Select Committee on Culture, Media and Sport Minutes of Evidence


Examination of Witness (Questions 283 - 299)

WEDNESDAY 10 MAY 2000

MR LYNDON ORMOND-PARKER

  Chairman: Mr Ormond-Parker, thank you very much for coming to see us. We were extremely keen as part of this inquiry to make clear that we were concerned not only about European heritage but also world heritage. Therefore we are delighted that you found it possible to come to see us this morning. I will call Mr Fearn to ask the first question.

Mr Fearn

  283. Could I start by asking why do the indigenous peoples of Australia seek the return of human remains and related cultural property?

  (Mr Ormond-Parker) A campaign has been run in Australia for quite a number of years by various Aboriginal communities and organisations to have their ancestral remains returned to Australia and to be in some cases buried or disposed of according to community customs and traditions. There has been a long history in Australia of dispossession of Aboriginal people from their land and right from the 1800s a case of collection of Aboriginal human remains from burial sites, hospitals and morgues. This was in line with theories of evolution and Darwinism, and the collection of Aboriginal remains was seen as important for comparative anatomy and the like and they were well sought after in Australia and by European museums and institutions.

  284. So is this coming from the Australian Government or a particular body?
  (Mr Ormond-Parker) We have a body which is called the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Commission which deals with the issue of Aboriginal affairs in Australia. That body is also responsible for funding repatriation claims. Claims generally come from individual community organisations and communities themselves in Australia. For instance, in Tasmania claims have been made by the Tasmanian Aboriginal Centre. My organisation, which is based in Queensland, deals with and represents 52 Aboriginal communities around Queensland in regard to this issue. We have been requested to undertake documentation to look at what Aboriginal remains and significant cultural property are held in European institutions. We have undertaken similar research in Australia in co-operation with Australian museums for the last five or six years.

  285. So it is purely for re-burial?
  (Mr Ormond-Parker) It is not purely for re-burial. Communities are like museums. They vary greatly in their opinions about those sorts of issues. I have worked with several repatriations in Australia. Some communities have not re-buried but have been so distressed about their human remains being studied that they have had them cremated. Some would see that as extremely unfortunate. That is what the community felt should be done to their remains because they felt so strongly that they did not want them studied at all.

  286. Is there a scientific study of that at all?
  (Mr Ormond-Parker) There are scientific studies being undertaken. At this stage a lot of it is generally physical anthropological studies and sometimes in the biomedical field. To date I have not seen any recent research from this country on Aboriginal remains in collections in this country.

Mrs Golding

  287. I see that the New Zealanders in Wellington have got a special area in one of their museums set aside for the Maori tattooed heads that they have recovered. They have made this particular room a sacred place. Is that something that you are considering in Australia?
  (Mr Ormond-Parker) Certainly in Australia these sorts of things have been undertaken. We have had repatriation of Aboriginal remains from museums and they have been kept in what we call keeping places, and that was done in co-operation with the museum and the community where the remains were not destroyed at all. They were kept in a safe place and they still negotiate with scientists in regard to how and when the remains are studied. It is a win-win situation and that is for one of the world's oldest cremation sites. That was returned in the early 1990s.

  288. Would that be absolutely supported in Australia?
  (Mr Ormond-Parker) Absolutely. The Australian Federal Government currently supports repatriation of remains to communities of origin. They also recognise that it is the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities themselves which have the say and ownership rights over the remains themselves. What happens is that museums, scientists and other people can come along to them and say, "Look, we would like to study your remains. This is the research that we are doing", and what the community generally ask for is that the research results are handed back to the community. It is a negotiation process. Repatriation does not necessarily mean that remains are not available for the scientific community to study.

  289. Would there be any remains that were burned or any reason why they might think that should happen?
  (Mr Ormond-Parker) It would depend on the community concerned whether the remains were destroyed. What we have to understand is that we are not talking about ancient remains. In many cases from some of my statistics of several national museums in this country there are something like 15 to 20 per cent of the remains held in these institutions which are actually known and named individuals who died, their bodies were in hospitals and morgues and sent over to this country, heads preserved and that sort of thing. We are not talking about ancient scientific remains. We are talking about well known and named individuals with living descendants today who would like to see those remains returned.

