Indigenous Remains
in Museums
A DISCUSSION OF THE ROLE REMAINS PLAY IN THE
REPRESENTATION OF ABORIGINAL AUSTRALIANS
IN BRITISH MUSEUMS
1
Acknowledgements
I would first like to thank my university supervisors Ihab Saloul and Tamara van Kessel, for their help and guidance throughout this thesis. Second thanks must also
be expressed to Mirjam Hoijtink and the Museum Studies staff for their support through this and all other pieces of work. I also express my gratitude to the museum
professionals from the University of Edinburgh and many other institutions for their aid.
Finally, I’d like to thank my friends and family for their unwavering patience and support during this investigation.
2
Abstract
This thesis focuses on the presence of indigenous human remains in museums and the effect that their presence and display have on the interpretation of their culture.
Within this thesis, Australian Aboriginal remains are investigated as opposed to multiple indigenous cultures, partially due to a focus on British institutions. The University of Edinburgh Anatomical Museum and the Natural History Museum in London provide the two main case studies around which the thesis is discussed. The
topic of repatriation is clearly a central subject surrounding human remains, and is investigated within this thesis. The alternative topic of the ethics and politics involved
in the display and possession of human remains are incredibly important in the representation of indigenous cultures. This thesis is primarily to aid in the investigation of representation of indigenous groups based on their remains,
3
Indigenous Remains in Museums: A discussion of the role remains play in the representation of Aboriginal Australians in British Museums
Contents Page
Chapter One – Introduction: The Theory and History behind Museums and their Human Remains
4
Explanation of Method and Institution Choices 4
History of Museums 7
Theories Surrounding Museums 8
Chapter Two – Repatriation and the Politics of Display: The University of Edinburgh Anatomical Museum
12
Repatriation and its Origins 15
Politics and Ethics of Display 21
Chapter Three – Science and its Role in the Display of Remains: The Natural History Museum, London
28
Neanderthals and Homo Sapiens 30
Implications of Research 33
Repatriation and Decolonisation 36
Display Methods and their Effects 40
Conclusion 42
Repatriation 42
Politics and Ethics of Display 45
Final Conclusion 47
References 49
Literature 49
Online Resources 52
4
Chapter One – Introduction
Within this thesis, a discussion is confronted that has loomed over ethnographic museums for much of the past century: how to display and keep human remains. This leads onto the further issues that is often overlooked, which is how the retention and display of human remains within institutions represent indigenous people. The display method and general presentation expresses a range of aspects of the group that they originated from. Each object or piece of artwork encountered within a museum space will inherently hold a piece of information or account about a culture, and whether it is a positive or negative image will depend on the surrounding
explanation and its reception by the public. This is one of many reasons why it is of vital importance to carefully monitor how artefact within museums are displayed and described, as it can distort the presentation and display a static view in the process (Nederveen Pieterse 1997: 128). This is especially important when it comes to
human remains. These are not only representatives of a sensitive area of a culture, a physical and spiritual component. They are also all that is left of people who existed under colonialism and whose remains are now at the centre of debates with their descendants.
Explanation of Method and Choice of Case Studies
To begin the term ‘human remains’ must be clarified. The National Museum of Wales states the following:
‘We acknowledge the definition of human remains given in the DCMS guidelines and base our definition on that. We use the term human remains to mean the bodies, and
parts of bodies, of once living people from the species Homo sapiens (defined as individuals who fall within the range of anatomical forms known today and in the recent past) and any evolutionary earlier hominins with which modern humans today
may share a common ancestor (e.g. Homo neanderthalensis). This includes osteological material (whole or part skeletons, individual bones, or fragments of bone
or teeth), soft tissue including organs and skin, embryos and slide preparations of human tissue. In line with the Human Tissue Act 2004, the definition does not include hair and nails. Human remains also include any of the above which may have been modified in some way by human skill and/or may be physically bound-up
5
This definition includes artworks composed of human bodily fluids and soft tissue.’
(National Museum of Wales Website 2016).
This view can be considered as representative for the position taken bymost British Museum. This thesis will focus on the osteological and soft tissue found within humans, with a particular focus on the skull, part of the body closely related with an individual’s personality.
Culture is a term that should be clarified for this thesis, as it is a key component. Culture was used in its first anthropological context by E.B.Tylor (1871), who defined it as:
‘that complex whole which includes knowledge, belief, art, morals, law, custom, and any other capabilities and habits acquired by man as a member of society.’
(Barfield 1997: 98)
Although the components of custom and belief are some that will be used in the definition of culture within this thesis, there are some that will be excluded. Franz Boas championed the concept of culture but he also recognised the flaws in Tylor’s explanation and demonstrated that bodily form was not linked to language and that challenged the idea that European races were more moral and intelligent than others (Barfield 1997: 99). This was in addition to the idea that there are plural cultures rather than singular, meaning that one could not be measured against another in terms of advancement and evolution (Barfield 1997: 99). Based on these contributing ideas about culture, this thesis will base the term culture around the beliefs, customs, laws and habitat of a society.
Whilst even considering this topic of discussion some crucial decisions must be made. The first being whose remains to specifically investigate. It is almost impossible to know how many remains are held within the museums of former colonial powers but the fact that the Natural History Museum in London holds over 20,000 demonstrates the magnitude of the situation (Calugay 2016: 2). Based on this number, it can be deduced that within the UK alone there are incredible numbers of human remains held by institutions. These include those taken from previous colonies and other countries with indigenous groups. For this investigation, the focus shall be on Aboriginal Australians and their remains. This is due to several factors,
6 chiefly of which are these: the presence of these remains and their surrounding debates within the media, the large number of these remains from this group present in institutions, and the connection between the UK and Australia throughout and after the colonial era. The presence of Aboriginal Australians’ voices within the media is an occurrence that can be seen in every society. They are one of the more
highlighted indigenous groups within the media, alongside Native Americans. This could be because British people established and maintained settlements within Australia and kept it as part of the Commonwealth, rather than leaving after independence. Furthermore, both Australia and the United States of America are now established, strongly western-oriented countries, which may be another reason for such a substantial light being placed on their indigenous communities. This spotlight could also be because of the religious and spiritual conflicts over holding remains that have taken place there. These religious ideals are well-known and clearly contradict the retention and display of human remains by institutions.
Aboriginal Australians have huge numbers of remains within institutions and a large proportion of these are requested for repatriation. The connection between the UK and Australia is also a strong suggestion for focusing on the Australian Aboriginal remains, an aspect that will be further studied later in this thesis. The museums that are focused on within the later analyses are based in the UK, due to the choice to look at an indigenous group which originates from a country that is still closely linked to the UK.
