Museums and auction houses should not hold human remains, UK lawmakers say
The All-Party Parliamentary Group on Afrikan-Reparations (APPG-AR), which is made up of parliamentarians, campaigners and community members, released a report Wednesday calling for a ban on the sale and display of ancestral remains, including Egyptian mummies.
At present, the law that regulates the storage and use of human remains in the UK only requires consent for acquiring and holding body tissue from people under 100 years old.
The Human Tissue Act 2004 also only prohibits people from buying, selling and possessing body parts for transplantation.
The report, titled 'Laying Ancestors to Rest,' outlined the distress caused to diaspora communities by British institutions holding ancestral remains, many of which were taken during colonial rule.
'The mummified person has historically been traded among the upper classes of Britain and France as a luxurious commodity, also featuring as entertainment in British 'mummy unwrapping parties' in the 19th century,' the report said.
'In more recent times, Egyptian mummified persons have been transformed to the popularised, haunted 'mummy' figure, which reduces Egyptian heritage to exoticised mystique for the Western audience,' it added.
The report made 14 recommendations, including that the sale of human remains should be made illegal; the Human Tissue Act 2004 should be amended to include the remains of people who died more than 100 years ago; the boards of trustees for national museums should be representative of the diasporas in society; and funders should dedicate resources to mapping the inventory of ancestral remains in the UK's cultural institutions.
Guidance for museums and other institutions on how to care for human remains was published by the British government back in 2005.
Under that guidance, museums can decide on a case-by-case basis whether or not to return human remains, if requested.
During a debate on the issue in the House of Lords, Parliament's upper house, on Thursday, Fiona Twycross, a junior minister in the Department for Culture, Media and Sport, acknowledged that the guidance was dated and 'the world has changed substantially' since then.
She added that incomplete databases and collections also make it hard to know where human remains are being kept but said the recommendations put forward in the report 'will inform the government's consideration' of the issues.
In the debate, Paul Boateng, a peer from the governing Labour party, described the trade of human body parts as an 'abomination.'
'This abominable trade must stop, and the continued retention and objectifying of the remains of Indigenous peoples in our public collections, against the will of their descendants and the originating communities concerned, must cease,' he added.
He was among several politicians to praise the 'good practice' of the Pitt Rivers museum in Oxford, which removed 120 artifacts, including an Egyptian mummified child, Naga trophy heads and shrunken heads, from display in 2020 as part of its 'decolonization process,' because the items 'reiterated racial stereotypes.'
Professor Laura Van Broekhoven, director of the Pitt Rivers Museum, told CNN in a statement Friday that the museum is 'very supportive' of the calls to 'ban the sales of human remains and the display of human remains in public museums.'
She added that her museum's approach 'rehumanises our museums and our collections in unprecedented ways, bringing opportunities of true partnerships, that work towards global healing and peace building.'
During the parliamentary debate, Boateng criticized the British Museum in London for refusing to hand over several preserved Māori tattooed heads and the skulls of two named individuals from the Torres Strait islands.
He added that the museum was 'forever seemingly on the defensive and on the back foot' and in need of 'long-overdue reform.'
Twycross said ministers regularly meet with the museum and that she would ensure that this was raised as an issue.
The British Museum holds more than 6,000 human remains, according to its website, which it says 'furthers our understanding of the past' and advances research.
'The Museum is mindful of ethical obligations and closely follows the guidance set out by the Department of Culture, Media and Sports and the Human Tissue Act 2004 which ensures that human remains held in its care are always treated and displayed with respect and dignity,' a spokesman for the museum told CNN in a statement Friday.
Controversy surrounding the display and auction of human remains persists globally.
In October, the Swan auction house in Oxfordshire, England, was forced to withdraw more than two dozen lots of human remains, including shrunken heads and ancestral skulls, from sale after an outcry in the UK and India.
In 2023, the head of the Smithsonian Institution in the United States apologized for amassing a collection of tens of thousands of body parts, largely taken from Black and Indigenous people without their consent, during the first half of the 20th century.
