AHRC Collaborative Doctoral Award
The Legacies of the Repatriation of Human Remains
Applications are invited for an AHRC CDA studentships commencing in autumn 2013 on ‘The Legacies of the Repatriation of Human Remains’ supervised by Dr Sam Alberti, Director of Museums and Archives at the Royal College of Surgeons, Dr Beth Greenhough, Geography, QMUL, and Professor Catherine Nash, Geography, QMUL.
Aims and Objectives
As the Hunterian Museum (HM)celebrates its bicentenary in 2013 it is keen to reflect on the current and future role of the museum’s collection of non-European remains in light of its colonial provenance. Despite the recent publicity given to its decision to decline a request to bury at sea the remains of Charles Byrne, known as the Irish Giant, the HM has in recent years returned human remains to Oceania. This reflects changes within museum policy, claimant community campaigns and wider concerns about the historical and recent use and storage of human remains and biological samples. Since the shift towards a more sympathetic approach to repatriation in 2001, the Royal College of Surgeons has returned a number of items.This doctoral project will enable the HM to enhance the knowledge base associated with its remaining non-European collection, further develop and revise its policies on the treatment and use of human remains, and contribute to policy making and professional development within the museum sector. It will provide resources and empirical evidence to inform future discussions around repatriation, the treatment of human remains retained within collections and the development of relations with communities to whom remains have been repatriated.
Using three examples of the repatriation of human remains by the HM, this project aims to understand the processes and legacies of repatriation for both the HM and the recipient communities. Specifically it will consider how, once the decision has been made to repatriate human remains, the process of repatriation is put into practice and what happens subsequently to repatriated remains. Advocates of repatriation suggest that the process fosters relationships and opportunities for knowledge exchange between museums and recipient communities. This project will investigate how and if those relationships have been developed and sustained. It will explore the impacts of repatriation, including the political and/or therapeutic benefits for claimant communities which provide a key rationale for repatriation decisions. Comparisons will be drawn between the cases of repatriation from the HM and the repatriation of human remains by the Natural History Musuem (NHM) to the Ngarrindjeri people in Australia, with whom the NHM has sustained an ongoing relationship. The NHM now houses human remains transferred from the HM in the twentieth century that have been or may be the subject of repatriation discussions, and the two museums work closely together.
Focusing on 3 case studies from Hawaii, mainland Australia and Tasmania, the project’s objectives are to:
1)better understand the process of repatriation, the different stakeholders involved and the practices and meanings of transporting human remains from an institutional context to a community one;
2)trace what happens to human remains once they are repatriated;
3)identify the impacts and legacies of repatriation on both the HM and their collection and on the recipient communities;
4)contribute to the HM collection knowledge base and promote the use of stored objects;
5)inform policy design and continuing professional development at the HM and associated organisations (e.g. UK medical collections group, human remains subject specialist network);
6)contribute to public and academic debates and scholarship concerned with the extraction, use and global circulation of human remains, biological and tissue samples.
Research Context and Questions
Debates over the repatriation of human remains held in museum collections have been extensive both within and beyond the museum community in the UK for thirty years. Such remains are often viewed as controversial in light of the conditions under which they were obtained, especially in the mid-nineteenth century when the body parts of colonised populations, such as those in Australia and America, were highly prized as resources for studying racial differences. Scholars offer vivid accounts of practices of grave-robbing and the lack of respect accorded to the bodies of the victims of colonial conflicts, as men of science sought to acquire prize specimens for their collections (MacDonald 2005). In spite of these debates, in actuality very few requests for repatriation have been made in the UK although notable examples include the NHM’s decision to transfer the skeletons of 17 Tasmanian Aboriginals from their collection to the Tasmanian Aboriginal Centre (TAC, a campaign group) in 2006. While some overseas claimant groups such as the TAC were vocal in seeking the repatriation of remains, pressure to ‘make-amends’ for the harms inflicted by colonial collecting practices also came from within the museum profession itself, including a shift from an emphasis on ownership, control and authority to a remit towards building relationships with communities. While initially conservative, responses to repatriation from the museum sector reflect a rapidly changing institutional landscape. Where once curators jealously guarded their role as protectors of important scientific artefacts, increasingly responses to requests to repatriation have become more favourable. The question of what is lost by museums not returning remains is increasingly debated. Furthermore, the Human Tissue Act (2004) removed the legal barriers to repatriation from national collections.