Another important aspect to resolve within this discussion is: which institutions to focus on. This thesis analyses two main institutions: The University of Edinburgh’s Anatomical Museum and the Natural History Museum, London. The rationales behind the decision to focus on these museums are simple: they have
well-documented repatriation actions, they are governed by different bodies (university and private trustees) and, the simplest reason of all, they both have or have had Aboriginal Australian remains within their collection. The difference in governance may have an effect on this subject, however, it affects the museum as a whole rather than this specific discussion. The Anatomical Museum, as the name suggests,
focuses on human remains from all corners of the earth. The institution keeps a number of remains on display within the museum itself as learning tolls, a large number of which were collected during the colonial era. However, the university has
7 also conducted a selection of repatriation acts, including some regarding Aboriginal Australian remains. The Natural History Museum in London is the second
establishment to be considered within this thesis. The Natural History Museum in London is was established during a time of colonial prosperity, though the study of humans was its secondary purpose. This museum is often present in the media for praise and criticism of their policies and attitudes towards repatriation. One other clear impulse for using this museum in a discussion of repatriation: it holds one of the largest collections of human remains in the world. Nevertheless, little importance is placed on repatriation to indigenous communities is place by the establishment. These institutions are compared to others within this discussion, but act as the basis for this investigation, allowing a post for the discussion to be drawn back to in terms of examples as points of reference.
This study does not include an institution in Australia. Within the scope of a master’s thesis it would not have been possible to do the research on location required for a thorough and objective opinion on such an institution. Therefore, the focus is on the perspective of British institutions and their attitudes and practices involving
repatriation and remains display.
History of Museums
To understand most of the colonial issues and conflict over the topic of repatriation it is vital to have some information about the history of museums and especially British museums. Museums were first established from travellers bringing souvenirs home, from the colonies and from Europe. They began life as cabinets of curiosities and antiquities where the wealthy could display their findings for their friends and the other elite. They would later become available for the general public. The early idea of simply collecting for pleasure later lead to a serious academic interest in these collections, which would form the first ethnographic collections (Renfrew 2000:17). Despite the original desire to present objects for the viewer and owner’s delight, museums have now moved to being presented as educational tools and promoters, along with their role of as entertainers. Most museums currently have a mention of education or learning within their mission statements, showing how the need for museums to change to an educational institution has been incorporated into their structure and reasons for working. The museum is considered to be a product of the
8 Enlightenment (Nederveen Pieterse 1997:130). It has then been used to create national, imperial and modern identities. This was further enhanced with their
framing race, gender and class (Nederveen Pieterse 1997: 131). This exploitation of displays for showing the identity of the viewer and the viewed is something that dates back even until the time of cabinets of curiosity. The souvenirs were proof of the ‘greatness’ of empire. Therefore, as a demonstration of this greatness,
stereotypes were placed on the people behind the objects. These stereotypes were then taken into account by the observers and influenced how indigenous peoples were viewed. This has created some tension between former colonial powers and their interactions with indigenous peoples. The voice of ethnography, and often anthropology, is an imperial one and contrasts strongly the indigenous voices held within the objects.
Theories Surrounding Museums
Much of the discussion and information that is gained by looking at the history and evolution of museums is based on Jan Nederveen Pieterse’s article ‘Multiculturalism and Museums’ (1997). This piece of work outlines the basis of museums and their evolution. The museum is used as a basis of power by the collection of the ‘trophies of empire’, with the collector themselves being portrayed as heroes and the
indigenous people as savages (Nederveen Pieterse 1997: 124). This is the foundation that many museums were built on but this has since evolved. While exhibitions were once ‘privileged arenas for presenting images of self and ‘other’’, this has since changed with the evolution of the term ‘the other’ (Nederveen Pieterse 1997: 123). The changing notions of the self and the other has been destabilised by accelerating globalisation and has caused ‘the other’ to simply become ‘others’ (Nederveen Pieterse 1997: 125). The function of the museum as a trophy case has also depleted since decolonisation, thereby changing the purpose and abilities of the exhibition (Nederveen Pieterse 1997: 124). The now different opinions on the
purpose of museums and on new identity of ‘the other’ is the basis for most the discussion in the following paper. The idea that indigenous groups are no longer a completely separate or inferior cultural group is the basis for promoting and
establishing more equal representation in museums and in the process of
9 are part of the main structure of this and many other arguments surrounding the topic of museum representation and especially repatriation.
This change in function is an event that many museums prepared for and have swiftly adapted to. This turn to education became the building block for many modern institutions. There was a movement within the 20th century for museums to be used alongside the classroom, as a tool in observation (Murray 1904: 259). This is not to say that their role as entertainment is at all diminished, but is not mentioned within their own goals. The museum can appeal to any age and class which therefore promotes its appeal as a general educator (Murray 1904: 259). The research done within museums themselves is also of great importance for educational purposes (Murray 1904: 261). This is a point of discussion that reappears throughout this thesis and others on similar topics. The function of museums as an educational space suggests that they are expected to use the majority of their collection for such a purpose, whether that is in the publication of research on artefacts or the
educational display of them. This is not always the case, an issue that will be confronted later.
The topic of authenticity has constantly been present when discussing the artefacts within museums. Despite this early acknowledgement of its importance authenticity is gradually becoming a greater issue within and surrounding museums (Pine and Gilmore 2007: 76). Museums are having to excel at rendering authenticity,
something that is surprisingly new to them (Pine and Gilmore 2007: 76). This is where skeletal material comes into play. The need for remains to be authentic for the public is now of great importance. The authentic experience, which is always
authentic because it happens inside of us as an internal reaction to external events, is no longer enough (Pine and Gilmore 2007: 78). Institutions such as the British Museum or the Louvre can render themselves authentic, as they are real in the eyes of knowledgeable people (Pine and Gilmore 2007: 79). However, does this mean that sensitive items that they have on display, such as human remains, have to at all times be completely authentic? Or could they be casts with explanations of the issues surrounding human remains? As an institution that inherently holds a great level of authenticity, a museum would be able to bring such issues to the public eye. . It could also be considered that indigenous remains have to be removed from public display in coordination with religious values. It is easy to understand the use of
10 remains by museums. With museums now having to compete for funding and for general attendance with every other type of experience out there, including theme parks, cinemas and concerts, they now have to promote any aspect they can to demonstrate their worth to the public (Pine and Gilmore 2007: 76). This can be helped by having authentic remains on display. Remains are uncommon to find and therefore are of great attraction to the public.
