In October 2005, in the United Kingdom, the Department of Culture, Media and Sport (DCMS) published the document "Guidance for the Care of Human Remains in Museums".  The foreword and introduction include the following:

"We hope that this guidance will go some way to ensuring that future treatment of indigenous remains in museums balances the need to respect the culture and wishes of indigenous communities with the need for scientific research, and that decisions in response to requests for return are made equitably and transparently.......

"This guidance will enable all museums to adopt consistent and authoritative standards, thereby improving the care of objects in their collection, the experience of visitors, and relations with indigenous communities around the world. We are certain museums will find the code useful, and encourage its adoption."

Traditionally in Britain, whilst human remains are generally treated with respect, no particular sacred or symbolic importance is associated with them other than in the case of direct descendants, the remains of major historical figures, or as the focus of a collective memorial.  For many indigenous people, communities and tribes human remains hold a far greater significance.  Significantly, the document states that museums must "show sensitivity and compassion for the feelings of individuals; show understanding of different religious, spiritual and cultural perspectives".  It speaks of the need to recognise and respect that a community may place a particular cultural value on a human remain that is not shared by others.

The curation, care and use of human remains is covered in some detail by the document, a copy of which can be downloaded from here.  The remainder of this article concentrates on the guidance given regarding the repatriation of human remains.

It is suggested in the document that museums should have a policy to compile and make public an inventory of their holdings of human remains.  This should include known information about the date and provenance of the remains and their exact nature, and the circumstances of their acquisition.  Information should include the numbers of remains, their physical nature, the estimated date of death, their provenance including where they are from and if known the context of their discovery, and their status within a collection (for example, on loan, in storage, on display).

The document goes on to provide a framework for handling claims for the return of human remains held in museums.  It says:

"Requests should be dealt with as an open and constructive dialogue between the museum and the claimants. However, as the current guardians of the remains, the museum will have the responsibility of making the decision over their future and this will make the process one-sided. It is hoped that, through time and a continuing open and constructive dialogue between museums and claimant groups, the process will become more equal. In the meantime museums should do everything in their power, through policies of openness, consultation and transparency of action to try and make negotiations as equitable as possible."

Museums are advised to prepare clear guidance for the public domain, that can be easily referred to and will include the criteria by which a claim will be assessed, the time span a request will take to be considered, the position of individuals within an organisation who will take responsibility for decision-making and communication and who will be consulted externally. It must also state who will be responsible for bearing the museum costs of processing a claim, although this would normally be the museum. It is made clear that the question of costs should not prevent the speedy resolution of a claim for return, or be used as an excuse to refuse a request for return.

A post-holder should be identified within the museum as the person who will take responsibility for dealing with the request and serve as the point of contact for the claimants.  This person should have appropriate skills and training for the role.  Museums are advised that there are certain facts they will probably need to establish in regard to claims and it would seem sensible for claimants to therefore provide the following information from the outset:

• The identity of the claimant(s) and any intermediary/representative


• the connection between the claimant(s) and the deceased and the basis for the claim


• the specific remains being claimed (the claimant may need the museum's assistance in identifying these)


• the claimant(s) wishes for the future of the remains


• any information the claimant has regarding other potential claimants

"The vast majority of claims that have been made for return have concerned the remains of overseas people who died within the last 100-300 years. This corresponds most closely to the period when expansion took place by European powers with its subsequent effect on Indigenous peoples - a period that does not go back further than 500 years. It is also the period in which it is more likely for a close genealogical link to be made between the living and the dead"

"Archaeological and historical study has shown that it is very difficult to demonstrate clear genealogical, cultural or ethnic continuity far into the past, although there are exceptions to this. For these reasons it is considered that claims are unlikely to be successful for any remains over 300 years old, and are unlikely to be considered for remains over 500 years old, except where a very close and continuous geographical, religious, spiritual and cultural link can be demonstrated. Some cultures put more emphasis on association with land that has a cultural, spiritual or religious importance and less on relative age. In such cases, the chronological age of the remains may be less significant."

The Code of Practice is a document which has high significance in the work of Four Directions UK, however it must be remembered that it is not legislation, but rather a set of clear guidelines that museums are asked to follow.