Examination of Witnesses (Questions 60-79)
SIR NEIL
CHALMERS
28 OCTOBER 2003
Q60 Michael Fabricant: What representations
have you made to the Government asking for a change in the law
to enable you to make returns when appropriate to do so?
Sir Neil Chalmers: We have made
it clear, particularly to DCMS, that we are willing to make this
kind of change. We have made it both privately, in conversations
with officials, and I have made that clear to a minister, to Estelle
Morris, in fact, and I think they well know my position.
Q61 Michael Fabricant: What response,
as far is it is not private, have they made back to you?
Sir Neil Chalmers: I think they
are interested and sympathetic. They have not committed themselves,
as far as I am aware, to a very specific form of action, but I
think they are sympathetic. I think they understand our positions.
Q62 Chairman: Could I ask you, before
I call Julie Kirkbride, we shall be asking, of course, but have
they given you any explanation in your discussions with them as
to why they have done nothing whatever about this in the nearly
four years since we last looked at it?
Sir Neil Chalmers: They have not
given any reason to me directly as to why they have not done anything.
I have read the statement they gave to this Committee in July,
which is that they are waiting for the report of the working group—which,
as you will know, has now submitted its report and of which I
was a member. I think they are saying that they will wait to see
what the working group says and then they will come up with their
response.
Chairman: Thank you.
Q63 Miss Kirkbride: I can see why
you might not want to give an example which comes to mind of where
you might be willing to send back remains, but could you, in order
to help the Committee have an idea of what you have in mind, give
us a hypothetical example of where you think it might be appropriate
to make a return?
Sir Neil Chalmers: Yes. If there
were to be a claim for the return of a skeleton of an individual,
or a part skeleton of an individual, where the name of the individual
were known and the claim were made on behalf of descendants who
were known, that would be a claim, it would seem to me, that it
would be very difficult to resist. I should say that very, very
few human remains in our collection fall into that category. We
know of probably five or six from Australia and a smaller number
than that from other parts of the world where it might be possible
to identify the individual if one did further research. We do
not have clear names in any individual case But you can imagine
that if a descendant came and said, "That is my ancestor
who you are holding," you would be more sympathetic to that
than if you had a fragment of a skeleton of unknown identity,
of not very certain age, from a very broad geographical area.
Q64 Miss Kirkbride: The irony of
that, is it not, that you would then have to test that fragment
of remains to demonstrate a genetic link with the person who is
claiming it back? Therefore you would be using your own research,
if it is possible, in order to establish the claim of the relationship
to the person who lives today.
Sir Neil Chalmers: I think that
is a correct conclusion and from what I have understood about
the position of the claimant communities from Australia, they
would not be opposed to that.
Q65 Miss Kirkbride: Right. And you
still think it is right to go ahead, despite the irony.
Sir Neil Chalmers: Indeed. I would
emphasise that I do not see more than a very small number of occasions
when this would actually happen, because the enormous majority
of our collections are not claimed for at all and, where there
are claims, they are going to be very broad indeed, about a whole
category about which we have very imperfect information in terms
of identity.
Q66 Miss Kirkbride: How old are these
fragments likely to be?
Sir Neil Chalmers: Up to 200 years
old. Usually they are 100 to 200 years old—the ones that
are being claimed from North America and from Australia and from
New Zealand, in particular.
Q67 Miss Kirkbride: It might be that,
in establishing the principle that they can be repatriated, you
are giving the sense of a coach and horses later on, to broaden
that definition, to give encouragement to people who did not think
there was any before.
Sir Neil Chalmers: That would
be my initial reaction. But what I would hope is that you could
have a sensible framework for decision-making and build up a sensible
dialogue with claimant communities such that the extreme positions
that one sees being adopted would be modulated. I would hope that
there would be cases where claimant communities would say, "Yes,
we see the benefits of continuing research on these collections,
even though they are from our ancestors, because we can see how
we would benefit." I would like us to get into dialogue,
so that you prevent this coach-and-horses' atmosphere.
Q68 Miss Kirkbride: I am not particularly
versed in these things, but, from what one reads in the newspapers,
for the people who want their remains back it is cultural that
they have to be buried in a certain place.