An additional concept that needed to be referenced within this thesis is the
‘exhibitionary complex’, outlined by Tony Bennett in 1988. The exhibitionary complex is the ‘complex of disciplinary and power relations whose development might more fruitfully be juxtaposed to, rather than aligned with, the formation of Foucault’s “carceral archipelago”’ (Bennett 1988: 73). Institutions within this complex are involved in the transfer of objects and bodies from private to public domains and further into the public arena where they are subjected to a particular interpretation (Bennett 1988: 74). This subjection to interpretation is where human remains are under scrutiny. The representation of the human remains found within museums is something that has only recently come to light. The exhibitionary complex has allowed a context to exist for the permanent display of power and knowledge (Bennett 1988: 79). This ability to portray power in a supposedly informal setting is nothing new. By looking at the prison systems and punishment spectacles detailed by Foucault we can see another way power was portrayed (Bennett 1988: 78). Through the display of human remains it could be construed that a certain power is also being exhibited. A power of knowledge and domination of others. This is owing to the fact that the representation of the remains is controlled by the people
exhibiting them, and not their original owners. Museums act as embodiments of the power of ‘show and tell’, and sit in the centre of cities, just as punishment spectacles were. Museums claim to be churches of knowledge and education, but this is often used as a defence against allegations of ignoring indigenous groups (Bennett 1988: 99). A museum’s ability to display knowledge that others do not have put them into this elevated level of power.
It would be remiss to discuss colonialism and the representation of cultures without referencing, in some way, the work of Edward Said in his work ‘Orientalism’ (2003). Orientalism is an occurrence that plagued the museum world for the majority of the past few centuries. It gave Western cultures the feeling of superiority over others,
11 including the mysterious ‘Other’ (Said 2003: 7). The ‘Other’ can also be simply
defined as ‘those non-Europeans’ a factor that played a strong role in how
indigenous communities were regarded, due to their lack of European heritage (Said 2003: 7). The collective notion that indigenous people wanted and welcomed the changes that Westerners would impose is one that Said contradicts (Said 2003: 33). There is little to no evidence that colonised people, such as the Egyptians, wanted these interventions. Therefore, the premise that colonialism was the kindest and most intelligent of the movements by the West is based on the political and scientific discussions of the 19th century (Said 2003: 33). The leading geographer La
Reconciere Le Noury was correct in one way when saying ‘The power of expansion of the Western races, it’s superior causes, its elements, its influences on human destinies, will be a beautiful study for future historians.’ (Said 2003: 219). It has become a subject of extensive study and speculation, leading many institutions to scandal for their recognition of these superior causes through their argument of ‘Yet only if the white races indulged their taste for voyaging – a mark of intellectual supremacy – could colonial expansion occur’. This particular element of their argument displayed the pitfalls of relying on science as the explanation for colonial expansion (Said 2003: 219). The racial ideology that inhabited museums and other cultural or scientific institutions throughout this period is still there. There is enough done today in the human sciences to dispel these racial stereotypes and contradict established Orientalism (Said 2003: 328). In terms of the ability of museums to change and the extent to which they are still stuck in their old ways. Said’s work forms the theoretical basis for much of what I have researched for this thesis.
On the basis of these academic studies and theories the following arguments have been formed. Although they are not always specifically referenced, they form the underlying debates and history involved within museums and the discussion of repatriation.
12
Chapter Two – Repatriation and The Politics of Display: The University of Edinburgh Anatomical Museum
The Anatomical Museum in Edinburgh is owned and run by the university, and was primarily set up as an educational resource. The museum was established during the Monro dynasty, and flourished under the supervision of Sir William Turner, the
Professor of Anatomy from 1867-1903 and later the Principal of the University (Anatomical Museum Website A: 2016). The museum now houses new items featured in old exhibition cases, with a variety of samples including human and animal remains as comparisons (Anatomical Museum Website A: 2016). The
museum is open to the public on the last Saturday of each month, and is used by the medical students of Edinburgh University as a learning resource during the rest of the month. The museum not only contains skeletal remains but also teaching models and soft tissue, in varying stages of preservation. The remains found in the public museum are from donated bodies, or are famous skeletons such as those from infamous murderers like William Burke (see Figure 1). The main museum also has an attachment, known as the Skull Room, a room containing a significant portion of the 1400 skulls housed within the University’s collections. This room is only
accessible to university staff, researchers and students conducting projects using the remains held within that room. This is where the indigenous remains belonging to the university are held. Within this room skulls are positioned around the edges in glass and wooden cabinets, with the original layout and labels as when the institution was first established. These labels include the regions the skulls are from and their ‘racial class’. The skulls are not only from foreign indigenous groups, but also from British groups, including some druid skulls. Interestingly, the British skulls are labelled with England first, followed by Scotland and Ireland, despite the placement of the
collection. This demonstrates a focus on England, and in extension London, during this time. This could give some indication to Scottish involvement in the collection of colonial objects and remains.
Similarly to the museum itself the Skull Room also contains soft tissue examples, but more specifically in the form of preserved foetuses with abnormalities. These
preserved foetuses are examples of the more morbid and extreme soft tissue samples, and fit appropriately with the ‘extreme’ skeletal pieces, skulls. Skulls are often seen as the more poignant part of the skeleton as it contained the brain, the
13 centre of thought. Therefore, the containment of the more evocative remains in a room that is concealed from the public is a logical decision.
The exhibition methods of displaying human remains have not drastically changed over the years, the original casing and labels being used to display the objects. The addition of newer teaching models and textbooks at one end of the museum appears to have been the most significant alteration to have occurred. As mentioned earlier, the primary purpose of this space is for teaching, and the methods of display reflect that. The cases themselves radiate academia, and the entrance to the museum contains historic paintings and elephant skeletons, which simply adds to the feeling of entering a Victorian university.
The university also held another collection of human remains in the Natural History Museum, but these have since moved to the Anatomical Museum and the National Museum of Scotland. The Natural History collection was established in 1692 and the exhibits now on display, which no longer contain human remains of any description, remain largely unchanged from the 1920s. This museum is now only accessible through appointment with a curator. With the opening of the Anatomical Museum and the National Museum of Scotland, it was decided that the human remains should be relocated. The National Museum of Scotland now holds a great deal of objects from different collections around Scotland, including some British skulls from the
Anatomical Museum. The National Museum of Scotland holds a national and
international collection, with local archaeology and world cultures (National Museum of Scotland A 2016). However, no human remains are on display within the museum, in the section dedicated to World Cultures or in local history displays. This says something about how human remains are viewed within this museum compared to the anatomy museum: these are not seen as objects or teaching materials in the same way as the Anatomy Museum. The argument for retaining human remains that has prevailed in almost every discussion on the topic is that of education: that human remains are invaluable tools for education on biology and human evolution, even on cultural practice (Andersen 2010: 17).