Motivations and requests for repatriation are generally grounded in conviction that the return of ancestral remains will have a therapeutic benefit for claimant communities. There is a sense too that (in line with the new, collaborative, community-focused museum remit), museums are not so much losing an object but gaining a relationship through repatriation (Gabriel and Dahl 2008). Not all remains are re-buried (if they were indeed buried in the first place). Some are returned to museums within the home communities. Such collaborations suggest interesting new ways of meeting the needs of both scientific collections and claimant communities, including community development, through reconfiguring the social and material geographies of human remains.
This in turn raises questions about the different ways in which repatriation does (and does not) take place and the different kinds of associations and attachments human remains can hold for all those involved. Work in both medical history (Alberti 2011) and geography (Greenhough 2006, Parry 2008) has suggested that the body parts, biosamples and medical information used for research are socially and materially complex, both subject and object, person and thing. In order to be available for medical study body parts are to an extent decontextualised, dissociated and detached from their human origins or dehumanised. Subsequently they gain new identities through their association with particular categories, collections, donors and collectors. In exploring the legacies of repatriation this project will ask how repatriation once again entails a reconfiguration of human remains as material and social objects (Fforde 2004). Are they, for example, re-humanised through their association with particular communities and if so how? How are human remains made meaningful through specific and direct or generalised genealogical or genetic connections? How are familiar and novel forms of relatedness and relationships forged through repatriation (Nash 2005)? While for some museum professionals the strength of a claim rests on claimant communities demonstrating some direct or genetic cultural relationship to the remains, claimant groups argue that what matters is that they get some power, recognition and control over their pasts. What happens to those other traces and associations that remains once held? Where do all the empty boxes and discarded display labels and catalogue entries go? What are the implications for the treatment of human remains which are not reclaimed and remain on display (Jenkins 2011: 130)? Are there on going relations between museums and claimant communities and do those relationships hold any place for scientific research? How might relationships over distance be forged between those with shared but different (scientific, cultural and genealogical) connections to human remains?
The project will therefore address the following research questions:
- How are repatriation decisions enacted and what happens to repatriated remains?
- How does repatriation change the ways in which human remains are socially and materially constructed? What meanings and associations do repatriated remains hold for the different stakeholders involved in the repatriation process?
- What kinds of relationships are developed between museum and claimant communities as a result of the repatriation process? What possibilities are there for new kinds of collaborative agreements, (such as those seen in Australia), in the UK?
Methodologies and timetable
Unlike previous studies of repatriation which have mostly focused on the negotiations and debates which happened around whether or not remains should be repatriated (Besterman 2004, Fforde 2004; Jenkins 2012; Hubert and Fforde 2002), this project will focus on tracing what happens to human remains once the decision has been made to repatriate them. The project will combine archival work on administrative and institutional records, ethnographic observation within the museum context and in-depth qualitative interviews with key stakeholders and participants in the repatriation process in order to map out the social and material practices, meanings and on-going impacts of repatriation.
In year one, the student will first survey the literature on repatriation and the use and exploitation of human-derived resources in medical research in both the historical and contemporary periods, and relevant UK regulations and guidance on the treatment of human remains in museums. Archival research on the records held at the Royal College of Surgeons and the NHM and analysis of relevant media coverage will follow in order to select three relevant repatriation case studies and their associated stakeholders, and provide an understanding of the academic and popular debates surrounding those specific reparation instances. Ethnographic observation of the museum context will be facilitated through undergoing training in curatorial work and working at the HM as a curatorial assistant, and this will be used to develop the student’s understanding of the museum context and how debates about repatriation fit within the wider institutional remit. They will gain practical knowledge of how human remains are handled, viewed and utilised in a museum context. This will allow the student to develop their knowledge, and thereby their credibility, with museum professionals who they will seek to interview. They will complete the QM PhD progression process and ethical review.