Sir Neil Chalmers: Yes.
Q69 Miss Kirkbride: I do not see
how they can breach that principle: it is either right and proper
for them to be buried where they came from or not. I do not see
how you would get them to compromise on that view.
Sir Neil Chalmers: You could well
be right. I have certainly heard those positions taken; that is
they want everything returned, mandatorily, without exception
and without any discussion. That to me is just not possible. I
have heard less extreme statements, saying, "We do recognise
that there is value in research being carried out upon the collections
and we can see a way that the climate of understanding and working
together would be improved." I may be unduly optimistic,
I may be unduly naive, but I would hope that that is what in fact
would prevail over the years. I personally think that our inability
to respond to any request whatsoever to return anything at all
is damaging and is creating a climate of mistrust and confrontation
which does not help us in the museum and nor does it help the
claimant communities.
Miss Kirkbride: As a plug for the museum,
could you tell the Committee—which I do not think has any
scientists—
Michael Fabricant: I a Master of Science.
Q70 Miss Kirkbride: One of us is
a scientist—what has been established, what kind of research
has been possible, what you have done? What do we know now that
we would not have done if you had not had this collection of human
bits?
Sir Neil Chalmers: Could I give
three examples. First, we recently had surgeons come into the
museum and examine a number of knee joints from both male and
female skeletons from different parts of the world in order to
work out how better to carry out knee replacements. They could
not do this by x-ray, they could not do this by invasive surgery
themselves. They came and did the research on our collection so
that they could better treat patients. The second example: With
the advent of DNA technology, to which you have referred, we are
now able to read into skeletal material the history of disease
in humanity. We can see how the disease spread and how we as human
beings have reacted to diseases like malaria, TB and even the
spread of Asian flu. Different people from different parts of
the world react differently—because we are genetically somewhat
different. Finding out about the capacity of human beings to respond
to insult by disease is crucial to understanding how you can cure
it. We are at early days yet because the recovery of DNA from
skeletons is very recent—the ability to do so—but
that itself illustrates a very important argument. It is sometimes
said by claimant communities: "You have got all you know
from skeletons, why not hand them back now." We say, "No,
techniques are developing all the time." It would be irresponsible
to throw away this opportunity. The third example I would give
is that we use our collections to train people. We train forensic
anthropologists so they can recognise humans from different parts
of the world. Recently anthropologists trained at our museum have
used their skills to help identify war victims from mass graves
in Kosovo. They use those skills also to identify victims from
earthquakes. This is a major good that comes from having that
large resource, comparative resource, as something which trains
experts.
Q71 Mr Doran: You mentioned the restrictions
that exist on museums, particularly yours and the British Museum
and others at the moment in relation to the disposal of assets.
I was not clear whether you were recommending a change in the
legislation when you talked about the panel and the various other
systems that might be put in place.
Sir Neil Chalmers: I know you
will be seeing the Chairman, who will, I am sure, give you a synopsis
of what is in the report. My own view, which I have stated to
this Committee on several occasions, is that I believe there should
be a change in the law. It absolutely must be permissive and not
mandatory. That is crucial. To have mandatory return, as one has
in the United States, for example, under NAGPRA, where a claimant
community makes a claim and it is validated, the material has
to go back. I think that is deeply damaging and wrong. There must
not be any hint of mandatory return whatsoever either in the reformulation
of any legislation or in the setting up of regulations such that
effectively mandatory return is introduced by the back door. I
am concerned that that might happen.
Q72 Mr Doran: You could achieve that
by the simple provision of an amendment to the British Museums
Act which took the shackles off you a bit.
Sir Neil Chalmers: I am not a
lawyer but, as I understand, that is the case. We have had legal
advice in the museum upon our legal situation. Despite claims
that you read in the press, we do not have the freedom to return
under the British Museum Act 1963. The law is unclear. We feel
exposed, we would prefer to have things clarified.
