Follow the guidelines on human remains
It is a shame that your articles in October (Museums Journal October 2006, p7) and November (Museums Journal November 2006, p34-37) did not present a fuller picture of the current activity concerning repatriation claims.
The part of the 2004 Human Tissue Act that allows national museums to repatriate human remains only came into force in October 2005. The guidance issued by the Department for Culture, Media and Sport (DCMS) to accompany it requires museums to prepare and make public, policies and information on their human remains holdings.
It was always felt that for larger institutions this process might take about one year, and this has been the case. However, in the meantime, and working closely with the Australian government, several museums have been engaging in the repatriation process.
At the same time that the Tasmanian Aboriginal Centre delegation was in the UK to receive the cremation bundles from the British Museum, a delegation from the Australian government was also in the UK receiving 11 sets of remains from seven different institutions including the Wellcome Trust, the Manchester Museum and the Royal Albert Memorial Museum and Art Gallery, Exeter.
In the meantime, the UK museum community has kept up a positive dialogue with the Australian High Commission, which has been doing everything possible to explain the context for repatriation claims.
At the first meeting of the planned Human Remains Subject Specialist Network (SSN) in October, it was clear that UK museums are implementing the 2005 DCMS recommendations and many museums are involved in discussions over repatriation. We are positive about this process, but we would recommend that the Australian Aboriginal community and Australian authorities have a unified voice.
Staff of museums with human remains collections of any kind who would like to become involved in the SSN should contact me at the Museum of London.
Hedley Swain, convenor, Human Remains Subject Specialist Network
We were taken aback by statements quoted in your recent article about museum responses to claims for repatriation of human remains. We are concerned that the opinions quoted in the piece are misleading and are clearly at variance with the agreed framework for handling claims for repatriation of human remains set out in the 2005 DCMS publication, Guidance for the Care of Human Remains in Museums.
This guideline, which has been endorsed by organisations including the Museums Association and the Museums, Libraries and Archives Council, gives clear recommendations to museums and other institutions about best practice in dealing with claims regarding human remains.
It is not the intention of the DCMS framework that museums should not do '…anything less than finding a way to repatriate human remains' (Tristram Besterman), nor is it in keeping with these recommendations to '…encourage museums that return is the right thing to do' (Maurice Davies).
On the contrary, the DCMS guideline recommends that each claim for return of remains be assessed on its merits. Museums are expected to carefully assess enquiries from claimant communities by considering whether genealogical, religious or cultural affiliations would justify the return of human remains, and whether there are scientific, or other public interests that would countermand it.
By no means will the outcome of this process inevitably be repatriation. In contrast, quotations in your article imply that deaccessioning should be the gold standard for museums, which is likely to encourage these, and comparable institutions, to act in obvious breach of an agreed framework.
Museums which take time to consider the merits of a claim should not be accused of 'stalling', and we would hope for a clear statement of support from the Museums Journal for those who handle claims by adhering to the DCMS guideline.
Holger Schutkowski, chairman of the committee, the British Association for Biological Anthropology and Osteoarchaeology
New museum will put Wilberforce in context
The Understanding Slavery article in November (Museums Journal November 2006, p24-29) raised a number of important issues in the debate around 2007. Ruth Dass makes the valid point that each city has taken a personal approach to the subject of slavery and that Hull will focus on William Wilberforce and his role in the parliamentary campaign to abolish the slave trade.
However, I would like to add that while Hull is commemorating Wilberforce's role, the new museum development is putting his work in context with the many other abolitionists and resisters who were involved in abolition in the 18th and 19th century.
The new Wilberforce Museum, which opens on the 25 March 2007 (the anniversary of the act), also explores other issues relating to West Africa during transatlantic slavery, contemporary slavery, human rights, legacy, disinheritance, reparations and focuses on the local community in Hull.
Innovative interpretative techniques, contemporary collecting and close work with black and minority ethnic groups and access organisations in the city have enabled the museum project to present many hidden narratives and histories, and to present a multi-faceted view of slavery and abolition compared with previous 1980s displays. The project aims to make slavery and abolition relevant to Hull and its visitors in 2007.
Jayne Tyler, lead officer, Wilberforce Museum Project, Hull Museums
Determination can get you a job
In response to Daniel Milford-Cottam's letter on the need for a programme to help people with disabilities enter the profession (Museums Journal November 2006, p12). I also have an unseen disability, but have not had any problems gaining entry-level jobs at a major museum in the South West. I now work in a different, allied sector, but this was my personal choice.
An unseen disability can create problems in gaining employment - both the inconvenience and financial expenditure required to accommodate the individual's needs can be issues for employers. However, I suspect the issue here is not disability.
Rather, there are often many people who are 'perfect' for the job, but with the current flood of graduates and people with voluntary experience, it is inevitable some will not make it through the application process.