In the first part of year two (months 13-17) the student will set up and conduct in-depth interviews with key UK stakeholders involved in the repatriation of the three selected case-study instances of the exchange of remains. Interviewees will identified through the archival work and through advice from senior figures at the Royal College of Surgeons and associates at related institutions (such as the NHM), but it is envisioned interviewees would include senior RCS figures, museum staff involved in negotiating the repatriation of remains, curatorial staff involved in caring for those remains prior to their repatriation, and representatives from key regulatory bodies such as the 2003 UK Working Group on Human Remains. In the second part of year two (months 18-22) in-depth interviews will be conducted with members of the communities to whom remains have been repatriated in mainland Australia, Tasmania and Hawaii. This will be facilitated by a visiting fellowship and supervision at the National Centre for Indigenous Studies at ANU (see details of supervision) and funded by applications to the Queen Mary, University of London Postgraduate Research Fund and to the Royal Geographical Society Postgraduate Research Award. Interviews will address the key research questions outlined above, paying particular attention to (i) the practicalities of repatriation, how remains were identified, collected and transported and what happened to them once they were returned; (ii) how the interviewees and their wider communities view and value those remains; (iii) what kind of relationship has been sustained (if any) between the museum and claimant communities. The number of interviews will depend on the relevant interviewees identified in year one, however it is planned that 30-50 will be conducted (depending on length and depth). Interviews will be transcribed as they occur but coded and analysed in the final part of year two (months 23-24) (Cope 2003), drawing on themes and key ideas identified through the archival work and literature survey in year 1 as well as new themes emerging from the interview material. Our CDA will also work in concert with cognate research based at Te Papa Tongarewa, New Zealand.
In year three (months 25-36) the student draft and revise their thesis for submission, participate in relevant conferences in both geography and museums, work with the HM on human remains policy, and run a one-day workshop for museum professionals exploring the issues raised by their research and recommendations for best practice.
Plans for Dissemination The research will be disseminated to academic and non-academic audiences in a variety of ways: the student will present their research at relevant conferences and seminars including at least one international conference; draft and ideally submit at least one paper to an international refereed journal before completion of the thesis;present their research to museum professionals through a one-day workshop at the HM; and inform HM policy development.
Expected outcomes The main academic outcome of the research will be the student’s doctoral thesis. This promises to make an innovative contribution to several academic fields including museum studies, science and technology studies, the history of medicine and geographies of health and biomedicine. The student will also have completed a range of research training and will have acquired hands-on curatorial skills. The main outcomes for the HM will be: new information on the impacts of repatriation which will contribute to bicentenary reflections and be used to inform the HM museum acquisition and disposal policies and the management of existing collections of human remains; a professional development workshop on the legacies of repatriation for HM staff and other professionals; contributions to the museum catalogue through the student’s archival and curatorial work; a basis for the HM to re-invigorate relations with communities to whom remains have been repatriated; and a strong base for future collaboration and knowledge exchange between HM, QM and other institutions.
The Hunterian Museum at the Royal College of Surgeons
The Royal College of Surgeons of England (Registered Charity 212808) is an independent professional body committed to promoting and advancing the highest standards of surgical care for patients, and regulating surgery and dentistry. The College is located at Lincoln's Inn Fields in London.For 200 years the Hunterian Museum has been not only the College's public face but also a key site for medical training and an unparalleled biomedical research resource. The Museum functions within the College’s Museums and Archives Department (18 staff). Collections include human remains, natural history specimens, and historic surgical instruments.The four main activities of RCS Museums and Archives are:
1.Engagement through public programmes, exhibitions and display loans.
2.Training surgeons and other medical professionals and providing formal and informal learning opportunities for others including Key Stage 4 students.
3.Facilitating and generating excellent biomedical, historical and museological research.
4.Developing the for present and future users and protect their integrity with appropriate standards of care and documentation.
Research activity (3) has been an area of particular growth; over 1,000 researchers use the collections per annum; the Director, Head of Conservation, curators and conservators are research active in their respective fields as workflow allows. As a small museum with relatively few research-active staff, however, the Hunterian Museum works collaboratively with other museums and with universities to exploit the full potential of the collections. Current research projects include ‘Digitised Diseases’ (with the University of Bradford and Museum of London Archaeology, JISC funded) and ‘Stories of a Different Kind’ (with the University of Leicester, the Royal College of Physicians and the Science Museum, Wellcome Trust funded).
Queen Mary, University of London
The student will be part of School of Geography, at Queen Mary, University of London.The School of Geography at Queen Mary is one of the leading centres of geographical research in the UK. The School was ranked joint first in the 2008 Research Assessment Exercise, with three-quarters of our research rated as ‘world-leading/internationally excellent’. We are recognised by ESRC, NERC and AHRC for full-time, part-time and CASE postgraduate studentships.The School of Geography at QM has a strong record of collaborative research, including AHRC and ESRC CDAs,and much experience in working effectively with a wide range of partners, and to support research students in transfer, exchange and exploitation of their knowledge. The student will play a full part in QMUL graduate activities in the School of Geography.