Along with the pressure on Western museums for the restitution and return of human remains, a great deal of discussion has also taken place concerning the restitution and return of natural sciences data and related materials to their countries of origin. The failure by most Western museums to make the data available in an easily accessible form has resulted in demands from some longer-established museums in other developed nations, for the restitution and return of primary materials. Such primary materials comprise type specimens and other important scientific material, published or unpublished. The term “secondary material” is generally considered to cover all other kinds of natural sciences material.

At a meeting of the International Council of Museums Natural History Committee (ICOM NatHist), held at the Museum of New Zealand Te Papa Tongarewa, in Wellington in November 2006, the issue of restitution and return of natural sciences material was discussed as part of a more general debate on taxidermy. The discussion highlighted the ethical and moral demands placed on museums and their staff when dealing with such requests.

MOVING THE GOALPOSTS?

Changing attitudes and philosophies by governments, institutions and even staff within museums highlight the moral and ethical issues surrounding any proposed changes to the status quo.

The issues surrounding the restitution and return of human remains highlighted some of the problems that can occur. A number of United Kingdom museums, universities and other institutions have returned human remains into the care of the Te Papa over the years, on the then understanding that these would be cared for within that institution, albeit subject to significant access restrictions. Changes in practice within New Zealand have recently challenged this understanding, not only regarding the final resting place of such human remains, but also in relation to the future ownership of Maori artefacts gifted back to Te Papa from Western sources. These changes in the philosophy regarding the ownership of material held within Te Papa seemed to many of us to go against the major principles of Western museum practices. If we understood the situation correctly, the institution holds the Maori material on behalf of the various private iwi communities, any one of which can withdraw the material temporarily, or even permanently.

NEW LEGISLATION IN THE UK

Part of the 2004 Human Tissue Act that allows national museums within the UK to repatriate human remains came into force in October 2005. Prior to this date it was difficult, if not impossible, for national museums to repatriate such material. Similarly any return of primary natural sciences material held within UK national museums would also require an Act of Parliament. The current funding arrangements and codes of practice governing other Accredited/Designated museums within the UK would also make the return of primary material very unlikely, and most within our institutions would say, undesirable.

QUESTIONS OF TRUST

In the case of secondary material, return would depend on the trust that could be developed between the donor museum and the recipient museum. All museum curators have a responsibility to try and ensure that the material held in their care is available, for research and educational purposes, for the next and future generations. The transfer of materials from one institution to another involves a great deal of trust if we are to ensure the safety, and ongoing availability, of such material in the future. No UK museum is likely to transfer material to an overseas institution if it is thought that such material would be: i.) transferred at a future date into the private sector; ii.) unavailable to themselves or others within the UK for research or loan; iii.) without guaranteed reciprocal arrangements for access to other research or display material.

The museum community should be an open community, allowing full access to material for research and display to all, within certain professional guidelines. In order to develop this open community we must be able to trust each other and our political masters. No institution will, or should, allow material to be transferred or loaned to another institution for any reason at all, where the recipient countries' political situation is such that the proper return (if on loan) or subsequent loan-back of such materials may be unreasonably restricted or stopped.

Without this trust in our fellow institutions and their political masters, no progress can ever be expected regarding this and similar issues.

With regard to the primary and secondary data held within collections housed in Western museums, technology will eventually make this available via the world wide web, for example, but the size of Western collections and the lack of knowledgeable staff within many of our institutions, due to lack of available funding, often places such projects well down the agenda.

If this data are required for specific research projects rather than just a generalised request, it is far more likely that, in the medium- or even short-term, the time and effort required to accede to these requests can be made available.

PDF

Te Ara - Journal of Museums Aotearoa; Volume 32; Issue 1 & 2; December 2007