Q73 Mr Doran: Obviously there are
a lot of difficult questions involved here. You have mentioned
the importance of the collection. At our previous inquiry last
year we had the chance to see some of your collection—not
the human remains, but some other parts of the collection—and
clearly there are immense benefits in having the collection which
is held centrally in the Natural History Museum. On the other
hand, one of the things which seems to be missing from most of
the papers I have seen is an ethical dimension to all this. I
would be interested to hear from you what part you feel that ethics
plays in all this.
Sir Neil Chalmers: I think it
does play a very important part. One of the things I have learned
more about, if you like, over this three-year interlude since
this was raised, is the need for a clear ethical framework, because
you are always going to have to make difficult decisions where
you are balancing competing good things, if I may put it quite
simply, and, without some sort of framework against which to make
those judgments, I do not see how we can make progress. There
must be some sort of ethical framework against which you can judge
the value to humanity of holding collections because of research,
training and education on the one hand, and on the other hand
measure the concerns of claimant communities despite the diversity
of their backgrounds and the different kinds of community cultures
that they hold. I am not an expert in that at all, and I would
be quite the wrong person for you to probe because it is simply
beyond my expertise, but I absolutely see the need for it.
Q74 Mr Doran: One of the areas where
I have some difficulty with the "repel all borders"
sort of approach—and I am not suggesting you are presenting
that—is that a great deal of the legacy which you hold in
the Natural History Museum is the result of our imperial past.
One of the features, if you like, of the twentieth century is
that many of the communities which were totally disregarded and
which were pillaged in many respects are now beginning to assert
themselves, and I can understand why the extreme position you
outlined—give us back everything without question—is
being enunciated. I can see that. But it does put you in a much
more difficult position if we get into a real ethical and political
argument of how this is best to go forward.
Sir Neil Chalmers: I agree with
that. I recognise the appalling conditions under which some items
in our collections were obtained—not by us directly, I should
say, but by other people who collected and then the material came
to us. We would not, as a museum, wish to defend it; we would
deplore it and we recognise the outrage that those cases cause
to claimant communities. Nonetheless, we have the material now
and it is very difficult, as it were, to read back into history
the ethical and moral framework that we operate now, in the twenty-first
century, back a couple of hundred years. I think the right thing
is to say, given that we would not in any way wish to condone
what has happened in the past, how do we now deal with the issue
which is going to provide the best benefit for humanity in the
way that I have described. It is not an easy answer at all. I
am certain that simply handing back on a mandatory basis is quite
wrong.
Q75 Mr Doran: I understand that.
In your collection of human remains do you have any UK specimens?
Sir Neil Chalmers: Yes. Indeed,
the majority of our specimens are from the UK. About 12,000 of
the 20,000 items in our collection are from the UK, which are
not contested.
Q76 Mr Doran: You mentioned new technologies,
like DNA examination. It occurred to me: How would you react if
an English village discovered through DNA testing that Uncle Fred
from 500 years ago was lying in the vaults of the Natural History
Museum?
Sir Neil Chalmers: I would react
in just the same way as I have been describing to Miss Kirkbride.
If there was, indeed, a named individual with a direct descendant,
I would want to be very sympathetic. I would hope that any ethical
framework we set up or that was set up nationally would recognise
that as a very compelling reason for looking favourably upon return.
I would hope that we could persuade any such person about the
value of the research we were doing and come to an agreement about
how long we might continue to hold the remains for and for how
long. I have heard examples, clear examples, particularly from
North America, where indigenous communities have come to those
sorts of agreements with researchers in this country, to the benefit
of everybody, and I would hope we could do that.
Q77 Mr Doran: It is a two-way process.
I want to be parochial for a minute. In my own constituency, Aberdeen
University runs the Marshall Museum, which may be a small museum
but quite an important one. Quite recently it was discovered that
one of the holdings was a tribal headdress from a Canadian tribe.
It is quite an interesting illustration of what you are talking
about because the tribe discovered that this headdress, which
was owned or claimed by the Canadian Blood Tribe, was apparently
one of four ceremonial headdresses and contact was made with the
Marshall Museum Trustees. It was an integral part of a sun dance
by the Blood Tribe, with reserves in Southern Alberta, Canada,
who negotiated and the headdress has gone back. But the interesting
thing for me is that out of that has come a relationship between
the university and the tribe and the university feels that it
is actually benefiting more from that relationship than holding
on to the headdress. It has learned a lot more about the artefact
that it held and now has a real dialogue which is developing the
museum. That is a very positive example, I think, at least so
far, of returning an artefact.