The University of Edinburgh was the first institution in the United Kingdom to repatriate human remains, with the first donation occurring in 1947, and the larger and better known repatriation happening in 1991. The University of Edinburgh has
14 now repatriated their entire Aboriginal Australian collection of remains, totalling the remains of 307 people. In January of 1991 11 Tasmanian skulls were returned, and this was followed in September by the return of 292 skulls and 4 skeletons from the rest of Australia (Parliament Publication A: 2016). The last piece of the Aboriginal remains collection, a solitary ear bone, was returned to the Ngarrindjeri in 2008 during a trip to Australia in conjunction with the Royal Albert Memorial Museum. The Royal Albert Memorial Museum also returned 2 skulls during this visit (Scobie 2009). Much of the collection belonging to Edinburgh University was collected by William Ramsay Smith, who was based in 1896 in Adelaide Hospital. He used his positions at this hospital to illicitly dissect and remove human remains and send many back to the University (Scobie 2009). This was a practice that often happened in the
acquisition of human remains. There have been accusations of indigenous people being killed for their remains, however, with the actions of white police officers in these countries contributing to many indigenous bodies arriving in morgues, it is unlikely that this process would have been a regular occurrence. There have been a few accusations of this happening to acquire specimens for museums and other institutions. For example, William Smith had been known to rob graves and from massacre sites across Australia (Scobie 2009). It has also been recorded that ‘in the history of Mackay, Queensland, that one overseas collector made a request to the trooper that he shoot a native boy to furnish a complete exhibit of an Australian Aboriginal skeleton, skin and skull.’ – The Sydney Morning Herald, 31 January 1955, page 2 (Creative Spirits 2016).
The majority of indigenous remains within the Anatomical Museum, as mentioned earlier, are held within the Skull Room. The Skull Room is not an unusual sight for a university whose focus is on medicine and anatomical study (see Figure 2). The study of skulls was a widespread subject. The study of skulls was a method of determining differences between the races (Blumenbach 1865: 234). This use of skull formations as an indicator of race was popularised by Johann Friedrich
Blumenbach (Ward 2012: 4). This was established in his work , ‘Collectio Craniorum Diversarium Gentium’ (1790 – 1828 7 vols) which led the way for furthering the classification of the races (Ward 2012: 12). This has since been developed by other anthropologists such as Retzius, who distinguished the heads of the races as long or short. They were then given the names Dolichocephalic and Brachyphalic (Ward
15 2012: 12). Blumenbach worked on the basis of there being an intimate relationship between the external face and the substratum, which distinguishes the races
(Blumenbach 1865: 234). However, the use of skulls for classification was secondary to the first investigations into classification. The primary observation by
anthropologists was skin colour (Ward 2012: 10). Blumenbach was a pioneer in this method, just as in skull types, where he decided to classify men with the interest ‘of a scientist’. He distinguished five races on man: Caucasian, Mongolian, Ethiopian, American and Malay, colloquially known as white, yellow, black, red and brown men (Ward 2012: 10). This was later developed by Cuvier (1817) who reclassified
mankind on the basis of colour to conform to traditions as well, including all under 3 races: Caucasian, Mongol and Negro (Ward 2012: 12). The factors that classifies the races are generally combined with other anatomical characteristics. The other main ones being features (such as pointed chins and nose shape), and mental and moral characteristics (Ward 2012: 18). According to Blumenbach these features were all based on climate alone, therefore basing his racial classifications on geographical locations (Blumenbach 1865: 101). This classification of races came about due to realisation that if man was organic was organic, then they must be under the laws of the animal kingdom and therefore could be classified (Ward 2012: 5). This method of classifying people by their race in the cause of scientific interest has since been greatly disputed. Particularly the inference that one race would be superior to
another. This in particular is where science has an issue. Classification itself dictates that every classification has its own purpose. As Ward concisely puts ‘- No one can say that this is the only one, or scarcely that this is the better one. Each will serve a purpose which no other can.’ (Ward 2012: 6). Therefore, the classification of mankind in a science based environment is not necessarily the negative force that it is believed to be. It’s the insinuations that go along with it. It’s the role of superior and inferior that is placed on these classifications and the people who belong to them.
Repatriation and its Origins
We cannot discuss the remains held within the University of Edinburgh’s collections, and more precisely the Anatomical Museum, without acknowledging the difficult issue of repatriation. The Anatomical Museum holds over 1400 skulls and a large collection of other human remains. Within this collection there are a number of different cultural groups represented, from various different origins. The only group
16 that are missing from this collection that were here at the inception are those from Australia and New Zealand. The entire collection from this area has been returned, with the exception of one Maori skull which was mentioned earlier. During 1991 a total of 307 remains were returned to Australia and these have not been replaced since then (Parliament Publications A: 24).
The University of Edinburgh was the first UK institution to repatriate human remains with a skull being repatriated in 1947 to India. This early repatriation act is something that must have had a specific political surrounding, although this is currently
unknown. One possibility is that Scotland was fiercely involved with the abolition of slavery. Many prominent Scottish politicians and notable figures spoke out against slavery, even as early as 1790, where James Beattie – the chair of Moral Philosophy at Aberdeen’s Marischal College – wrote that black slavery was ‘utterly repugnant to every principle of reason, religion, humanity and conscience’ (Leadbetter 2013). In Scotland, the Abolition movement was in full effect in the late 1780s and Scottish people were some of the most active (Scottish History Society: Scotland and Black Slavery to 1833). This is another reason that could explain the continued efforts of the University of Edinburgh in attempting repatriation acts. Due to this powerful movement by Scotland, Scottish institutions and individuals have been known to distance themselves from colonialism. It is now considered more of an English enterprise than having been Scottish.
However, we must bear in mind that Scotland and Scottish industries gained some of the greatest profit from the slave trade, and later in compensation from the abolition of slavery (Leadbetter 2013). Scotland, in general played a large role in the British Empire, including having its own colonies like New Caledonia. One such colony was at Darien, a colony founded by the Scots in Panama, one which they were forced from and were left without the aid of England due to its interference with British trade (Little 2014). Now, Scotland not only worked with the Empire in an economic and industrial context, but many Scottish merchants and individuals used the profits from their work with the Empire to build lives for themselves as the new Scottish county gentry (Scottish Heritage Hub 2016). These profits came from smaller jobs but Scotland was heavily invested in the Empire with many Scots owning sugar
plantations in the Caribbean, tobacco trades in Virginia and had stakes in the opium trade in the Far East (Scottish Heritage Hub 2016). The remains found within the
17 Anatomical Museum do not have information on their origins or how they were
collected in most cases, although some of the skulls have a note on some of the circumstances such as being collected in a battle field. However, it is incredibly likely that the remains were collected by colonisers, or those working within the colony, as most come from indigenous cultures within the colonies. This simply demonstrates Scotland’s involvement and dependence on the British Empire. Which begs the question yet again: why did the University of Edinburgh become the first institution to take on repatriation?
