Letters

Sorcha Ní Fóghlúda’s letter recommending the disposal of the skeleton of Charles Byrne, the “Irish Giant” is a welcome contribution to the discussion on these important human remains: some clarifications may enhance this dialogue.

Although it is unlikely he would have chosen to be dissected, there is no direct evidence of Byrne’s wishes.

Certainly there is no suggestion that John Hunter broke any law in acquiring Byrne’s body. Having inherited custody of the remains, the Royal College of Surgeons now seeks to balance any benefit of discarding the skeleton against the value of the remains to people alive today.

This tangible value is shown by a study published last year on the condition from which he suffered, Familial Isolated Pituitary Adenoma (FIPA), using DNA extracted from Byrne’s tooth.

Direct clinical benefits include a screening programme, and endocrinological interest continues. Individuals who live with FIPA and share an ancestor with Byrne have asked that the skeleton remains on display.

At London’s Hunterian Museum – a charity, open to the public and free to visit – Byrne’s skeleton is no longer juxtaposed with that of Caroline Crachami (who lived with primordial dwarfism), but rather demonstrates unusual bone growth in a calm and dignified exhibition.

No request to consider the retention of Byrne’s remains has been ignored, but rather each has been considered (and responded to in full). The case presented is compelling.

However, so too is the argument that, in accordance with the wishes of genetically connected individuals, Byrne’s remains be retained to advance our understanding of rare conditions and to benefit contemporary communities.

Sam Alberti, director of museums and archives, the Royal College of Surgeons of England

Letters, Museums Journal January 2012


It was interesting to see someone from the National Trust challenging whether free entry provides best value in trying to expand the base of access to museums.
 
The trust is so keen to help financially disadvantaged groups access its properties that it provides a discount to senior citizens of exactly 0%.

I’m guessing the National Trusts think all senior citizens have a gold-plated pension and drive around in BMWs. A substantial number of senior citizens suffer considerable hardship and a discount for them is provided by most purveyors of leisure activities to acknowledge this.

I do wonder at the level of understanding of Ben Cowell, the trust’s acting external affairs director, when he tosses in a phrase such as “I’d happily give a fiver to get in to the Victoria and Albert Museum – so why not charge me?”

Surely he is aware that the level of entry charges nowadays at major heritage attractions would suggest that a fiver is not going to be anywhere near enough to cover it once the philistines get their way and reinstate museum charges.

Kevin Flude, director, Old Operating Theatre Museum, London

Yes, of course, free entry to museums is worth celebrating and keeping. There should be no deterrent to visiting. We all know that parents visit, often dragged along by their eager children, at the weekends and during school holidays.

If they make repeat visits, what’s wrong with that? I defy anyone to think they can see and take in everything at any of the nationals on one visit.

Apart from many who already genuinely can’t afford “a fiver” each, there will soon be more of the “newly poor” who will be very thankful for somewhere interesting and worthwhile to take the kids.

There are, and always have been, plenty of people, myself included, who pop into a museum or gallery to see a favourite work of art or marvellous object – it raises the spirits, feeds the soul and we have all paid our taxes to help keep the doors open and to pay the curators’ salaries.

Rosemary Marsh, Cheshire

Head to head, Museums Journal January 2012


The letter from Jeremy Knight is very timely.
 
The Association of Local Government Archaeological Officers (ALGAO), Federation of Archaeological Managers & Employers (FAME) and Society of Museum Archaeologists (SMA) have recently joined forces to secure an English Heritage grant to launch a project – Evaluating Archaeological Archives – that will seek to examine all aspects of these now considerable collections.

This comes on the back of a seminar organised by FAME last July in York (Trouble in Store), the content of which can be viewed on its website http://www.famearchaeology.co.uk.

There is also a recently published joint “statement of intent” from the various bodies, pointing the way forward.

Briefly stated, Rachel Edwards, as the project officer for the initiative, will revisit earlier surveys of collecting areas (and non-collecting areas) by the SMA, bring them up to date, and add data about the amount of material currently held by commercial units.

The amount of research-use archives receive will also be investigated, as will ways in which greater public benefit can result from use of the material. 

If you have any responsibility for archaeological archives, do please make sure that you respond to the request for information by Edwards.

In the meantime, we won’t be burying anything. Archaeological archives are not mythical – except for the ones you can’t find, of course – but they are afforded a certain status once they’re accessioned.

It is a reversible process, however, and  we are hoping that this new survey will give us appropriate pointers, in all possible directions.

It’s true, there has been an “apparent disconnect” between many of the different bits of archaeology in the past, and now – more than ever – it’s time that we all worked together on this.

David Allen, keeper of archaeology, arts and museums, Hampshire County Council, and chairman, SMA, and Quinton Carroll, historic environment team manager, Cambridgeshire County Council, and chairman, Archaeology Archives Forum

Letters, Museums Journal January 2012


The photograph of the new interns at Museums Galleries Scotland seemed to me very emblematic of the present state of the profession.

A (presumably) fair selection process of 3,200 applicants apparently resulted in the selection of 17 young ladies and three lads.

When I first started in museums in the late 1970s, they seemed to be quite well populated with males.

Some of them were quirky and obsessive, some were puppyishly enthusiastic, others were ambitious and arrogant, but, together with their female contemporaries (many of whom had had to fight their way into male-dominated areas of research), they gave the profession a boundary-pushing diversity of intelligence that I feel it now lacks.

Where have all the boys gone and why do so few of them apparently aspire to work in museums?

Fred Hartley, keeper of collections, Leicestershire County Council Museums

All work and no pay, Museums Journal January 2012

Write to:
the editor, Museums Journal, 24 Calvin Street, London E1 6NW

Email:
journal@museumsassociation.org

Museums Journal reserves the right to edit letters