Mr Faber

  290. When you go about approaching a museum or an institution for a return is that largely done at the initial instigation of a community or a group or is it you who sets the ball rolling because you have identified a specific artefact?
  (Mr Ormond-Parker) I guess there are two roles here. My organisation plays a role of documenting collections. We make that information freely available to communities at their request. If the community then requests that those remains be returned they may come to people like myself. I will act on their behalf in negotiations for that particular return. To date generally communities do negotiate directly with museums themselves or they will go through the Australian High Commissions in any particular country. One of the biggest problems we face with communities where they do instigate the assistance of the Australian Government is when museums fail to respond to requests, fail to respond to correspondence. In this country I have written to many institutions. I have been here for three years. In my first year something like 25 per cent of institutions that I wrote to failed to respond to my first letter. Some institutions failed to respond to the second and third letters. That is not for requests for repatriation. That is for requests for archives and information about the institution's collection itself. I can see one or two reasons why institutions would be hesitant in supplying information, such as fears of repatriation, or in some instances institutions may not even know what they have themselves.

  291. The point I was getting at is that you do need the originating community to want that artefact back in the first place.
  (Mr Ormond-Parker) Absolutely.

  292. I think you said you have been here three years.
  (Mr Ormond-Parker) Yes.

  293. So this pre-dates by some time your time here but in our evidence from the Pitt Rivers Museum, they referred to one specific request for a remain back in 1990. If I can quote from what they say, when the remain was subsequently despatched by the Australian authorities "to an area from which its documentation indicated that it had been collected. There it was apparently received with dismay by the local Tiwi Land Council who had had no knowledge that its return had been sought. With its typically scanty documentation, there was no means of linking the skull to specific family or land. The Chairman of the Land Trustees `considered it a cultural offence to have body remains foisted upon a generation that had no knowledge of their origins' ..." Clearly that is this particular museum's only experience of an attempt at repatriation. You can understand how it might have rather put them off becoming involved again in the future.
  (Mr Ormond-Parker) Oh, absolutely. I am not familiar with that particular case. I would have to verify those comments and see where they came from. In principle the request does come from the community concerned and it is done under guidelines on policy from that particular community or the Australian Government policy.

  294. Do you feel it is your job as the middle man if you like, as the enforcer, the helper, to gauge the level of importance that the community attaches to these? Presumably some communities may be looking for an artefact simply because they want it back. Others may feel it much more personal because, as you said yourself, they may be descendants of a named individual?
  (Mr Ormond-Parker) Again it varies greatly from community to community. From my experience across the board most communities do want human remains returned or at least not on display. There are certain conditions if they are going to be kept: not on display, to be treated with respect, the community to be consulted about what happens to the remains themselves and what research is undertaken on them.

  295. The museum is going to be far more reluctant to hand back an antiquity if it feels it is going to be destroyed perhaps in travel or, as you said a moment ago, actually cremated when it gets back home.
  (Mr Ormond-Parker) In some areas my organisation would state that it is not a museum concern; it is a concern for the community itself. The ownership lies with the community itself and they have the right. So often the onus of proof is put on the indigenous communities to say, "Look; if we give this back you must X, Y and Z and under all these conditions." The onus of proof is never on the museum to say, "How did you acquire this material? Was it legally acquired? Under what circumstances and how did you come about having it?" As indigenous communities they will question the ownership rights of museums themselves. Generally European law now looks at favouring repatriation issues when it comes to the ownership rights. The United Nations has developed policies on this and we have international committees which deal with these sorts of things.

  296. We are talking almost exclusively about museums this morning. How prevalent are such collections in private hands and do you try to get involved in repatriation of such collections which are presumably owned and have a commercial value?
  (Mr Ormond-Parker) At this stage it is very difficult to gauge what is in private hands. I have had, and I know the Australian High Commission in London has had, remains returned via individual collections in this country. To what extent is very much unknown at this stage.

  297. Is there a widespread market in these artefacts?
  (Mr Ormond-Parker) I am not too sure about Aboriginal remains but I do know that in terms of Maori remains there is a market for those.

Mr Fraser

  298. Is there a repatriation issue with other countries as well?
  (Mr Ormond-Parker) Absolutely. I often get requests from various communities around the world with the work that I do for information about what is held in British and European institutions as well. It is not only Australia. I have had conversations with people from Canada, the United States, South America, New Zealand, South Africa.

  299. If you look to what you are doing versus what they are doing, how successful are they in trying to establish some sort of repatriation deal with either the government of the country that is holding these items or the institutions that are?
  (Mr Ormond-Parker) I think it depends on their national governments and the national government's willingness to undertake research in this area and fund research. Many of these communities of course are not flush with cash and it is an issue which is close to their heart, but not necessarily high on a priority list.


 
previous page contents next page

House of Commons home page Parliament home page House of Lords home page search page enquiries index

© Parliamentary copyright 2000
Prepared 6 June 2000