In my opinion, we will never know the complete answer to this, especially in regards to the exact issues surrounding this act. However, the desire to distance themselves from the British Empire is a strong explanation for why Scottish institutions went ahead of English ones in the movement to repatriate. The fact that the moral components of repatriation are inextricably linked to the political complications and opinions that also accompany the origins of the remains themselves (Brajer 2010). On the other hand, we must consider that a number of British institutions are under legislative constraints, which the University of Edinburgh is not, and therefore could find it easier than a number of other museums who would wish to conduct
repatriation motions (Parliament Publications A: 2016). In what follows I will analyse a few examples of repatriation.
Specifically, why Aboriginal Australian remains were returned is slightly less of a mystery. Indigenous groups are beginning to claim their ancestors’ remains from museums around the world, but a majority from museums in the UK (Wiltscheke-Schrotta 2016). Australia and the UK has incredibly close links, due to its previous place in the Empire and as a Commonwealth country. This is not the only institution to return items to Australia and this idea of the strong connection between the countries does have some logic to it. It could also be that Australia has a number of institutions that are similar to those found in the UK. Some of the remains that are returned, first go to an institution rather than straight to the Aboriginal group. Australia currently recognises that all post-1778 remains should be put in into the control and custody of Aboriginal councils (Archaeology and Contemporary Society: 2016). There is some disagreement about whether they should be reburied or kept in a similar situation to in museums but under Aboriginal control. This disagreement is addressed with arguments of ‘right to sepulchre’ or the right to be buried, a law
18 present in Scotland, which is considered by many to apply to the remains returned from there (Archaeology and Contemporary Society 2016). However, this is not a popular opinion and they are generally reburied by the Aboriginal community (Archaeology and Contemporary Society 2016). This process can take years to complete, but the remains are still kept in as respectful a situation as possible.
The cultural importance of the remains requested is one of the striking reasons, and often the basis of a repatriation request. For Aboriginal Australians, the return of human remains is paramount to the souls of the deceased and to the survival of the group as a whole. The Ngarrindjeri people believe that when an elder dies they must go back to the land. If they are disturbed the living will be punished. This is linked to the current collapse of their environment as the Coorong silts up and the Murray river system is being devastated by drought (Scobie 2009). They believe that this is due to the remains that are currently held in institutions across the world of which many are still missing (Scobie 2009). The largest collection of remains from Australia are held in the Duckworth Laboratory at Cambridge University, which only published its policy on repatriation as of 2008 (Scobie 2009). The University of Edinburgh itself has strong links with Australia and, more specifically with the National Museum of Australia. The repatriations that the Anatomical Museum has conducted with indigenous groups within Australia has only strengthened this connection. The remains collected from Australia were often taken by Scots living in the colonies, including those taken from the Ngarrindjeri William Ramsay Smith, from Adelaide Hospital, who sent remains to DJ Cunningham from the anatomy department in Edinburgh (Scobie 2008).
Acts of repatriation have to be initiated by the group who wants the items or remains to be returned. They are then required to go through the proper channels and criteria that are outlined by the university. However, how is a group supposed to know that the remains are present in an institution if the exact number and origin of remains is kept concealed from the public eye? This is a major issue, not only with the
Anatomical Museum but with many institutions. It occurs across the world and has been a concerning problem in the repatriation of Native American remains and the process of the Native American Grave Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA) (Wiltscheke-Schrotta 2016). The exact number and origins of skulls and remains are not published for the public to see and this would prevent a group from knowing if
19 their ancestors are even in a particular country, let alone in a specific museum. The records for the remains are either in the database or on the skulls, within the Skull Room. There is also limited information about the remains that have been repatriated other than those that have been published by the museum.
The University of Edinburgh, as it is an educational body, has its own criteria and procedure for repatriation. The criteria for repatriation are much like those that are set out by government bodies. For example, evidence of past ownership, the authority of the requester, proof or cultural, religious or scientific importance and appropriate guidance from UK government sources, where available (University of Edinburgh Collections Management Policy: 2015). The decisions that are sometimes made by the government or local council, are passed onto the University Court, where it is assessed and a decision made. This is a similar set up to the British Museum, with the Board of Trustees hold a similar role. This reliance on an
individual authority, as the British Museum does, allows the Anatomical Museum to operate with the university as its own entity. It does not have to fit the specific restrictions that other government controlled institutions. This does not mean that they do not take the advised regulations that are published by the government, but that they are not obligated to precisely follow them.
As I mentioned earlier, this collection is primarily for educational purposes, and the method of display in use reflects this, and fits neatly into the mission of the
university: ‘the creation, dissemination and curation of knowledge’ (University of Edinburgh Collections Management Policy 2016). They are presented as simple medical specimens, with no back-stories or identification of the person who donated, with only their physical specifications and any ailments that are being addressed. There is no indication of where the skeletal material is from, and only on
investigation is it mentioned that no indigenous communities are presented within the public museum itself. The labels are all in medical terminology, with only a few labels about the most famous skeletal material. This demonstrates, perhaps not a change in how remains are displayed but more consideration over what or who is displayed. It is no longer considered appropriate to display indigenous peoples as objects, because at some point they were people just like those who go to view the remains. This change to display being inappropriate is based on a stronger appreciation and acceptance of the religious and spiritual beliefs of indigenous people, especially
20 those of the Aboriginal Australians. Human remains do in general still provide a useful role in education. Of course, this could be obvious because of the use of this resource by medical students. However, as this museum is open to the public, it could be argued that critics of repatriation are right: it is important for the education of future generations to have human remains on display (Andersen 2010: 17). This idea that human remains’ primary goal is to educate could also be considered in the case of the Natural History Museum: there was somewhere more appropriate, and arguably more accessible, to display them and they were therefore relocated. This is further enforced by the removal of indigenous remains to a separate space, where only people with academic interest would be able to study them. This skull room is the epitome of historic academic study, with the labels detailing the method of acquisition, the date, the location and racial class at the base of each skull. The labels for regions are now relatively inaccurate as the section dedicated to Australia no longer contains any from that area, but by keeping these labels, there is an indication of the time that these skulls were collected. These skulls were recently reorganised by Ruth Pollitt, who found that they were often mismatched and had been taken out at various times for teaching purposes. I was also told that there were a number of skulls, approximately 250, that could be considered suitable for repatriation. This is yet another reason for the way that they are ‘displayed’ in a hidden room: that if some are repatriated they are not already on display and wouldn’t have to be replaced. The positioning of the skulls, almost as an audience, however, does seem to refute the idea of education for the student population. Especially the retention of the original labels, they can almost seem decorative, overlooking a table and the students working below.
