or have a legal right to possession to Indigenous remains has important consequences in relation to repatriation. National museums’ governing legislation does not apply to Indigenous remains because they are not ‘vested’ in the museum. Charity law does not apply directly because they are not trust ‘property.’
In my view, museums will need to rely upon ethical principles developed in the MA and ICOM’s Codes of Ethics to provide them with appropriate guidance.
I have written a background piece for law professionals and judges (‘Changes and Alterations to Objects: Commodities, Cultural Objects, Body Parts and Human Remains,’ in Personal Property Law in the 21st Century, edited by Jonas Atmaz Al-Sibaie and Luke Rostill). But I do not discuss repatriation in detail.
But I am hoping that an article which I have written which focuses directly on repatriation of Indigenous remains and which is aimed at museum professionals will be published in a freely downloadable format early in 2027. I will try to let members know about it then.
Professor Janet Ulph
University of Leicester
Where can I see the legal sources for Janet Ulph’s comments please. I appreciate that she has carried out research into ownership of human remains but but please can she share with references. eg a link to the ‘background piece’ she mentions. Also is this UK legislature? Does it include Scotland? Thanks. Janet Trythall
My research has been limited to: (1) Indigenous remains, and not human remains in general and (2) the question of ownership and its repercussions. The DCMS Guidance is much wider in scope and there will be many issue to consider in its review.
As regards ownership, English courts have stated that no-one can own bodies or body parts. I am not an expert on Scottish law but I know that this principle applies in Scotland: see Robson v Robson (1898) 5 SLT 351; McGruer, Petitioner (1899) 15 Sh St Rep 38.
There is an exception to this principle called the ‘work and skill’ exception. Where the exception applies, it is possible to acquire human remains as ‘property’ which can be owned. But there has been confusion over this exception. My research reveals that the exception has a very narrow scope. Most museums will not own their Indigenous remains.
My research affects national museums and charitable museums in particular. Local authority museums have always had more flexibility in dealing with their collections.
If you have a specific query, you can contact me direct emailing: ju13@leciester.ac.uk