The recent Tasmanian Aboriginal Centre claim
for human remains held by the Natural History Museum, London

January 2007

The British Association for Biological Anthropology and Osteology (BABAO) represents scholars and practitioners in the field of human osteology from across the University, Museum and Archaeological Field Unit sectors, and promotes the study of human remains of past peoples. We strongly endorse the scientific study of human remains. However we acknowledge that in some cases of contested remains, repatriation may be more appropriate than continued retention. We, along with most other organisations in the sector, support the criteria for handling cases of contested remains set out in the recent Government guideline (Guidance for the Care of Human Remains in Museums, DCMS 2005).

Recently, in response to a claim by the Tasmanian Aboriginal Centre (TAC) the Board of Trustees of the National History Museum (NHM) decided to return Tasmanian remains for repatriation and reburial. Whilst we applaud the openness with which this case was outlined on the NHM website, we are troubled about a number of aspects of the way in which the case was handled. This is the first high-profile case of a claim for human remains since the publication of the DCMS guidelines, and as such may set a precedent for how similar cases are handled in future. This increases our concern at what we perceive as flaws in the way in which it was handled. We set out our areas of concern more specifically below.

We feel that the way in which the NHM has treated this case violates the principles laid out in the 2005 DCMS guideline in important respects.

1) The case-by-case approach

Section 3.1 of the Guidance (DCMS 2005, p. 23) makes it clear that ‚"Requests concerning the appropriate care or return of particular human remains should be resolved by individual museums on a case-by-case basis." This approach was not taken in this case. The skeletal remains of the 17 indigenous Tasmanians concerned were dealt with en bloc, despite the fact they were a rather disparate group. of material containing at least four sub-groups: some that were acquired originally by the British Museum, some that were subsumed from the collection of the Royal College of Surgeons, some from the Pitt Rivers Museum, Oxford, and some acquired from the Wellcome Trust and others. The strength of TAC‚Äôs claim seems to be greater for some of the remains than for others, but despite this, the NHM dealt with the remains under a single claim put forward by the TAC.

2) Genealogical links

Section 3.3.2A (DCMS 2005, p. 26) deals with the status of those making the request and their continuity with remains: "Geneaological Descendants: If individuals can demonstrate a direct and close genealogical link, their wishes would generally be given very strong weight. However, consideration should be given as to whether they are the only people in this category and if they are not, whether there was any risk of harm to others in this category if the request being made was granted. Museums will need to take care to verify that the group. they are dealing with is the only potential claimant, or that, if it is not, the other potential claimants support them."

Applied to the Tasmanian remains in question two difficulties arise. Firstly, the direct indigenous Tasmanian bloodline, which was characteristic of an isolated island gene pool, sadly came to an end during the 19th century and therefore there are problems of claiming to be descendants of this group. Secondly, the TAC gloss over this remote and diluted ancestry. The TAC is a pressure group, driven by and representing solely about 450 of the "Palawa" branch of those in Tasmania who claim Aboriginal descent, whereas the majority of the 5,000 "Aboriginals" resident in Tasmania come from the "Lia Pootah" people. It may be invidious to presume which of these groups, if either, have the right to claim direct descent from the now extinct indigenous Tasmanian peoples. It certainly seems questionable for the TAC, as a small, self-selected and unrepresentative group, to claim the sole right for making claims upon supposed ancestral remains.

The NHM has neglected DCMS policy recommendations by dealing with this minority within a minority, albeit a vociferous one. The NHM do not appear to have considered the fact that there are potential rival claimants who may have a superior claim to the disputed remains and to whom they were risking causing harm by acceding to the TAC claim.