Thus far most of the discussion around human remains in museums has been
centred around the issue of repatriation, but this is not the only component to human remains within museums. When discussing human remains, it is important to
consider the ethics of display surrounding them. It has to be accepted that some remains are held within museums and are unlikely to leave them. Therefore, what we do with them simply increases in importance. Do we leave them gathering dust in museum stores, available only to a select few or put them on display for the public to see? Putting them on display comes with its own issues, which we shall call the
21 ethics and politics of display. In my opinion these can be broken down into a few key aspects of displaying human remains and the motives behind them.
Politics and Ethics of Display
The idea of human remains display for scientific purposes is one used in many different types of museum, but none so more than a university owned and run museum such as the Anatomical Museum. The background of human remains display is primarily scientific, with the notion that different races had different physiological features, and that these could determine the success or ability of an individual. As this museum is dedicated to an institution of learning, it doesn’t differ from this idea. This is also one of the strong motives behind the refusal to repatriate by a number of institutions. The scientific community, the basis for establishing many of the institutions now considered as museums, work on the basis of studying all aspects of life in order to draw conclusions. This includes humans, and the easiest way for a large scientific community to study humans is by remains, as they can be moved easily and kept in objective conditions. This is then transitioned into the method of display that can be seen at the Anatomical Museum, one in which the primary objective is education. In this respect, the display of human remains is not unethical, as it is treating human remains as it would any other scientific object.
However, this is where we reach another strong issue within the ethics of display: the treatment of human remains as objects. Human remains are often treated as objects, perhaps more significant or precious objects, but objects nonetheless (Pickering 2008:1). Once the remains enter a museum setting they often take on the role of objects, and their backgrounds and personal stories become just another piece of information that isn’t relevant to their study (Pickering 2008:1). They move from having their own rights and responsibilities to becoming yet another item on the shelves of an ancient establishment (Pickering 2008:2). However, looking specifically at the Anatomical Museum, we see the same happening to these remains: they are given a new role, in the education about the human form, but their stories are hidden, and considered as irrelevant as though they were simply plastic models of their parts (see Figure 3). These remains are slightly elevated objects, almost ‘sacred’ objects, with the need to put them in a restricted area, especially in
22 reference to the Skull Room (Pickering 2008:6). This ‘hidden’ display shows the individuality and sensitive aspect of these remains in comparison with those shown to the public. This may be due to a desire not to declare human remains as
individuals and to maintain the air of academia within the institution, as the notion of remains being a person in themselves holds a number of other issues, chief among which is repatriation, something that will be discussed further on. This method of changing remains to objects is something we do for our own needs, not something that the remains inherently have with themselves. We convert them to something that the living can still use, something that is very explicitly done within this institution for teaching purposes (Alberti et al 2009: 137). Within the context of a museum filled with human remains this could be expected, with the senses being dulled to the idea of individuals being present in the space.
Thus far I have mainly discussed the education of the people who get constant access to this space: medical students. However, there is a group who can learn and be inspired by seeing human remains on display that would only enter the institution with the rest of the public: children. Children are incredibly reliant on visual learning and the presence of human remains can help teach them about the different parts of the body and how they can change from different conditions. When children and young adults experience captivating or unique displays their interest is piqued and this can begin a desire to learn more (Alberti et al 2009: 135). The display of human remains is rather unique in that it is not something that is encountered during
everyday life or in most other institutions. Once again we return to the need for human remains in education, but this is a strong argument for the continued display of human remains. At least within this institution the aim is for a specific and
academic presentation of the body rather than using a sensationalist angle. Most museums, in their decision to display human remains, strongly consider the
educational aspects (Andersen 2010:4). On the other hand, this is often to appeal to the general public, who are not all medically trained. This is where, it could be
argued, that the Anatomical Museum has reduced the educational ability of the remains. The only group that they are educating are people with an already extensive knowledge of biology and general anatomy. Therefore, although the simple sight of these remains may, in some way, inspire children or young adults to begin an involvement with medicine or a related subject, it won’t necessarily teach
23 them anything. This is without even seeing remains of indigenous groups. This
removal of specific remains also prevents a discussion about their presence in displays and in a way causes as many issues with retaining the remains, only for the public to be unable to access them.
The authenticity of the remains is a key issue that cannot be disregarded, especially when considering their display. With the development of museums, the need for an experience has become increasingly important (Pine and Gilmore 2007: 76). The need for authentic remains in this aspect is crucial. As experiences are becoming increasingly staged there is a requirement for institutions that represent reality and education to be real (Pine and Gilmore 2007: 76). This desire for authenticity is something that is often aimed for by institutions but it should not be the only motive behind display or retaining human remains, especially with indigenous remains (Andersen 2010: 17). In this museum, as it is specifically dedicated to the human body, it is important for the exhibits to not only be realistic, but preferably real. This the creation of an experience and despite the bombarding of the public by images of dead bodies on the television and online physically seeing human remains stirs primordial feelings in many people (Brajer 2010). Since there are only the bodies of people who donated their remains on display, the authenticity of this institution is almost indisputable. The remains within the museum are all real examples of the health issues and aspects that they portray and the remains found within the Skull Room are also authentic examples. However, the skulls do represent a morbid authenticity. They are authentic examples of anatomy but also of the method of display and study that was held throughout periods of collecting. This can also be seen within the main museum with the original cabinets being used to display the remains. Therefore, the experience is authentic, particularly in reference to the remains themselves, but it is an authentic experience of a specific place and time – academia in the late 1800s/early 1900s.
