Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-dk4vv Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T15:42:01.506Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Museums and the Return of Human Remains: An Equitable Solution?

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  21 April 2010

Steven Gallagher
Steven Gallagher
Affiliation:
Faculty of Law, Chinese University of Hong Kong. Email: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Disputes over the retention of human remains in museum and other collections are further exacerbated by the common law's limited recognition of the human body and its parts as property. Equity has long recognised the rights of the personal representatives of the dead to possession of the corpse or its remains for decent disposal. This essay considers the possible application of equitable principles to applications for the return of human remains from museum and other collections.

Type
Articles
Information
International Journal of Cultural Property , Volume 17 , Issue 1 , February 2010 , pp. 65 - 86
Copyright
Copyright © International Cultural Property Society 2010

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Amiel, Olivier, “A Māori Head: Public Domain.” International Journal of Cultural Property 15, no. 3 (2008): 371–375.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Appleton, Josie, “Battle of the Bones: Western Intellectuals, Not Native Peoples, Are Behind Moves to Repatriate Human Remains.” (December 12, 2002) ⟨http://www.spiked-online.com/index.php/site/article/6873/⟩ accessed July 15, 2009.Google Scholar
Bailey, Penny. “There's No Place Like Home: Debating the Value of Human Remains.” (July 24, 2007) ⟨http://www.wellcome.ac.uk/News/2007/Features/WTX041039.htm⟩ accessed July 15, 2009.Google Scholar
Bauer, Alexander. “(Re)Introducing the International Journal of Cultural Property.” International Journal of Cultural Property 12, no. 1 (2005):6–10.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Beukes, M. “A Tug of War Between Heritage Conservation and Property Rights: Some Success at Last for Heritage Conservation—City of Cape Town v. Oudekraal Estates (Pty) Ltd. [2007] JOL 20887 (C).” International Journal of Cultural Property 16, no.1 (2009):67–83.Google Scholar
Busse, Mark. “Museums and the Things in Them Should Be Alive.” International Journal of Cultural Property 15, no. 2 (2008):189–200.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carpenter, Kristen A., Katyal, Sonia K., and Riley, Angela R.. “In Defense of Property.” Yale Law Journal 118, no. 6 (April 2009): 1022.Google Scholar
Clerk, and Lindsell on Torts, 17th ed., 1995.Google Scholar
Davies, C. “Property Rights in Human Remains and Artefacts and the Question of Repatriation.” Newcastle Law Review 8, no. 1 (2004): 1, 51.Google Scholar
Davies, M. R. R.The Law of Burial, Cremation and Exhumation. London: Shaw & Sons, 1956.Google Scholar
Davies, P. (1998/9) “Speaking for the Ancestors: The Reburial Issue in Britain and Ireland.” The Druid's Voice: The Magazine of Contemporary Druidry 9 (Winter 1998/9): 10–12.Google Scholar
DCMS, Cultural Property Unit. Report of the Working Group on Human Remains, London (2003).Google Scholar
DCMS, Cultural Property Unit. Guidance for the Care of Human Remains in Museums. ⟨http://www.culturalpropertyadvice.gov.uk/public_collections/human_remains⟩ (October 2005) accessed July 15, 2009.Google Scholar
Fforde, C.Collecting the Dead: Archaeology and the Reburial Issue. London: Gerald Duckworth, 2004.Google Scholar
Fforde, C., Hubert, J., and Turnbull, P.. The Dead and Their Possessions: Repatriation in Principle, Policy and Practice. London: Routledge, 2002.Google Scholar
Frigo, M. “Cultural Property v Cultural Heritage: A ‘Battle of Concepts’ in International Law?” International Review of the Red Cross 86, no. 854 (2004): 367.Google Scholar
Geismar, Haidy. “Cultural Property, Museums, and the Pacific: Reframing the Debates.” International Journal of Cultural Property 15, no. 2 (2008):109–122.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hoffman, Barbara T., ed., Art and Cultural Heritage: Law, Policy and Practice. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 2006.Google Scholar