The same year, London's Hunterian Museum stopped exhibiting the skeleton of an 18th-century man known as the 'Irish Giant,' who grew to be 7 feet, 7 inches tall and wanted to be buried at sea to prevent his body being seized by anatomists.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
Cabinet Minister Dismisses Nigel Farage's Plea For Reform Peers With 1 Brutal Comment
A cabinet minister has brutally dismissed Nigel Farage's call for Reform UK to have its own peers in the House of Lords. The Reform leader has written to Keir Starmer saying it is unfair that his party has no one in the upper chamber despite getting four million votes at the last general election and leading in the opinion polls. Farage said there was a 'democratic disparity' in the Lords because parties like the Greens – which has fewer MPs than Reform – has people in the Lords. He also pointed out that the Lib Dems, which received fewer votes at the general election than Reform, has 76 peers. 'None of this holds water any longer given the seismic shifts that have taken place in British politics,' Farage said. It is a marked change in approach from Farage, who has previously called for the Lords to be abolished and who railed against 'unelected bureaucrats' when the UK was a member of the European Union. Asked about the comments on LBC this morning, defence secretary John Healey gave them short shrift. He said: 'The same Nigel Farage who called for the abolition of the House of Lords now wants to fill it with his cronies. 'I'm not sure that parliament is going to benefit from more Putin apologists like Nigel Farage, to be honest.' He added: 'At this point, when maximum condemnation of Putin is required, the voice of Reform is conspicuously absent in any of our discussions and any of our defence debates about Ukraine and about Russia.' A Downing Street spokesperson said: 'The process for appointments to the House of Lords follows established conventions and is guided by advice from the House of Lords Appointments Commission and other relevant bodies. 'While political parties may make representations regarding peerage nominations, decisions are made in line with long-standing procedures.' Related... LBC Presenter Fact Checks Nigel Farage's Claim Small Boats Have Made UK More Dangerous For Women And Girls Nicola Sturgeon Does Not Hold Back As She Takes Down 'Odious' Nigel Farage's Character Nigel Farage Modestly Claims Starmer Is 'Completely Obsessed With Me'
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
Israel's Smotrich launches settlement plan to 'bury' idea of Palestinian state
By Alexander Cornwell MAALE ADUMIM, West Bank/TEL AVIV, (Reuters) -Israeli far-right Finance Minister Bezalel Smotrich announced that work would start on a long-delayed settlement that would divide the West Bank and cut it off from East Jerusalem, a move his office said would "bury" the idea of a Palestinian state. The Palestinian government, allies and campaign groups condemned the scheme, calling it illegal and saying the fragmentation of territory would rip up peace plans for the region. Standing at the site of the planned settlement in Maale Adumim on Thursday, Smotrich, a settler himself, said Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and U.S. President Donald Trump had agreed to the revival of the E1 development, though there was no immediate confirmation from either. "Whoever in the world is trying to recognise a Palestinian state today will receive our answer on the ground. Not with documents nor with decisions or statements, but with facts. Facts of houses, facts of neighbourhoods," Smotrich said. Asked about his remarks, a U.S. State Department spokesperson said: "A stable West Bank keeps Israel secure and is in line with this administration's goal to achieve peace in the region," and referred reporters to Israel's government for further information. The spokesperson said Washington remained primarily focused on ending the war in Gaza. The United Nations urged Israel to reverse its decision to start work on the settlement. "It would put an end to prospects of a two-state solution," U.N. spokesperson Stephane Dujarric told reporters. "Settlements go against international law … (and) further entrench the occupation." Israel froze construction plans at Maale Adumim in 2012, and again after they were revived in 2020, amid objections from the U.S., European allies and other powers who considered the project a threat to any future peace deal with the Palestinians. Restarting the project could further isolate Israel, which has watched some of its Western allies condemn its military offensive in Gaza and announce they may recognise a Palestinian state. Palestinians fear the settlement building in the West Bank - which has sharply intensified since the 2023 Hamas attack on Israel that led to the Gaza war - will rob them of any chance to build a state of their own in the area. In a statement headlined "Burying the idea of a Palestinian state," Smotrich's spokesperson said the minister had approved the plan to build 3,401 houses for Israeli settlers between an existing settlement in the West Bank and Jerusalem. In Maale Adumim, Smotrich, an ultra-nationalist in the ruling right-wing coalition who has long advocated for Israeli sovereignty over the West Bank, told Reuters the plan would go into effect on Wednesday. Breaking the Silence, an Israeli rights group established by former Israeli soldiers, said what it called a land grab "will not only further fragment the Palestinian territory, but will further entrench apartheid". Nabil Abu Rudeineh, the Palestinian president's spokesperson, called on the United States to pressure Israel to stop settlement building. "The EU rejects any territorial change that is not part of a political agreement between involved parties. So annexation of territory is illegal under international law," European Commission spokesperson Anitta Hipper said. British Foreign Minister David Lammy said the plan must be stopped. "The UK strongly opposes the Israeli government's E1 settlement plans, which would divide a future Palestinian state in two and mark a flagrant breach of international law," Lammy said in an emailed statement. HOUSE BUILDING 'IN A YEAR' Peace Now, which tracks settlement activity in the West Bank, said there were still steps needed before construction but infrastructure work could begin within a few months, and house building in about a year. 