A considerable issue, which we have not yet approached is that of religious
considerations. The display of the remains in itself often goes against the religious or cultural wishes of the individual, and by displaying them we are not treating them with the ‘appropriate respect and dignity’ that is mentioned within the Human Tissue Act of 2004 (Alberti et al 2009: 138). This notion that remains should be treated with respect is almost universal and the rituals and ceremonies based around the
24 remains is crucial in this endeavour (Alberti et al 2009: 142). With the remains in institutions often not having a chance to undergo these rituals, it could be considered that they are not being treated with the respect they deserve. This is only heightened by the fact that most cultures have a cultural need to bury their dead together, or near the community. By even keeping the remains, let alone by putting them on display, we disregard these wishes and, in a sense, disrespect the individual and the community. This method of displaying against a community’s wishes is something that happens within many museums. As this is a primarily educational institution it is conducted in an incredibly objective method, but by doing this they leave out the cultural background of the remains. This is, in some way, just as disrespectful as displaying remains in the first instance. It prevents people from considering the place of human remains in museums, with the background providing a more humanising perspective. The skeletons of the criminals that currently hang in the museum were not donated by the individuals themselves but were donated by the judge of their cases for medical examination after their execution. In this way, the musealisation of the remains has carried a punishment over from life to death. This tradition of using executed criminals for example and study came into being fully in 18th and 19th
century Britain. This is because the church-going masses believed it un-Christian to donate their bodies for dissection (Roach 2003: 40). This continued until the passage of the Anatomy Act in 1836, when it became legal for remains other than those of criminals could legally be used (Roach 2003: 41). This acceptance of dissection by the State impressed the idea of its acceptance by the Church as well, and
encouraged an increase public donation (Roach 2003: 41). The religious
considerations of indigenous cultures has been somewhat lacking throughout the history of museums, and is not a new phenomenon. In fact, the opposite is true with more focus now being placed on the wishes of the indigenous cultures represented. This is even more poignant in the Skull Room. The skulls are organised by
geographical region but this means that skulls from opposing groups can quite easily be placed next to one another, something that has been considered a great
disrespect in places such as the Pitt Rivers Museum. The shrunken heads found in the Pitt Rivers are placed in one cabinet, despite being from opposing tribes,
something that has caused great discussion over their display (Peers 2011:4). So why is it that this room has not come under discussion? In my opinion, it is because the public do not have access to it, and therefore it is studied and discussed at the
25 discretion of academics. Therefore, it does not reach the public eye and is not
discussed. This is also a possible reason for some of the remains not being requested for repatriation. Now, this isn’t a religious consideration which is
something that is often taken more seriously in the discussion for the display and return of remains. This is a cultural consideration, something that is sometimes ignored, especially when these items were being collected. This is because this museum, like most, worked on the basis of the superiority of western cultures and the need to study and adapt indigenous groups (Said 2003: 7). Within the Skull Room and museum there are no remains from Aboriginal Australians or from any indigenous group in Australia or New Zealand. Recently, during the restructuring of the Skull Room, a Maori skull was found but this has since been removed and placed in storage until a repatriation act can be initiated. This does not mean that there are few indigenous remains in the museum, as there are many including from South American and Native American tribes. There is, of course, a great deal of discussion over who may actually speak for the dead, and who may dispute their display within a museum, but this also occurs during repatriation. There is a general feeling among indigenous communities that it is generally disrespectful to have ancestors investigated or on display (Wiltscheke-Schrotta 2016). This is because of religious considerations mentioned earlier, with the removal and displacement of individuals having a ripple effect with the remaining community (Scobie 2009). The removal of remains not only affects the living but is also thought to cause the
ancestors themselves great anguish (Fforde 2009: 94). This is a strong issue when it comes to display, as the feelings of the indigenous community must be taken into account but with such a discussion of ownership it is difficult to completely agree with either group within the argument.
One motive behind wanting human remains on display is simply curiosity. Throughout human history there has been a history of morbid curiosity, with the collection of human remains such as the shrunken heads found in a number of museums, including the Pitt Rivers and the Royal Albert Memorial Museum (Peers 2011). This curiosity has been integral in museums. The human body is ‘shrouded in mystery’ and as long as this is the case we will continue to discuss what it means to be human and what rights and responsibilities come with that (Alberti et al 2009: 135). Public opinion on display is incredibly important and the basic human curiosity
26 in human life is something that should be considered in the displays (Alberti et al 2009:137). The human curiosity is something that is almost certainly accomplished within the displays at the Anatomical Museum, particularly in a medical and
biological capacity, but also in a historical sense. The historical cabinets and method of display demonstrate historical methods of display and, to an extent, the history of museums. Therefore, the curiosity of medicine and history are approached in these displays. The audience is educated on the treatment of prisoners and on methods of museum display. This mystery is partly due to the ceremonies that I mentioned earlier, which hide the aftermath of a body being committed to its own ceremony. This museum allows people to discover this, and to go a step further by looking at what could have caused the death itself. By displaying these processes, the mystery is somewhat dissipated. However, there is one area that does not unveil its mystery – the cultural background of collected remains and the display of indigenous groups as they once were in the cabinets that now hold individuals dedicated to science. This ability to interact with human remains is something that enables people to
discover new ways to view themselves and their place in society and, to an extent, in life (Wilscheke-Schrotta 2016). By removing the cultural background of the remains and by eliminating any trace of personality, this becomes harder, and all that’s left is basic, animalistic curiosity. This is one topic where we have to question where the boundary of curiosity lies. When the remains of an indigenous people are put on display people are outraged. But when you have an exhibition such as Body Worlds, it is accepted (Figure 4).. This seems to be because the existing guidelines for human display allow the presentation of remains that their former owners donated to research (Andersen 2010:1). Therefore, a simple boundary that we can produce here, is that the remains that have been unlawfully taken or take against someone’s religion are inappropriate to display, but the remains that are donated for research, which includes medical and observational in the method of museum display, are acceptable (Andersen 2010: 1).
From this brief analysis of the University of Edinburgh Anatomical Museum we can see that this particular museum is deeply involved in the repatriation of human remains, and in a sense, was a pioneer in this area. The display of the remains within this museum fits the purpose of the institution. It is for education, and how they are displayed reflects this. This does mean that the indigenous groups behind the
27 artefacts and even the individual remains themselves, are underrepresented. Their cultural background and the issues surrounding their display and retention are not discussed within the museum. This could be because it only recently became
available to the general public and has yet to transition into a space of discussion or education for those who are not experts in the field of medicine.
28
Chapter Three – Science and its Role in the Display of Remains: The Natural History Museum, London
The Natural History Museum, in South Kensington, London, is home to one of the largest geological, natural history and geographical collections in the world. The museum opened on the 18th April 1881, but its early origins began further back in 1753 with Sir Hans Sloane (Natural History Museum Website A: 2016). Sir Hans Sloane, a renowned and highly sought after doctor, spent his lifetime collecting natural history specimens and cultural artefacts from around the world, (Natural History Museum Website A: 2016). After his death in 1753, his collection was bought by the government and placed within the British Museum, when it was decided that a larger and new space was needed for the ever-expanding collection (Natural History Museum Website A: 2016). This building has since been referred to as the ‘cathedral of nature’, with the building having ornate structure and decoration (Natural History Museum Website A: 2016). This contradiction is incredibly significant when
discussing the origins of the museum where religion and science are often at odds. Many strictly religious groups have condemned science throughout history and there were even deaths because of it.
