Documentation

The Theoretical and Legal Framework

Over roughly the last forty years, the acquisition, holding and display of human remains in museums has become a problem. The term covers various kinds of remains: entire bodies (skeletons and mummies), objects containing isolated bones, but also other elements (nails, skin and, above all, hair) which in Europe are not felt to refer directly to the human body but are in other cultures. Even as the remains of a body, they retain their human essence.

Some indigenous people contest the presence of human remains in museum collections and claim their return, along with objects considered to be an important part of their heritage. Aware of the political, identity, cultural and social stakes involved in the representation of their culture in a museum, they wish to be no longer merely spectators, but active players, who claim the right to speak about themselves and their heritage. This is the result of movements of indigenous people, who, in the aftermath of decolonisation, wanted to take real control over their image and the way they are presented.

Following these claims, a number of countries, particularly Anglo-Saxon countries, have redefined and adapted their laws to respond to requests for return, propose responsible practices in the management of human remains and enable museums and indigenous communities to begin discussions and collaboration.

In the United States, for example, the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA) passed on 16 November 1990, recognises the right of Native American peoples to claim the return of human remains and certain categories of objects for which early ownership or ascendance can be established.

In Australia, an eloquently named report, Previous Positions, New Obligations: Policies from Museums in Australia and Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Peoples, was published by the Council of Australian Museum Associations (CAMA 1993). Revised in 2005 under the name Continuing Cultures, Ongoing Responsibilities, this document recognises the right to self-determination of the first peoples of Australia in respect of their cultural heritage, proposes a new code of ethics to guide the work of museums holding ethnographic collections and aims to found new partnerships between museums and indigenous peoples. After consultation with Aborigines, certain objects and certain human remains were excluded from exhibition because they were reclassified by the representatives of the source communities as “culturally sensitive”.

In the United Kingdom, by the end of the 1990s considerable thought had been given to the same questions. In 2004, the Human Tissue Act was voted to allow museums to consider requests for the return of human remains. The 2005 publication Guidance for the Care of Human Remains in Museums laid down the criteria to be taken into account in examining requests for return: the status of those making the request, the cultural, religious and spiritual significance of the human remains concerned, their age, the way they came into the collection, their status within the museum, their scientific, historical or educational value, the uses they may have been put to in the past, their future in the case of return, possible alternatives to return, etc.

Similarly, the ICOM (International Council of Museums) Code of Ethics, revised in October 2006, laid down the general principles on which the international museum community had come to an agreement. As regards human remains, it states that museums may keep and present them, in the same way as sensitive materials, but under certain conditions, and that they must be “displayed in a manner consistent with professional standards and, where known, taking into account the interests and beliefs of members of the community, ethnic or religious groups from whom the objects originated. They must be presented with great tact and respect for the feelings of human dignity held by all peoples” (ICOM 2006: 4.3). In case of disagreement, requests for removal from public display by the originating communities must be treated “with respect and sensitivity” (ICOM 2006: 4:4).

Human Remains in the MEG’S Permanent Exhibition

In the 19th century, human remains were collected in order to explain the evolution of mankind. Objects composed of human remains were collected in unequal situations such as plunder, illegal trade and theft. Today there are a few human remains in ethnographic museums, but enough for the problem to be raised. In the last few years, the requests for the return of Maori mummified heads (toi moko) have made international headlines. The MEG, for example, had one mummified head in its collections, which it was asked to return. The head was sent to the Museum of New Zealand Te Papa Tongarewa on permanent loan in 1992, and was officially returned in 2014.

Several objects composed entirely or partly of human remains are on display in the MEG’s permanent exhibition. Their presence is justified by the fundamental aspect of their ritual use in the societies in which they originated. Such items provide the keys to understanding the cultures which produced them. In the interests of transparency, they are accompanied by explanations about their significance and function, the conditions under which they were acquired and the context in which they were used.

The MEG has tried to be proactive rather than reactive by avoiding displaying ethnographic pieces containing human remains from communities who might feel offended by such an approach. However, considering current changes and the discussions in progress in this very delicate field, what is considered acceptable today may no longer be so tomorrow. The museum is therefore prepared to enter into discussions on an equal footing with the communities in which the human remains originated. This symbolic act, expressing the respect owed to indigenous peoples, is part of the ethical approach that the MEG wishes to pursue.

Bibliography

• Bray, Tamara. 2001. The Future of the Past: Archaeologists, Native Americans and Repatriation. London, New York: Routledge.
• Cadot, Laure. 2007. «Les restes humains: une gageure pour les musées?». La Lettre de l’OCIM 109: 4-15, http://ocim.revues.org/800.
• Council of Australian Museum Associations. 1993. Previous Possessions, New Obligations: Policies for Museums in Australia and Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Peoples. Melbourne, Council of Australian Museums Association.
• Department for Culture, Media and Sport. 2005. Guidance for the Care of Human Remains in Museums. London: DCMS, https://www.britishmuseum.org/pdf/DCMS%20Guide.pdf.
• Des collections anatomiques aux objets de culte: Conservation et exposition des restes humains dans les musées. Actes du colloque. Musée du Quai Branly, 22-23 février 2009, http://www.quaibranly.fr/fileadmin/user_upload/pdf/Version_Francaise_Symposium_Restes_Humains.pdf.
• Fforde, Cressida; Jane Hubert and Paul Turnbull (eds.). 2002. The Dead and their Possessions: Repatriation in Principle, Policy and Practice. London, New York: Routledge.
• Hicks, Megan (ed.). 2001. Exhibiting Human Remains: a Provocative Seminar. Sydney: Health & Medicine Museums.

---