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.
| 