Sir Neil Chalmers: I agree. I
have heard of several other examples of that sort. They tend to
involve ethnography, where you are returning an artefact rather
than a human skeleton, and, in most cases where there is return,
the object returned is not destroyed. Sometimes it is buried as
part of closure, a funeral, but often it is kept within that community
and it can still be used for research and scholarship and you
get the reciprocal benefits which can exceed the loss. However—and
this was a point I made to the Committee in 2000—in many
cases where we have requests for return, we know that what will
happen is that the skeletons when returned will be cremated or
buried and will be put beyond scientific research use and you
are not going to get that sort of reciprocal benefit. That is
a real difficulty that we have to face. I think it is a difference
between physical anthropology and biological research on the one
hand (which is very much the area I was in) and ethnographic research
on the other.
Q78 Chairman: When we were looking
at this last time and looking over the general field and not simply
human remains, one of the clinching arguments for us about sometimes
resisting requests for return—and there is a different sense
relating to human remains—was that if you did that all the
museums would return everything and you would not have museums
and the places of origin would not have anywhere to put the stuff
that they got back. There was also the issue—not relating,
again, to human remains—of sometimes dubious provenance.
The whole point about human remains is the provenance: that is
the basis of your holding them and that is the basis sometimes
for people wanting them back. Where does one draw the line? I
suppose one could say that it is sentiment or religion or tradition,
but what about, for example, the Egyptian mummy that has been
recently returned, it cannot be a matter of religion because Islam
was not there when the mummies were created. It cannot be a case
of ethnicity because the Egyptians at that time did not have the
ethnicity of Egyptians today, unless one assumes that the Copts
are the heirs of the Ancient Egyptians. For you, if you could
have that mummy, what would be the clinching argument for you
to return it other than that the Egyptians would have liked it
back?
Sir Neil Chalmers: You have hit
on one of the most difficult questions that we have to face. I
think you draw the boundary between what you might consider for
return and what you might say, "There is no question we would
ever return at all"—which concerns the great majority
of objects in our collection. You would draw that boundary very
tightly and you would say, "My opinion is only recent ancestors"—and
we are talking here of no more than 100 years or so—"where
you have clear descendants who are able to say `That was my direct
ancestor'." Because I think there is something special about
holding human remains. It has to be a matter of opinion rather
than absoluteness, absolute fact, but to me there is something
different and special about human remains. It is a privilege.
If the remains are recent and if you have somebody who claims
to be the descendant, I think then you just have to say, "This
is a different universe in which we are operating." This
is a different domain of discussion and discourse and we just
have to make a different set of judgments then. But I would not
draw the boundary much more broadly than that personally.
Q79 Chairman: In the case of the
artefact that Frank Doran was talking about, as in the case of
the Glasgow shirt (if I may so describe it), there was a very,
very strong sentiment that those who claimed ownership and whose
ownership was acknowledged were depleted through not having it.
That is a very fair argument; one which was heeded. But what about
prehistoric remains, for example? And, again, the whole point
of prehistoric remains is that (a) you know their provenance,
and (b) these days, as Mr Fabricant said, there is a lot more
you can do with them than you did do. But who has the right to
those? They may have originated in one particular country, but
it could be argued that they belong to all humanity.
Sir Neil Chalmers: That is the
argument I put. I think you will notice the phrase I have used
repeatedly in answering your questions, which is "the benefits
to humanity" that accrue from the research we carry out.
I believe that is absolutely right. Particularly when you get
back to those sorts of distances of time, it is very difficult
indeed, if not impossible, to identify a group which has a special
claim upon those remains, and it is the whole world that has the
potential of benefiting from knowing our own ancestry, where human
beings came from, benefiting from the medical advances I have
described, benefiting from the ability to do better surgery or
whatever it might be. I think there you have to say humanity must
have some advocates.
|