Hubert, J. “Dry Bones or Living Ancestors? Conflicting Perceptions of Life, Death and the Universe.” International Journal of Cultural Property 1 (1992): 105.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hudson, A.Equity & Trusts, 3rd ed.London: Cavendish, 2004.Google Scholar
“Human Remains Policy Is Criticised.” Museums Journal 108, no. 1 (January 2008): 8.Google Scholar
Kerridge, R., ed. Parry & Clark: The Law of Succession, 11th ed.London: Sweet & Maxwell, 2006.Google Scholar
MacDonald, Helen. Human Remains: Dissection and Its Histories. London: Yale University Press, 2006.Google Scholar
MacDougall, B. “The Market Overt Method to Obtain Ownership of Lost or Stolen Goods: Comment on Manning v Algard Estate [2008] BCSC 1129.” International Journal of Cultural Property 16, no. 1 (2009): 85–89.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Martin, Jill. Hanbury & Martin: Modern Equity, 18th ed.London: Sweet & Maxwell, 2009.Google Scholar
Mathews, P. “Whose Body? People as Property.” Current Legal Problems 36 (1983): 193.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McClean, D., and Beevers, K., eds. Morris: The Conflict of Laws, 6th ed.London: Sweet & Maxwell, 2005.Google Scholar
Nwabueze, Remigus N. “Property Interest in a Burial Plot.” Conveyancer and Property Lawyer Nov/Dec (2007): 517.Google Scholar
O'Keefe, P. J. “Maoris Claim Head,” International Journal of Cultural Property 1, no. 2 (1992): 393.Google Scholar
O'Keefe, P. J., and Prott, Lyndel V.. Law and Cultural Heritage, 3, Movement.London: Butterworths, 1989.Google Scholar
Paterson, Robert. “Administrative Tribunal of Rouen, Decision No.702737, December 27, 2007 (Maori Head Case).” International Journal of Cultural Property 15, (2008): 223–226.Google Scholar
Penner, J. E.Mozley & Whiteley's Law Dictionary, 12th ed.London: Butterworths, 2001.Google Scholar
Pickering, M. “Repatriation, Rhetoric and Reality.” Journal of the Australian Registrars Committee June (2002): 15–19, 40–41.Google Scholar
Piggott, R.“Science Speaks Out on Bone Return.” BBC News. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/3725579.stm (May 19, 2004) accessed July 15, 2009.Google Scholar
Rao, Radhika, “Property, Privacy and the Human Body.” Boston University Law Review 80, (2000): 359.Google ScholarPubMed
Reddy, Vinay. “Common Law Conflict of Laws Rules and the Protection of Cultural Heritage: A Conflict Between the Two.” Flinders Journal of Law Reform 5 (2001): 199.Google Scholar
Seidmann, R. M. “Bones of Contention: A Comparative Examination of Law Governing Human Remains from Archaeological Contexts in Formerly Colonial Countries.” Louisiana Law Review 64, (2003): 545.Google Scholar
Smith, A. “Stealing the Body and Its Parts,” Criminal Law Review (1976): 623.Google Scholar
Vrdoljak, Ana Filipa. International Law, Museums and the Return of Cultural Objects. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 2006.Google Scholar
Wallace, R. J., and Blain, J.. The Sanctity of Burial: Pagan Views, Ancient and Modern. Paper presented at Manchester Museum's conference on Respect for Ancient British Human Remains: Philosophy and Practice, Manchester, England, November 17, 2006.Google Scholar
Watt, Robin, “Museums Can Never Own the Remains of Other People but They Can Care for Them”. In Material culture in flux: law and policy of repatriation of cultural property. Special edition University of British Columbia Law Review.Vancouver, B.C.: U.B.C. Law Review Society, 1995): 77.Google Scholar
White, S. “The Law Relating to Dealing with Dead Bodies,” Medical Law International 4 (2000): 145.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Woodhead, C. “‘A Debate Which Crosses All Borders’ The Repatriation of Human Remains: More Than Just a Legal Question.” Art Antiquity and Law 7, no. 4 (2002): 317.Google Scholar
Woodley, M., ed. Osborn's Concise Law Dictionary, 10th ed.London: Sweet & Maxwell, 2005.Google Scholar