Becoming angry with the system will not help you to get on the career ladder. Please either turn the experience into a positive and become even more determined to get into the profession or choose another profession with more jobs and fewer qualified candidates.
Jenny Wheeler, archaeologist, Exeter
I was surprised to see my letter had appeared in the latest issue of Museums Journal. Quite a lot has happened since it was written in the summer.
A short while after I wrote the letter I attended an interview at the Victoria and Albert Museum, for a place on its assistant curator development programme. I saw this job advertised in Museums Journal. My interview took place in August, and I started work in September.
While I still stand by what I wrote, I felt that you should know about the change in my circumstances.
Daniel Milford-Cottam, assistant curator, furniture, textiles and fashion, Victoria and Albert Museum, London
Daniel Milford-Cottam is right when he says that initiatives such as Diversify need to look at other under-represented groups, such as those with disabilities. It has always been the MA's desire to broaden schemes such as Diversify, and thanks to a grant from the now disbanded Museums and Galleries Disability Association, we will undertake some research and hopefully pilot an initiative to support increasing the number of people with disabilities working in the sector.
Caitlin Griffiths, adviser: professional issues, Museums Association
Fitzwilliam Chinese vases are not restored
My colleagues and I were surprised to read in the article on access that the Fitzwilliam's three Chinese porcelain vases that were broken by a visitor 'have returned to open display - but with a protective barrier' (Museums Journal November 2006, p17).
So far, only one vase has been conserved and it is temporarily displayed in a substantial case in Gallery 17. The other two vases are still undergoing conservation and we hope to have them back in a couple of weeks.
A final decision has yet to be made about their ultimate location, and the means of displaying them securely, while giving the public access to them. The article seems to have assumed that one of the possibilities was a fact.
We are concerned that this article may result in members of the profession and others making journeys to Cambridge to see the vases, and being disappointed at only seeing one, albeit one most excellently conserved.
Julia Poole, keeper, department of applied art, Fitzwilliam Museum, Cambridge
Manchester's botanical specimens matter
The final column of the profile of me (Museums Journal October 2006, p27) gives the impression that I said that the Manchester Museum's botanical specimens, the Linnaeus and Darwin material, and the Petrie-excavated archaeological material are some of the less important collections.
This is actually the opposite of the case - they are among the most significant of all our Designated collections. Given that I recently spoke about sustainability in museum collections, and the need for some disposal, I would not want to be misunderstood!
Nick Merriman, director, Manchester Museum
It is a shame that your articles in October (Museums Journal October 2006, p7) and November (Museums Journal November 2006, p34-37) did not present a fuller picture of the current activity concerning repatriation claims.
The part of the 2004 Human Tissue Act that allows national museums to repatriate human remains only came into force in October 2005. The guidance issued by the Department for Culture, Media and Sport (DCMS) to accompany it requires museums to prepare and make public, policies and information on their human remains holdings.
It was always felt that for larger institutions this process might take about one year, and this has been the case. However, in the meantime, and working closely with the Australian government, several museums have been engaging in the repatriation process.
At the same time that the Tasmanian Aboriginal Centre delegation was in the UK to receive the cremation bundles from the British Museum, a delegation from the Australian government was also in the UK receiving 11 sets of remains from seven different institutions including the Wellcome Trust, the Manchester Museum and the Royal Albert Memorial Museum and Art Gallery, Exeter.
In the meantime, the UK museum community has kept up a positive dialogue with the Australian High Commission, which has been doing everything possible to explain the context for repatriation claims.
At the first meeting of the planned Human Remains Subject Specialist Network (SSN) in October, it was clear that UK museums are implementing the 2005 DCMS recommendations and many museums are involved in discussions over repatriation. We are positive about this process, but we would recommend that the Australian Aboriginal community and Australian authorities have a unified voice.
Staff of museums with human remains collections of any kind who would like to become involved in the SSN should contact me at the Museum of London.
Hedley Swain, convenor, Human Remains Subject Specialist Network
We were taken aback by statements quoted in your recent article about museum responses to claims for repatriation of human remains. We are concerned that the opinions quoted in the piece are misleading and are clearly at variance with the agreed framework for handling claims for repatriation of human remains set out in the 2005 DCMS publication, Guidance for the Care of Human Remains in Museums.
This guideline, which has been endorsed by organisations including the Museums Association and the Museums, Libraries and Archives Council, gives clear recommendations to museums and other institutions about best practice in dealing with claims regarding human remains.
It is not the intention of the DCMS framework that museums should not do '…anything less than finding a way to repatriate human remains' (Tristram Besterman), nor is it in keeping with these recommendations to '…encourage museums that return is the right thing to do' (Maurice Davies).
On the contrary, the DCMS guideline recommends that each claim for return of remains be assessed on its merits. Museums are expected to carefully assess enquiries from claimant communities by considering whether genealogical, religious or cultural affiliations would justify the return of human remains, and whether there are scientific, or other public interests that would countermand it.