'The E1 plan is deadly for the future of Israel and for any chance of achieving a peaceful two-state solution. We are standing at the edge of an abyss, and the government is driving us forward at full speed," Peace Now said in a statement. Consecutive Israeli governments have initiated, approved, planned and funded settlements, according to Israeli rights group Yesh Din. Some settlers moved to the West Bank for religious or ideological reasons, while others were drawn by lower housing costs and government incentives. They include American and European dual citizens. Palestinians are already demoralised by the Israeli military campaign which has killed more than 61,000 people in Gaza, according to local health authorities, and fear Israel will ultimately push them out of that territory. About 700,000 Israeli settlers live among 2.7 million Palestinians in the West Bank and East Jerusalem. Israel annexed East Jerusalem in 1980, a move not recognised by most countries, but has not formally extended sovereignty over the West Bank. Most world powers say settlement expansion has eroded the viability of a two-state solution by fragmenting Palestinian territory. The two-state plan envisages a Palestinian state in East Jerusalem, the West Bank and Gaza, existing side by side with Israel. Israel cites historical and biblical ties to the area and says the settlements provide strategic depth and security. Most of the global community considers all settlements illegal under international law. Israel rejects this interpretation, saying the West Bank is "disputed" rather than "occupied" territory. Britain, Canada, Australia and New Zealand imposed sanctions in June on Smotrich and another far-right minister who advocates for settlement expansion, accusing both of them of repeatedly inciting violence against Palestinians in the West Bank. (Additional reporting by Gwladys Fouche in Oslo, Ahmed Elimam in Dubai, Charlotte Van Campenhout in Brussels and David Brunnstrom in Washington; writing by Michael Georgy and Nia Williams; editing by Andrew Heavens, Mark Heinrich, Hugh Lawson and Diane Craft) Solve the daily Crossword
The Hill
an hour ago
- The Hill
The facts about Qatar's role in education and why I care
I recently agreed to evaluate Qatar's oft-criticized partnerships with American universities as a consultant to Qatar's U.S. embassy. I accepted the assignment because American education deserves to be protected and so do the facts. I know a lot about education in Qatar already and look forward to learning more. But what I have seen so far is a campaign of distortion by Qatar's critics that needs to be exposed. A recent published article suggests that I am being paid to defend what it calls 'pro-Islamist' influence in higher education. That claim is false and offensive. Qatar's major investments in education have not been directed at manipulating U.S. institutions. Quite the opposite — the investments reflect the country's commitment to importing American university programs and standards to benefit Qatar's citizens, not the other way around. These investments pay for Education City in Doha, a complex where respected institutions such as Georgetown, Northwestern and Cornell operate fully accredited branch campuses. Critics of Qatar look at Department of Education data, note that Qatar is the largest foreign donor to American higher education and infer that something nefarious is happening. That is a deliberate misreading of the facts. More than 90 percent of the funds reported to the department are spent not in the U. S. but in Qatar to fund the operations of American university facilities and operations there. When these contractual agreements are separated out, as the Department of Education's database itself does, Qatar ranks thirty-fifth in payments to U.S. colleges, behind countries like Thailand. Americans have long backed the idea that other countries should invest in education and adopt Western standards. U.S. policy has consistently encouraged modernization of foreign education systems because it serves America's strategic interests. Qatar's Education City reflects both the country's effort to serve its own population and the realization of this vision for U.S. education. The universities operate with complete autonomy in Qatar, controlling admissions, curriculum, faculty appointments and everything else that matters to an academic institution. Their agreements explicitly guarantee that their branches there have the same academic freedom and independence they enjoy on their home campuses in the U.S. Rather than undermine American values, these partnerships bring those values into a region that is hungry for them and benefits in many ways. The future leaders of Qatar often get their start in Education City. Impressively, women outnumber men among the graduates of all the Education City campuses, another major step forward. Unfortunately, critics claim that Qatar is responsible for rising antisemitism on American campuses. Lately, the loudest of these accusations has been promulgated by the Institute for the Study of Global Antisemitism and Policy, whose founder, Charles Asher Small, has testified before Congress using unsubstantiated claims that Qatari payments foster antisemitic and anti-democratic behavior. But these assertions are not supported by research they cite. The organization relies heavily on a study by the Network Contagion Research Institute, which examined foreign donations and campus discourse. That study did not analyze Qatar individually. Instead, it assessed funding from all 57 member states of the Organization of Islamic Cooperation as a collective category. The study also says explicitly that no causal relationship was established between funding and antisemitism, and that any such connections were 'exploratory' and 'speculative.' These claims have been further undermined by U.S. intelligence officials. During a May 2024 Senate Armed Services Committee hearing, Director of National Intelligence Avril Haines stated there was no evidence that Qatar played any role in influencing or supporting antisemitic protests on U.S. college campuses. Despite this, Small's organization, which as he testified last year to the Knesset works closely with the Israeli government, has repeated the same false claims in multiple reports and public statements. These efforts are not about combating antisemitism but about using antisemitism to wage a politically motivated campaign against Qatar. I have disclosed my engagement with the Qatari Embassy in accordance with all legal requirements. Throughout my career, I have championed academic integrity and transparency. It is disappointing to be attacked not for the substance of my work, but for the identity of a client I have chosen to advise. My review of this issue is ongoing, but already one thing is clear. The loudest critics of Qatar are not engaged in an honest search for truth. They are advancing a political narrative that undermines the facts and the integrity of public discourse. If we are serious about confronting antisemitism and safeguarding higher education, we must demand intellectual honesty and transparency from everyone involved in the conversation.
