Examination of Witnesses (Questions 92-99)
MUSEUMS ASSOCIATION
28 OCTOBER 2003
Chairman: Thank you very much indeed
for coming to see us. You have been kind in listening to some
of the previous evidence, so you know which direction we are coming
from.
Q92 Michael Fabricant: First of all,
may I welcome you this morning. You have been listening to this
conversation: you have been in the public gallery. Does the Museums
Association differ in its view at all from that of the Natural
History Museum regarding the question of the change in the law
to the repatriation, possible repatriation of human remains?
Dr Davies: No, not at all. We
have felt for some time that the law should be changed to allow
the return of human remains, and also, following this Committee's
report in 2000, that the law should be changed to allow the return
of items found to be right for return by the Spoliation Advisory
Panel. I think I am right in saying that DCMS did a limited consultation
with the museum sector in late 2000 about the spoliation issue,
to which we responded that we were perfectly content for the law
to be changed. Recently, within the past couple of months, DCMS
have done another limited consultation about bringing in provisions
to change legislation on human remains in museums within a Department
of Health Bill which may be coming before the next session of
parliament. We have responded to that, that we also support the
idea of changing legislation.
Q93 Michael Fabricant: Interestingly,
though, I think in your evidence you say that the "slippery
slope" argument really does not apply in connection with
making returns, not only of human remains but cultural objects.
Dr Davies: Yes.
Q94 Michael Fabricant: But is that
not because we really have not got onto a slippery slope yet,
simply because museums have held fast. Would there not be a slippery
slope if we started making major returns of cultural objects to
other countries? Would they not all then start claiming?
Dr Davies: I think the interesting
thing is to look at evidence from other countries where high profile
returns have happened and where a slippery slope doesn't exist—or
a coach and horses, to use Miss Kirkbride's reformulation of it
this morning. I think also Glasgow is a really interesting case.
The Glasgow shirt was an incredibly high profile and public return,
much more public in its decision making than is usually the case.
My understanding is that, in spite of that, and the worldwide
attention that that case received and the evident amenability
of Glasgow City Council as the governing body of Glasgow Museums
to cases for return, they have received next to no claims for
future returns, which suggests to me, if they are like any other
museum service of that size and they have millions of objects
in their collection, that you are looking at one item out of millions
as being returned. So it is a tiny amount. My understanding is
that, even in the case of the British Museum with its collection
of millions and millions of items, there are actually claims for,
at the most, maybe 100 items.
Q95 Michael Fabricant: They are quite
high profile items.
Dr Davies: Of course. The thing
you often see is that the items that are claimed often have an
iconic status. In a sense, the return often has a symbolic purpose
and a political purpose beyond the actual significance of the
individual object. I think, in terms of a sense of a post-imperial
re-balancing of cultural power—as I like to think of it—in
a sense, the return of one item is almost enough. It is almost
a gesture of courtesy, sometimes between governments but more
often actually between museums or museums and cultural groups.
Q96 Michael Fabricant: With due respect
to Glasgow, I do not think I could agree with you when you say
that the Ghost Dance shirt had national or international publicity
in its return. The return of that would be very, very different
from the return of the Elgin Marbles or the return of Cleopatra's
Needle or some object like that. Surely that would create a slippery
slope.
Dr Davies: Possibly. All I can
say is that the evidence so far does not suggest that that is
the case and places that have returned things have not been met
with lots and lots of further claims. The number of claims that
are, in a sense, unresolved is very, very small. They are of intense
importance for the claimants, and often, as you have said, because
of the importance of the object, but the actual volume is tiny.
My sense is that it will remain tiny.
Q97 Michael Fabricant: In another
part of your evidence you talked about sacred objects and said
that in many ways they should be treated in the same way as human
remains. Whereas one can clearly define what is human remains
and what are not human remains, might there not be arguments over
the degree of sacredness—it is almost a theological question—of
certain objects? Who would actually decide what is sacred and
what is not? Are there shadows of degree or shades of degree of
sacredness? I am sorry to pursue this. When did something become
so sacred that it automatically ought to be returned?
Dr Davies: I think there are two
comments I would like to make on that. The first one is that I
have been in the interesting position of being involved in arguments
between anthropologists about what sacred is and it is clear that
there is no agreement whatsoever. The other point that is interesting,
that I think is coming to the fore—and this was an important
part of the deliberations of the Human Remains Working Group of
which I am a member—is the human rights implications. Different
parts of the Human Rights Act can act in different ways, but there
are many things in there about equality of right to practise religious
belief and so on. There is quite a long section in the report
when it is published about the implications of the Human Rights
Act, but I think it is key. There are problems in human rights
terms about making judgments from our, if you like, Western perspective
about the sacredness of something. Whereas to us it might not
be sacred at all and we might not have much respect for the religion
that holds it sacred, if that religion genuinely holds it sacred,
then, in human rights terms, they have as much right to their
views of what is sacred as we do to ours—if you see what
I mean. So it is a terribly difficult area.
Q98 Chairman: If I could interrupt,
there are some things which are absolutely indubitably sacred,
are there not? They are quested after as works of art. A huge
furore was taking place, around the time when we did our previous
inquiry, about the theft of icons from Greek-Cypriot churches,
with a smuggling ring prosecuted in the end, because of the Cypriot
Government, in the United States. There cannot be any question
that icons stolen from churches are sacred objects. Or can there
be?
Dr Davies: I could not see how
you could question it, no.
Q99 Michael Fabricant: I wonder if
I could move on to the return of objects looted in the 1933-45
period. I gather that back in March 2001 the Department of Culture,
Media and Sport reported there was agreement concerning how these
ought to be treated. I wonder if you could say a few words about
what progress has been made since then.
Dr Davies: As far as I know, there
has been no sign of progress at all. As I mentioned, there was
a consultation to which the Museums Association responded, saying
we were happy with the proposals to legislate.
| 