By no means will the outcome of this process inevitably be repatriation. In contrast, quotations in your article imply that deaccessioning should be the gold standard for museums, which is likely to encourage these, and comparable institutions, to act in obvious breach of an agreed framework.
Museums which take time to consider the merits of a claim should not be accused of 'stalling', and we would hope for a clear statement of support from the Museums Journal for those who handle claims by adhering to the DCMS guideline.
Holger Schutkowski, chairman of the committee, the British Association for Biological Anthropology and Osteoarchaeology
New museum will put Wilberforce in context
The Understanding Slavery article in November (Museums Journal November 2006, p24-29) raised a number of important issues in the debate around 2007. Ruth Dass makes the valid point that each city has taken a personal approach to the subject of slavery and that Hull will focus on William Wilberforce and his role in the parliamentary campaign to abolish the slave trade.
However, I would like to add that while Hull is commemorating Wilberforce's role, the new museum development is putting his work in context with the many other abolitionists and resisters who were involved in abolition in the 18th and 19th century.
The new Wilberforce Museum, which opens on the 25 March 2007 (the anniversary of the act), also explores other issues relating to West Africa during transatlantic slavery, contemporary slavery, human rights, legacy, disinheritance, reparations and focuses on the local community in Hull.
Innovative interpretative techniques, contemporary collecting and close work with black and minority ethnic groups and access organisations in the city have enabled the museum project to present many hidden narratives and histories, and to present a multi-faceted view of slavery and abolition compared with previous 1980s displays. The project aims to make slavery and abolition relevant to Hull and its visitors in 2007.
Jayne Tyler, lead officer, Wilberforce Museum Project, Hull Museums
Determination can get you a job
In response to Daniel Milford-Cottam's letter on the need for a programme to help people with disabilities enter the profession (Museums Journal November 2006, p12). I also have an unseen disability, but have not had any problems gaining entry-level jobs at a major museum in the South West. I now work in a different, allied sector, but this was my personal choice.
An unseen disability can create problems in gaining employment - both the inconvenience and financial expenditure required to accommodate the individual's needs can be issues for employers. However, I suspect the issue here is not disability.
Rather, there are often many people who are 'perfect' for the job, but with the current flood of graduates and people with voluntary experience, it is inevitable some will not make it through the application process.
Becoming angry with the system will not help you to get on the career ladder. Please either turn the experience into a positive and become even more determined to get into the profession or choose another profession with more jobs and fewer qualified candidates.
Jenny Wheeler, archaeologist, Exeter
I was surprised to see my letter had appeared in the latest issue of Museums Journal. Quite a lot has happened since it was written in the summer.
A short while after I wrote the letter I attended an interview at the Victoria and Albert Museum, for a place on its assistant curator development programme. I saw this job advertised in Museums Journal. My interview took place in August, and I started work in September.
While I still stand by what I wrote, I felt that you should know about the change in my circumstances.
Daniel Milford-Cottam, assistant curator, furniture, textiles and fashion, Victoria and Albert Museum, London
Daniel Milford-Cottam is right when he says that initiatives such as Diversify need to look at other under-represented groups, such as those with disabilities. It has always been the MA's desire to broaden schemes such as Diversify, and thanks to a grant from the now disbanded Museums and Galleries Disability Association, we will undertake some research and hopefully pilot an initiative to support increasing the number of people with disabilities working in the sector.
Caitlin Griffiths, adviser: professional issues, Museums Association
Fitzwilliam Chinese vases are not restored
My colleagues and I were surprised to read in the article on access that the Fitzwilliam's three Chinese porcelain vases that were broken by a visitor 'have returned to open display - but with a protective barrier' (Museums Journal November 2006, p17).
So far, only one vase has been conserved and it is temporarily displayed in a substantial case in Gallery 17. The other two vases are still undergoing conservation and we hope to have them back in a couple of weeks.
A final decision has yet to be made about their ultimate location, and the means of displaying them securely, while giving the public access to them. The article seems to have assumed that one of the possibilities was a fact.
We are concerned that this article may result in members of the profession and others making journeys to Cambridge to see the vases, and being disappointed at only seeing one, albeit one most excellently conserved.
Julia Poole, keeper, department of applied art, Fitzwilliam Museum, Cambridge
Manchester's botanical specimens matter
The final column of the profile of me (Museums Journal October 2006, p27) gives the impression that I said that the Manchester Museum's botanical specimens, the Linnaeus and Darwin material, and the Petrie-excavated archaeological material are some of the less important collections.
This is actually the opposite of the case - they are among the most significant of all our Designated collections. Given that I recently spoke about sustainability in museum collections, and the need for some disposal, I would not want to be misunderstood!
Nick Merriman, director, Manchester Museum
