Cookies on this website

We use cookies to ensure that we give you the best experience on our website. If you click 'Accept all cookies' we'll assume that you are happy to receive all cookies and you won't see this message again. If you click 'Reject all non-essential cookies' only necessary cookies providing core functionality such as security, network management, and accessibility will be enabled. Click 'Find out more' for information on how to change your cookie settings.

Accept all cookies Reject all non-essential cookies Find out more

Should human remains be included in museum displays?

Tomb of Sir John Soane, his wife and son, 1816,1828. St Pancras Old Church Gardens, London
Tomb of Sir John Soane, his wife and son, 1816,1828. St Pancras Old Church Gardens, London. © Errol Francis

Museums in the UK and internationally have been and continue to be major repositories for human remains and this varies across sites. The Museum of London, for example, is the main custodian of human remains excavated during archaeological excavations exposed through the relentless redevelopment of urban London. There are also centuries-old medical museums, such as the Hunterian Museum in London, that store historical human specimens. Some of these specimens were meticulously dissected and prepared for the sole purpose of anatomical training, whilst others are displays of human tissue viewed as different from a perceived norm, which were once displayed for public fascination. Museums act as keepers of these remains and the curators and staff are responsible for their ethical treatment, display and care.

But what about the ethical and moral issues around the public display of such human remains? Is there ever a need to have a dead body, or parts of a body, available for public viewing?

The Human Tissue Act (HTA) of 2004, states that only human body parts from individuals that died over 100 years ago are permitted for public display by an HTA licence holder. But should the recently dead be treated, or considered differently, to our historical or ancient ancestors? And what of named individuals? Should human remains of a known person, have different ethical considerations to those from unidentifiable or anonymous people? Should the remains of an individual ever be displayed at all?

These questions and their complex ethical ramifications, were the subject of an event hosted in partnership with the Research Centre for Museums and Galleries (RCMG) at the University of Leicester, and coordinated by Antitheses partners Culture&, in May 2024.

During the two-day event cultural partners and museum representatives worked alongside Museum Studies MA, MSc and PgDip students who are part of the ‘New Museum School’ at Leicester. Attendees worked through the many strands entwined within this issue, with the aim of reaching a collective decision on the future of human remains displays in museums.

The intention was to create an environment, in the form of a trial, where current cases in human remains curation could be presented, discussed and questioned. Evidence was then presented by expert witnesses both for and against the display of human remains in public museums and they were cross examined. Finally, an anonymised vote was taken to ascertain whether participants felt it was ever ethically appropriate to display dead bodies in these settings and whether their positions had changed as a result of hearing expert evidence.

Before and after hearing the expert evidence, the student jury was asked to respond to the overarching question: Do you think human remains should ever be on public display in museum spaces? Although the initial response to this question was in favour, the number of ‘yes’ votes decreased after hearing the evidence. There were generally nuanced feelings on the topic across the group, particularly with regards to the issue of how recently an individual had died and whether their display was ever morally permissible.

ARGUMENTS IN FAVOUR OF THE DISPLAY OF HUMAN REMAINS IN MUSEUMS

ARGUMENTS AGAINST THE DISPLAY OF HUMAN REMAINS IN MUSEUM

Arguments from the ‘defence’ included the value to science and human knowledge in displaying human remains and what we can learn about the lives of people from previous historical epochs.

  • Human remains have been, and continue to be, regarded as an important cultural feature for many museums and visitors often seek them out to feel connected to the human ancestral past.
  • The human body is a repository of an immense amount of information about that individual person. Often this unique information can contest or contradict our written histories, which can be selected stories told from the view-point of a biased (often Eurocentric and white) narrative. The display of human remains can therefore reveal a unique story and personal truth.
  • Displaying the bodies of prehistoric, historical or more recent people in the right context and with respect, can encourage an interest and new learnings (particularly for younger generations), that is not possible through other artefacts or specimens.
  • Some deceased people consented to their display upon death for various reasons (including but not limited to contributing to medical knowledge) and it could be viewed as our moral duty to respect this wish.
  • Prehistoric anonymous remains have no known ancestors and are therefore unlikely to cause upset or harm to most visitors and viewers.

The arguments of the ‘prosecution’ focused on the morality and ethics of consent, what we really learn from displaying human remains and that there are alternatives.

  • Most human remains displayed in museums do not have prior consent from that individual. Ancient remains (such as mummified bodies and unknown skeletons) inevitably have no consent in place for display.
  • Often replicas, imaging, or other artefacts, can just as effectively contribute to a display’s narrative, in substitution of authentic human remains.
  • For some visitors to museums, viewing a dead body can elicit discomfort and alienate some groups. This is particularly true as our understanding of museum practices continues to evolve and more diverse groups are included in discussions around collections care.
  • There are examples of human remains being acquired through questionable or even abhorrent processes and practices. As such the collection of human remains is invariably tied to questions of power and inequality. Museum records and archives have documented the theft and/or purchase of human remains, which are then put on display – sometimes despite the explicit wishes of the person - and even used as a criminal punishment.
  • Even if consent was obtained for display, there are potential hierarchical and power dynamics involved that may have resulted in the persuasion (or even coercion) of those consenting.
  • Ultimately to display human remains undermines our humanity. The UK museum sector continues to review and confront its efforts in decolonisation and the repatriation of its varied and diverse collections. Modern museums need to address these issues and reject the practice of displaying human remains to the public. 

what do you think?