The most significant legal aspects are the legal changes in the major countries involved in repatriation requests and those in European countries, including the UK, that deal with international requests for return. The chapter also looks at how countries such as the US that have a legal framework for national returns deal with international requests and how these processes differ from those internal repatriations. The chapter also examines the more general laws pertaining to human remains, from burial laws to laws dealing with very recent remains concerning donations of bodies to science and medicine, licensing of the display of recent human remains and methods of acquisition by museums of the recently dead.

Current views on repatriation are discussed along with the types of events that can lead to a change in perspective, why these events were so important and how changes were made. The role of dialogue is explored and how building mutual trust is essential. A case study based on the experiences of the author while working at the NHM is detailed to show the evolution of such changes.

Modern best practice in caring for human remains is explored in this chapter. The chapter gives the context of the various guidance documents produced in different countries. It covers whether the country in question has one rule for all remains or whether remains are treated differently depending on differing circumstances, for example,the age of the remains – broadly the recently dead or the ancient dead – the origin of the remains and the usage of the remains. The processes necessary to follow in respect of curation of remains that are claimed for return are also considered here.

This chapter looks at collaboration between communities, museums, universities and other institutions. This collaboration is happening in many places and has roots in the beginnings of the repatriation movements. It is important that we move from indigenous people being the subject of a research project, exhibition or other activity to one in which they are full partners and in which their views hold equal weight with others forming the team.

The issue of reburial versus keeping places is important, as keeping places allow for the possibility of future access to remains. These issues are explored in this chapter. Many communities are now moving away from the view that they want to put remains beyond the reach of science and are beginning to understand how human remains can help both their own communities and the wider world. It also shows how the academic community has changed its views in general and is more able to understand the view of indigenous peoples when they want control of the remains.

The history of how and why remains came to be in museums is important in understanding the points of view of both the scientific and claimant communities. Many remains within museums were collected under conditions that today we would find abhorrent and unethical. It is important to understand this process and that even when such remains seemed legitimate in their acquisition in the past, those from former colonial countries have to be viewed through the unequal power dynamics at the time. For a variety of reasons there may be limited knowledge of the acquisition stories of the remains the museums use in research or care for, the knowledge can be shocking and change the perspective of the staff involved. This is usually because this information has not been included in the basic record of the remains or is outside the information passed from curator to curator. There is a belief from those outside museums, from researchers to indigenous communities, that the records within a museum are complete and fully accurate. However, if information is missing, altered or misrepresented then errors will exist, often without the current curators being aware of this.

One aspect that most museums and claimants would agree on is that it is important that only remains associated with the claimant community are considered for return. This highlights the importance of proper provenance of remains, which is examined in this chapter. The chapter looks at the problems inherent in provenancing remains and how these problems may be overcome. It also describes the approach taken in several major institutions in different countries to provenance and how a consensus view is beginning to emerge.

The Introduction presents an overview of the book and an outline of the contents of each chapter. It suggests the chapters which are best read together for a fuller understanding and gives definitions of some of the terms used. For example, it is suggested that museums be used as a catch-all for any institution holding human remains.

The volume also looks at whether it is possible to take account of other belief systems when caring for remains and how this might work. Chapter 6 gives examples of how this has been attempted and explores what taking account of other beliefs might mean in the future. The importance of giving regard to the beliefs of others is examined. This is important if collaborative research is to be undertaken with indigenous communities.

The main areas of research which involve human remains today are detailed and a brief history of how remains have been incorporated into osteological studies in the past is considered. One important aspect of the research undertaken today with human remains is that it often has real-world applications. Rather than being driven purely by academic curiosity, which in the past looked for similarities and differences in remains, today researchers try to answer specific scientific questions. These can range from a better understanding of how children grow and develop, the effects of disease on bones, how our activities can shape our skeletons and looking for disease vectors and parasites in the remains themselves. The chapter also looks at the many different techniques used to examine remains, ranging from the well-known traditional methods to newer more high-tech techniques. The chapter gives examples of the real-world issues that museum collections of human remains have addressed. It also highlights problems inherent in working with human remains and the changes in attitude to providing access for scientific research that have occurred in recent years.

Working with human remains raises a host of ethical issues. This chapter explores whether there is a universal ethical approach to human remains or whether this idea is so general as to be little more than a broad statement. The chapter also provides a more general introduction to ethics. It is essential to have a good understanding of what this discipline actually means if curators and researchers are to act in truly ethical ways. In the literature discussing human remains there are only a few examples where general ethical principles are addressed. Most gloss over this aspect as if this understanding is a given. It is not. Many people, both involved in working with remains or not, have at best a sketchy understanding of ethics, yet we as academics and museum professionals are expected to draw up ethical codes and statements, which if they are to be more than a box-ticking exercise must be based on a firm understanding of the issues.

The history of the repatriation movements in the major claimant countries is detailed in this chapter. The drivers for communities to begin to ask for return of remains are discussed and similarities and differences between distinct communities examined. Some landmark repatriation claims are examined in this context and the role of third parties and activists are examined. Major cases of returns from former colonial powers are also examined to see how these were originally dealt with and what lessons were learnt.

Introduction

This volume is an attempt to clarify the current thinking on how we in museums, universities and other repositories that hold human remains care for and address the myriad issues that surround human remains. There has in the past been a lack of emphasis on what caring for human remains entails, which has given rise to the erroneous view that human remains in museums sit unused or unresearched on dusty shelves. We have in the past been too self-deprecating and reticent to really discuss what we do. This reluctance has to some extent led to the views expressed by the Working Group on Human Remains chaired by Norman Palmer (DCMs 2003). This viewpoint, often perpetuated by our fellow academics who have acted as consultants to communities, has also been fed to claimant communities who want remains returned from museum collections. These advisers have sometimes based this view on small local collections known to them and then extrapolated this to national collections; many of them neither engage in the care and curation of, nor undertake research on, human remains. The view is also convenient for calling into question why remains are in museums or other collections. This is not to say that the question should not be asked but that we as the specialists should be less reluctant to answer these questions and should quietly and carefully highlight the importance of the remains and the contribution they can make to our knowledge and understanding of the human condition, both in the past and present.