Letters

Following the return of human remains from UK museums to former colonial territories such as Australia, North America and most recently the Torres Strait Islands, isn’t it about time that the Royal College of Surgeons of England’s Hunterian Museum in London appropriately disposed of the remains of the so-called Irish Giant, Charles Byrne?

It is distressing that Byrne’s skeleton continues to be exhibited with complete disregard for his wishes. Contemporary reports indicate that Byrne had such strong objection to his body being bought by surgeons that he requested to be buried at sea.

[The museum’s founder] John Hunter’s purchase of Byrne’s remains was illegal, so the ownership of those remains by the museum is not beyond dispute. There have been many calls for the return of Byrne’s remains to Ireland, all ignored.

Furthermore, the display of Charles Byrne’s remains seems to have more to do with commercial than educational benefit: his skeleton is publicised on numerous websites as one of the collection’s must-see oddities.

And visitor feedback – particularly from paid-for tours, which identify the skeleton alongside all the other “freaky” animal specimens – focus on what was learned about the price paid for Byrne’s body, rather than any scientific enlightenment.

It has been claimed – as with the remains of other colonised peoples hitherto held and exhibited in UK museums – that there is potential benefit to medical science in studying Byrne’s remains.

However, if we accept this (and some reports suggest that modern “breakthrough” studies have merely confirmed 18th-century autopsy findings), surely retaining samples of DNA material is sufficient? And even if it could be argued that it was essential to retain the whole skeleton, is it necessary to display it?

To take the example of human remains recovered from archaeological excavations: there is a legal obligation for these to be reburied with appropriate religious observances, within an appropriate timeframe.

Surely, museums should adopt similar standards, and the Hunterian should return Charles Byrne’s remains to Ireland for burial?

And then maybe someone better-informed than me can start campaigning for the removal of the remains of poor Caroline Crachami, the dwarf whose remains I believe are displayed alongside Charles Byrne’s.

Sorcha Ní Fóghlúda, London


I am dismayed by the extent to which Rachel Souhami has missed the point of the exhibition that she reviewed at the Fusilier Museum in the Tower of London.

We worked for four years with the museum on a carefully considered development project that unlocked and digitised its previously inaccessible archive to make the most unique aspects of this and the collection accessible.

The museum exhibition and a raft of learning activities associated with it were developed with target audiences firmly in mind. This included the existing 2.5 million visitors to the tower each year and members of the local community who have strong links with the regiment.

The exhibition space is confined to three small rooms and has been augmented by an additional room where the previously unseen collection of 2,000 medals – including 12 original VCs – has been displayed.

The former exhibition was a maze, papered with densely worded graphic panels, and may well have contained the broader view of military social and political history that Souhami was seeking. Unfortunately, very few of the 2.5 million visitors to the tower chose to pay an extra £1 to go in.

The exhibition now reveals the building and its use as a working regimental headquarters also tells the story of the regiment’s 400-year occupation of the tower. It is reaching local schoolchildren, young people and the wider community; it has received excellent visitor feedback.

This innovative project is an object lesson in a small regimental museum widening its audiences and securing its future. If Souhami wants to know about the wider context of military, social or political history, she should buy a book or go the National Army Museum – it’s only four miles away.

Rosemary Allen, director, Headland Design, Chester

Fusilier Museum review, MJ December 2011


We read with interest the news article: Sector worried by loss of natural history expertise.

The Social History Curators’ Group is aware that recent staff cuts have meant that many of our members are now taking on additional responsibilities to manage and care for collections, including natural history, geology and archaeology.

In response to this we have organised a seminar: More than just Fossils? A Geology Masterclass for Social History Curators. This seminar will be led by David Gelsthorpe, the curator of earth science collections at Manchester Museum on 20 April 2012.

The course will cover collections care, basic identification and how to use geology collections, particularly within a social history context.

This is not a solution to the loss of curatorial expertise in these area but it will enable social history curators who find themselves responsible for curating unfamiliar collections to feel more confident about caring for and using these collections.

The seminar is also open to non-members. For further information, please visit www.shcg.org.uk or email: jenbrown@aberdeencity.gov.uk.

Jennifer Broadbent and Jenny Brown, Social History Curators’ Group seminar organisers

Sector worried about loss of natural history expertise, MJ December 2011


In view of the ever-rising cost of storing material from archaeological excavations, we have given serious consideration to the idea of burying a large amount of archaeological material that has been taken in over the past 100 years, but never looked at, in a public park or car park.

The reasons for this approach to archaeological storage are manifold, and include the developer of a site being unwilling to fund the true cost of storage: not £100 a box, but £1,000-plus.

Moreover, a strange notion has developed that once an item has been buried in the ground and subsequently excavated, it has acquired near-mystical status, which means it has to be stored in museums.

There is an apparent disconnect between archaeologists who excavate the material and the recipient museum, relying on the council tax payer to pay for the storage of the material.

What other discipline likes to be paid to excavate and then requires another body to pay for long-term storage of those finds, so that another member of the same discipline might look at the material on occasion?

Most museums would willingly take in items that can be put on display, but box after box of pottery fragments from pipelines and housing developments are being buried in museum storerooms.

Reburial as an option is not neglecting the archaeology, but rather transforming long-term storage costs into a sustainable option.

We would like a genuine discussion among museum professionals about the issues surrounding the storage of archaeology finds and would welcome comments about this proposal.

Jeremy Knight, museum and heritage manager, Horsham District Council, West Sussex


The shelter that Steve Davis’s letter refers to in November’s review of Once Upon A Wartime exhibition at the Imperial War Museums (IWM), London, is a fortress built by children featured in Robert Westall’s book, The Machine Gunners.

Westall references the use of metal sections from two different shelters and describes the fortress as “an intricate network of trenches, tunnels and underground bunkers”. This description allowed the exhibition designers to apply a creative approach to this part of the exhibition, rather than reproducing an Anderson shelter.

Sarah Gilbert, head of exhibitions, Imperial War Museums, London

Letters, MJ November 2011

• Helen Weinstein investigates the relationship between museums and the big society
• Who’s doing what for Dickens 2012? Deborah Mulhearn finds out
• Simon Stephens profiles Ian Blatchford, the director of the National Museum of Science and Industry
• Reviews: Scottish National Portrait Gallery, Edinburgh; Dickens in London, Museum of London; Ancient Egypt and Nubia Galleries, Ashmolean Museum, Oxford
• Plus news, comment, letters, jobs and more
  

The January issue of Museum Practice looks at museum catering, from cafes and restaurants to corporate events and weddings. Appointing caterers and picking the right business model will be examined, as will sustainability issues.