Care assistance
What use is the Human Remains Advisory Service if it can't offer guidance to museums and other interested organisations, asks Piotr Bienkowski
The first, and so far only, request for advice to the Human Remains Advisory Service (HRAS), from Cambridgeshire County Council, concluded at the end of March with the Department for Culture, Media and Sport's (DCMS) Cultural Property Unit informing the council that the service was unable to offer advice.
The HRAS was set up in 2005 after the publication of the advice in the DCMS Guidance for the Care of Human Remains in Museums to help museums deal with claims for the return and repatriation of human remains.
Two of the HRAS advisers involved in the case have since registered their dismay concerning the department's action. What went wrong, what lessons can be learned, and what should the next steps be?
In 2001 Melbourn Parish Council in Cambridgeshire approached Cambridgeshire Archaeology (part of Cambridgeshire County Council) with a request for the reburial of Anglo-Saxon skeletons excavated in 2000 from Water Lane in Melbourn.
The community in Melbourn, renowned for its sense of history and heritage, wished to rebury the human remains at the entrance to its new parish cemetery, close to the original excavations, through a feeling of responsibility and as a tangible link between the past and present inhabitants.
Indeed, they told me they were prepared to accommodate any future needs of archaeologists, by constructing a mausoleum as a compromise between burial and continued research access (a potential solution recommended in the 2005 Church of England/English Heritage Guidance for Best Practice for Treatment of Human Remains Excavated from Christian Burial Grounds in England).
Negotiations stalled, with Cambridgeshire Archaeology unwilling to release any of the remains, despite them having been analysed, though not yet published.
In 2006, Cambridgeshire Archaeology requested advice from the HRAS. The DCMS appointed three advisers to consider the case. After deliberation, one was against Melbourn's claim on principle, while two were more sympathetic, wanting up-to-date information on Melbourn's position and wishing them to have the opportunity to put their own case.
After requesting further information, the DCMS abruptly pulled the plug on the case, informing Cambridgeshire Archaeology that the HRAS could not give advice because it was unwilling to provide two conflicting responses to the original request.
Cambridgeshire Archaeology and Melbourn Parish Council have now planned to meet again to discuss resolution of the issue, being no further forward than before the request for advice from the HRAS.
Two problems arise from the way this issue has been mishandled. The first is that the DCMS provides the HRAS with no guidance on procedure: there is no transparency as to how the discussions are to be handled, especially in the event of disagreements between advisers (should the majority rule?), and no procedure for hearing both sides of a claim.
The second problem is that the remit of the HRAS is to frame any advice in accordance with the 2005 DCMS guidance, which focuses largely on the validity of claims, closing off debate about potential solutions.
The DCMS guidance was written primarily in response to claims from overseas originating communities for the repatriation of human remains. The guidelines cover foreign repatriation, not claims by British communities - indeed, the notion that British communities might make claims is not even mentioned in the guidance.
So the HRAS is forced to consider any British requests for reburial according to a mechanism framed for overseas communities, asking them to establish cultural and genealogical links between past and present communities.
But for British communities, this is surely asking the wrong question. The issue here should not depend on whether or not communities can prove a clear cultural or genealogical link with the past. The issue is whether or not local communities have a legitimate claim to participate in decision-making about the fate of human remains from their localities.
Is it appropriate that archaeologists (and museums) exercise unilateral authority over retention and use of human remains without taking into account the wishes of other communities who form their audiences?
No single group has any special claim to authority over human remains: and that also applies to archaeologists and museum professionals. Decision-making should be shared, and occasionally community interests will outweigh archaeological concerns.
Indeed, the Church of England/English Heritage guidance has already recognised the legitimacy of local public opinion, which in some cases may favour reburial of excavated human remains.
This perspective now needs to be incorporated into a revised edition of the DCMS guidance - otherwise any future requests for advice regarding human remains of UK origin will founder as a result of the overseas bias of its criteria.
It seems to me that the next steps are clear. Cambridgeshire Archaeology should applaud and support Melbourn Parish Council's interest in its heritage and its willingness to construct a compromise solution acceptable to all. This would set a marvellous precedent, demonstrating that archaeology is not just for archaeologists.
The DCMS should recognise that the legitimate interests of British communities to be consulted and involved in decision-making about human remains are hampered by the current overseas focus of the guidance.