The museum was part of the British Museum until 1992 when it was renamed the Natural History Museum. In 1986 the Museum absorbed the Geological Museum of the British Geological Survey, which can still be found within the museum’s Geology Department (Natural History Museum Website A: 2016). The well-known Darwin Centre opened to the public in 2009 and contains some of the more historic collections relating to science and evolution (Natural History Museum Website A: 2016). Visitors can now view open-plan laboratories where scientists work on the collections, form historic to more recent specimens (Natural History Museum
Website A: 2016). The Darwin Centre displays some of the most important plant and insect specimen collections, and is used by over 200 scientists (Natural History Museum Website A: 2016).
The museum runs a variety of events to promote the museum and its collections. One such event is a temporary exhibition on treasures. The exhibition is advertised with a large poster, featuring a skull which looks like it belongs to the Neanderthal category of human evolution. However, upon entering the exhibition, there is no such
29 skull to be found. The main display of human remains within the museum are those to be found within the Human Evolution section. Within this department there are countless remains of human beings and our ancestors, from all corners of the world (see Figure 5). This is a relatively new display, and has brought some of the 19,950 human remains currently held within the museum collections (BBC News 2006). There have been no details as to whether these human remains are also comprised of those of ancestors such as Homo sapiens and Neanderthals. They are mainly displayed with the type of skeletal remain, the time frame in which the original owner lived in and the location of the find. This does come with some issues as a number of the samples are from now war torn countries. This is especially evident with the absent of information about the archaeological work done to obtain these specimens and the issues surrounding this.
One other significantly lacking piece of discussion throughout the museum and the evolution section was the opposition during the development of the theory of
evolution itself. This topic is something which was subject to huge controversy, which cannot be ignored. This controversy and movement from a focus on religion to
science, a transition which formed part of the foundation of institutions such as the Natural History Museum. We can see this from the mission of the museum: to
challenge the way people think about the natural world – its past, present and future. We aim to stimulate public debate about humanity’s future and equip our audiences at every level with an understanding of science (Natural History Museum Website B: 2016). This focus on science and the natural history of the world would most
probably be unlikely had it not been for pioneers such as Darwin, confronting the religion controlled society.
Another confusing situation is the location of the Human Evolution section, which is within the Geology department. This is on the other side of the museum to the Human Biology and Darwin Centres. There are a few human remains to be found within the Human Biology department and Mammals section however. Within the Human Biology department there are human remains to be found, a femur and a brain with the nervous system displayed. These do not have their origins mentioned or any other information other than their connections to the display. The remains within the Mammals section is a full human skeleton. It is held in a cross section with a silhouette of the body with soft tissue included. This also lacks a label detailing the
30 origins of the skeleton itself or other information about the body. Of course, this could be due to its location within the Mammals section, rather than in Human Biology and therefore the details are saved for the other departments. However, this gives some issue as to whether there is not a skeleton held within Human Biology. There is one item which is held within the Human Biology section which is connected but seems slightly out of place. A selection of ethnographic objects from across the world, such as North America, Australia and Africa, each relating to the subject of memory and translation. These do connect to the Human Biology section of memory, however the ethnographic nature of them does create some confusion as to why they are in this particular section, other than to demonstrate the universality of traits such as memory.
Neanderthals and Homo Sapiens
At this juncture there is an important discussion to address: should our evolutionary ancestors be afforded the same responsibilities and privileges as the remains of human beings. Despite much argumentation it has been confirmed that within modern humans there is a small sample of Neanderthal DNA. The precise amount varies from 1-5% depending on which part of the world an individual is from
(Smithsonian 2017). The reason for this is generally considered to be interbreeding, as this is the most logical reason for the presence of such genetic material (National Geographic 2017). This also provides an explanation for the ‘disappearance’ of Neanderthals as a species. It postulates that Neanderthals were simply outbred, by this interbreeding, rather than the other scientific explanations put forward (National Geographic 2017).
One major obstacle when it comes to analysing the connections between
Neanderthals and Homo Sapiens is that comparative hominin genomics are still in their earlier stages. Therefore, the certainty with which the scientific community can prove a connection is limited (Foley & Mirazon 2007: 188). There were also many other hominin species other than Neanderthals who differed from Homo Sapiens in their genetic makeup (Foley & Mirazon 2007: 188). Not only do homo sapiens contain some Neanderthal DNA, but the social behaviour of both hold similarities. There are multiple examples of cave paintings and engravings, made by
31 of codes and symbols in a purposeful manner is a significant cognitive step within human evolution, which has been assumed to be exclusive to modern humans (Rodriguez-Vidal et al. 2014: 1). The prime example of this engraving is the
Gorham’s Cave in Gibraltar, which is older than 39 cal kyr BP, which can only have been made by Neanderthals (Rodriguez-Vidal 2014: 1).
There is one another significant similarity that pertains specifically to the deceased. Neanderthals have been known to bury their dead, yet another action that was previously considered Homo Sapien territory. There is some debate surrounding this topic. Although it is clear that at least 30 Neanderthals were buried by their kin over 30,000 years, whether it was for social or practical purposes is still inconclusive (Pettitt 2011: 80). Corpse removal is a logical and practical reason for burial. It prevents attracting carnivores and the general unpleasantness that accompanies a rotting corpse (Pettitt 2011: 80). This lack of definitive answer has not prevented the burial of relatives from being used as an example of similarities between
Neanderthals and modern humans (Pettit 2011: 80). There is a lack of grave goods with Neanderthal burials, which has detracted from the idea of burials for social or spiritual purposes (Pettitt 2011: 128). This being said, it is generally assumed that burial was a purposeful action, conducted by Homo Sapiens, however, the logic behind this burial could have been similar to the reasons mentioned above (Pettitt 2011: 97). The meaning behind burial could have been placed onto the act later by other groups (Pettitt 2011: 97). Therefore, the term burial and its connotations of advanced cognitive reasoning that are discussed by scholars today could have derived from the same root as the actions of Neanderthals.
From these examples, it could be postulated they Neanderthals and modern humans have the same cognitive ability for beliefs of life and death. Therefore, should they still be treated as homo sapiens who have set preferences for the treatment of their remains or referred to mainly as animals or objects. Without the knowledge of how these ancestors related to death and any beliefs they have had in this regard, it is difficult to evaluate whether they would have an objection to the use of their remains within museums or research. This is a situation to bear in mind during the
discussions of human remains display, as people have a connection to these