3) Cultural, spiritual and religious significance of remains

Section 3.3.2B (DCMS 2005, p. 27) states that "Demonstration through 'strong continuous, cultural, spiritual or religious significance' of particular human remains, will add weight to a claim." In the Tasmanian Aboriginal Centre Submission to the Trustees of the Natural History Museum for the repatriation of Tasmanian Aboriginal Human Remains (12 October 2006) no such case for the claimant community's continuity of religious or cultural practice is made. Instead, it concentrates on the supposed wrongs of the past that may have resulted in some of the contested Tasmanian remains reaching the Museum. Indeed, the TAC maintains that "it is deeply offensive to require Aboriginal claimants to demonstrate to the satisfaction of museum officials the significance to our people of the remains of our ancestral dead" (TAC Submission 2006, p. 6), and furthermore, "The imposition of the Guidance for the Care of Human Remains in Museums criteria on the repatriation process, where no clear direction is given to facilitate the direct return of remains, is one recent instance of this continuing imbalance of power" (TAC Submission 2006, p. 4).

The absence of a discussion of religious continuity is compounded by the intention that upon arrival in Tasmania the remains of all 17 individuals will be destroyed by cremation. Bearing in mind that cremation was only ever a minority burial rite in Tasmania and was performed chiefly to furnish the "bundles" that some Tasmanian Aborigines carried as "talismans", this would certainly be at variance with acknowledging the "spiritual and religious significance of the remains". By suggesting cremation of the remains one must assume that the TAC are insensitive enough to the religious beliefs of their claimed ancestors that they are going to wilfully subject them to an alien funerary custom - cremation was only introduced into Tasmania in 1905 - that would have been abhorrent to them. In connection with point 2, above, one also wonders whether other Tasmanian Aboriginal groups would be offended by this.

4) The scientific, educational and historical value of the remains to the museum and the public

In compliance with Section 3.3.2F of the document (DCMS 2005, p. 28) scientists at the Natural History Museum submitted to NHM Human Remains Advisory Panel (NMHHRAP) a detailed analysis of the Tasmanian skeletal remains concerned, their history, the type of research that had been performed upon them and their research potential (Report on NHM Human Remains from Tasmania, 6 October 2006).

Unfortunately, much of this effort appears to have gone to waste. The NHMHRAP, which considered this document along with the TAC claim did not, although quorate, represent the full range of specialisms required within its own terms of reference, viz. that "he Panel should have a range of expertise and experience to allow the range the range of issues to be adequately considered. The membership. should be chosen to ensure the following coverage: physical anthropology; moral philosophy; ethnography; law; museum policy and practice; biomedicine, Membership of the Panel" (pp. 1-2). Instead, with a lawyer in the Chair, a social anthropologist, an ethicist and a fourth person who was both an ethicist and a lawyer, half of the required areas of expertise were not represented. In particular, without the presence of physical anthropologists the NHMHRAP was seriously imbalanced and was not properly constituted to consider the issue of the scientific value of the remains. Had experts from the fields of physical anthropology, osteoarchaeology, forensic anthropology and biomedicine been on the Panel they would have aided their fellow members by enabling expert debate on the research value of the skeletal collection. The NHMHRAP recommendation for a 3-month stay of execution in order that certain scientific data be collected is to be welcomed, but is of course no substitute for retention of this important research collection.

In the past, minor museums in the UK or larger museums who desired to divest themselves of individual Aboriginal remains they curated have voluntarily offered several skulls of indigenous Australian origin for repatriation. The case considered here was different. It is a high-profile "test case" which will inevitably establish precedent for future cases. As such, scrupulous adherence to agreed DCMS guidelines was of paramount importance. We are all on a fairly steep. learning curve as regards claims for human remains, but it does seem to us that the way this case was treated was at variance with some important principals laid out in the DCMS document, and the composition of the NHMHRAP which considered the case violated its own terms of reference.

We realise that it is rather too late to address these concerns regarding the Tasmanian case. However we seek reassurance that the NHM will treat future claims for repatriation of human remains according to the DCMS guidelines.We also urge the NHM to appoint one or more human osteologists to their HRAP. so that future claims can be assessed in a balanced way. BABAO would be happy to assist the Museum in locating suitable individuals.