The guidance should be reviewed, debated and amended to provide specific advice about claims from British communities, acknowledging that the criteria will be different from those that apply to overseas originating communities.
Piotr Bienkowski is the deputy director of the Manchester Museum4
The HRAS was set up in 2005 after the publication of the advice in the DCMS Guidance for the Care of Human Remains in Museums to help museums deal with claims for the return and repatriation of human remains.
Two of the HRAS advisers involved in the case have since registered their dismay concerning the department's action. What went wrong, what lessons can be learned, and what should the next steps be?
In 2001 Melbourn Parish Council in Cambridgeshire approached Cambridgeshire Archaeology (part of Cambridgeshire County Council) with a request for the reburial of Anglo-Saxon skeletons excavated in 2000 from Water Lane in Melbourn.
The community in Melbourn, renowned for its sense of history and heritage, wished to rebury the human remains at the entrance to its new parish cemetery, close to the original excavations, through a feeling of responsibility and as a tangible link between the past and present inhabitants.
Indeed, they told me they were prepared to accommodate any future needs of archaeologists, by constructing a mausoleum as a compromise between burial and continued research access (a potential solution recommended in the 2005 Church of England/English Heritage Guidance for Best Practice for Treatment of Human Remains Excavated from Christian Burial Grounds in England).
Negotiations stalled, with Cambridgeshire Archaeology unwilling to release any of the remains, despite them having been analysed, though not yet published.
In 2006, Cambridgeshire Archaeology requested advice from the HRAS. The DCMS appointed three advisers to consider the case. After deliberation, one was against Melbourn's claim on principle, while two were more sympathetic, wanting up-to-date information on Melbourn's position and wishing them to have the opportunity to put their own case.
After requesting further information, the DCMS abruptly pulled the plug on the case, informing Cambridgeshire Archaeology that the HRAS could not give advice because it was unwilling to provide two conflicting responses to the original request.
Cambridgeshire Archaeology and Melbourn Parish Council have now planned to meet again to discuss resolution of the issue, being no further forward than before the request for advice from the HRAS.
Two problems arise from the way this issue has been mishandled. The first is that the DCMS provides the HRAS with no guidance on procedure: there is no transparency as to how the discussions are to be handled, especially in the event of disagreements between advisers (should the majority rule?), and no procedure for hearing both sides of a claim.
The second problem is that the remit of the HRAS is to frame any advice in accordance with the 2005 DCMS guidance, which focuses largely on the validity of claims, closing off debate about potential solutions.
The DCMS guidance was written primarily in response to claims from overseas originating communities for the repatriation of human remains. The guidelines cover foreign repatriation, not claims by British communities - indeed, the notion that British communities might make claims is not even mentioned in the guidance.
So the HRAS is forced to consider any British requests for reburial according to a mechanism framed for overseas communities, asking them to establish cultural and genealogical links between past and present communities.
But for British communities, this is surely asking the wrong question. The issue here should not depend on whether or not communities can prove a clear cultural or genealogical link with the past. The issue is whether or not local communities have a legitimate claim to participate in decision-making about the fate of human remains from their localities.
Is it appropriate that archaeologists (and museums) exercise unilateral authority over retention and use of human remains without taking into account the wishes of other communities who form their audiences?
No single group has any special claim to authority over human remains: and that also applies to archaeologists and museum professionals. Decision-making should be shared, and occasionally community interests will outweigh archaeological concerns.
Indeed, the Church of England/English Heritage guidance has already recognised the legitimacy of local public opinion, which in some cases may favour reburial of excavated human remains.
This perspective now needs to be incorporated into a revised edition of the DCMS guidance - otherwise any future requests for advice regarding human remains of UK origin will founder as a result of the overseas bias of its criteria.
It seems to me that the next steps are clear. Cambridgeshire Archaeology should applaud and support Melbourn Parish Council's interest in its heritage and its willingness to construct a compromise solution acceptable to all. This would set a marvellous precedent, demonstrating that archaeology is not just for archaeologists.
The DCMS should recognise that the legitimate interests of British communities to be consulted and involved in decision-making about human remains are hampered by the current overseas focus of the guidance.
The guidance should be reviewed, debated and amended to provide specific advice about claims from British communities, acknowledging that the criteria will be different from those that apply to overseas originating communities.
Piotr Bienkowski is the deputy director of the Manchester Museum4