快猫短视频

MUSEUMS in the UK should be allowed to return their collections of human remains to their rightful owners, a government advisory panel has recommended. But one prominent member of the panel has broken ranks, saying proper consideration has not been given to the wider benefits to humanity that come from studying such collections.

The US and Australia have already taken significant, if controversial steps to repatriate human remains (快猫短视频, 31 May, p 12). In the UK, however, some institutions are legally prevented from returning artefacts to descendants in other countries. A panel of 12 experts has now published a report saying it is time those laws were changed.

The panel has effectively concluded that the desires of indigenous communities to reclaim their ancestors鈥� remains must take precedence over the rights of scientists to study them. The interests of museums and the country would be best served by 鈥渂eing seen to do the right thing鈥�, says Norman Palmer, chair of the panel and an expert in cultural property law at University College London. 鈥淚n many ways this is not about the repatriation of remains, but the repatriation of authority,鈥� he told 快猫短视频.

But panel member Neil Chalmers, director of the Natural History Museum in London, says that parts of the report are misguided, and has issued a 鈥淪tatement of Dissent鈥� outlining his concerns. While he supports a tough regulatory regime, along with a change in the law to allow museums to consider repatriation, he believes the report does not give sufficient weight to the scientific study of human remains. 鈥淭he report is slanted heavily, both in tone and substance, in favour of the [wishes of the claimant communities],鈥� he says.

The report鈥檚 most significant recommendation is that museums can only retain bones or perform research on them with permission from claimant communities. 快猫短视频s agree this is appropriate when bones are less than 100 years old, and come from people whose direct descendants may still be alive. But the Working Group on Human Remains鈥� Report goes further. It says it would be discriminatory to impose a western concept of ancestry on indigenous people, and recommends consent should be sought from cultural as well as direct descendants, such as representatives of the tribe from which the remains were taken. Even in cases where they are thousands of years old, researchers would have a duty to consult with a group claiming them.

Chalmers believes these proposals amount to granting claimant communities a veto over research, and that significant amounts of material will be lost to science once returned. 鈥淭his will do very significant damage to research programmes looking at the origins of humanity and our ability to combat disease.鈥�

Advocates of repatriation highlight inconsistencies with policies set up to deal with the aftermath of the Nazi holocaust. In April last year, funerals were held to lay to rest the organs of nearly 800 children kept for research by the Am Spiegelgrund Nazi euthanasia clinic in Vienna. No one argues these should have been kept against the families鈥� wishes, whatever the potential scientific benefits of studying them.

The UK also considers that the rightful owners of artwork looted during the second world war take precedence over any public benefit from keeping the items for research or display. Communities claiming human remains say that, if anything, their case is stronger.

Opponents argue that most museum specimens are different, because direct descendants cannot be identified. But indigenous people view their ancestors as part of the community, says Jane Hubert at St George鈥檚 Hospital in London, who campaigns for the return of human remains. 鈥淭o them, these are living people who are shut away in jars and boxes,鈥� she says. The panel鈥檚 report will be considered by the government鈥檚 Department of Culture, Media and Sport.