AHRC Collaborative Doctoral Award
The Legacies of the Repatriation of Human Remains
Applications are invited for an AHRC CDA studentships commencing in autumn 2013 on
‘The Legacies of the Repatriation of Human Remains’ supervised by Dr Sam Alberti,
Director of Museums and Archives at the Royal College of Surgeons, Dr Beth Greenhough,
Geography, QMUL, and Professor Catherine Nash, Geography, QMUL.
Aims and Objectives
As the Hunterian Museum (HM) celebrates its bicentenary in 2013 it is keen to reflect on the
current and future role of the museum’s collection of non-European remains in light of its
colonial provenance. Despite the recent publicity given to its decision to decline a request to
bury at sea the remains of Charles Byrne, known as the Irish Giant, the HM has in recent years
returned human remains to Oceania. This reflects changes within museum policy, claimant
community campaigns and wider concerns about the historical and recent use and storage of
human remains and biological samples. Since the shift towards a more sympathetic approach to
repatriation in 2001, the Royal College of Surgeons has returned a number of items. This
doctoral project will enable the HM to enhance the knowledge base associated with its
remaining non-European collection, further develop and revise its policies on the treatment and
use of human remains, and contribute to policy making and professional development within the
museum sector. It will provide resources and empirical evidence to inform future discussions
around repatriation, the treatment of human remains retained within collections and the
development of relations with communities to whom remains have been repatriated.
Using three examples of the repatriation of human remains by the HM, this project
aims to understand the processes and legacies of repatriation for both the HM and the recipient
communities. Specifically it will consider how, once the decision has been made to repatriate
human remains, the process of repatriation is put into practice and what happens subsequently to
repatriated remains. Advocates of repatriation suggest that the process fosters relationships and
opportunities for knowledge exchange between museums and recipient communities. This
project will investigate how and if those relationships have been developed and sustained. It will
explore the impacts of repatriation, including the political and/or therapeutic benefits for
claimant communities which provide a key rationale for repatriation decisions. Comparisons
will be drawn between the cases of repatriation from the HM and the repatriation of human
remains by the Natural History Musuem (NHM) to the Ngarrindjeri people in Australia, with
whom the NHM has sustained an ongoing relationship. The NHM now houses human remains
transferred from the HM in the twentieth century that have been or may be the subject of
repatriation discussions, and the two museums work closely together.
Focusing on 3 case studies from Hawaii, mainland Australia and Tasmania, the project’s
objectives are to:
1) better understand the process of repatriation, the different stakeholders involved and the
practices and meanings of transporting human remains from an institutional context to a
community one;
2) trace what happens to human remains once they are repatriated;
3) identify the impacts and legacies of repatriation on both the HM and their collection and on
the recipient communities;
4) contribute to the HM collection knowledge base and promote the use of stored objects;
5) inform policy design and continuing professional development at the HM and associated
organisations (e.g. UK medical collections group, human remains subject specialist network);
6) contribute to public and academic debates and scholarship concerned with the extraction, use
and global circulation of human remains, biological and tissue samples.
Research Context and Questions
Debates over the repatriation of human remains held in museum collections have been extensive
both within and beyond the museum community in the UK for thirty years. Such remains are
often viewed as controversial in light of the conditions under which they were obtained,
especially in the mid-nineteenth century when the body parts of colonised populations, such as
those in Australia and America, were highly prized as resources for studying racial differences.
Scholars offer vivid accounts of practices of grave-robbing and the lack of respect accorded to
the bodies of the victims of colonial conflicts, as men of science sought to acquire prize
specimens for their collections (MacDonald 2005). In spite of these debates, in actuality very
few requests for repatriation have been made in the UK although notable examples include the
NHM’s decision to transfer the skeletons of 17 Tasmanian Aboriginals from their collection to
the Tasmanian Aboriginal Centre (TAC, a campaign group) in 2006. While some overseas
claimant groups such as the TAC were vocal in seeking the repatriation of remains, pressure to
‘make-amends’ for the harms inflicted by colonial collecting practices also came from within
the museum profession itself, including a shift from an emphasis on ownership, control and
authority to a remit towards building relationships with communities. While initially
conservative, responses to repatriation from the museum sector reflect a rapidly changing
institutional landscape. Where once curators jealously guarded their role as protectors of
important scientific artefacts, increasingly responses to requests to repatriation have become
more favourable. The question of what is lost by museums not returning remains is increasingly
debated. Furthermore, the Human Tissue Act (2004) removed the legal barriers to repatriation
from national collections.
Motivations and requests for repatriation are generally grounded in conviction that the
return of ancestral remains will have a therapeutic benefit for claimant communities. There is a
sense too that (in line with the new, collaborative, community-focused museum remit),
museums are not so much losing an object but gaining a relationship through repatriation
(Gabriel and Dahl 2008). Not all remains are re-buried (if they were indeed buried in the first
place). Some are returned to museums within the home communities. Such collaborations
suggest interesting new ways of meeting the needs of both scientific collections and claimant
communities, including community development, through reconfiguring the social and material
geographies of human remains.
This in turn raises questions about the different ways in which repatriation does (and does
not) take place and the different kinds of associations and attachments human remains can hold
for all those involved. Work in both medical history (Alberti 2011) and geography (Greenhough
2006, Parry 2008) has suggested that the body parts, biosamples and medical information used
for research are socially and materially complex, both subject and object, person and thing. In
order to be available for medical study body parts are to an extent decontextualised, dissociated
and detached from their human origins or dehumanised. Subsequently they gain new identities
through their association with particular categories, collections, donors and collectors. In
exploring the legacies of repatriation this project will ask how repatriation once again entails a
reconfiguration of human remains as material and social objects (Fforde 2004). Are they, for
example, re-humanised through their association with particular communities and if so how?
How are human remains made meaningful through specific and direct or generalised
genealogical or genetic connections? How are familiar and novel forms of relatedness and
relationships forged through repatriation (Nash 2005)? While for some museum professionals
the strength of a claim rests on claimant communities demonstrating some direct or genetic
cultural relationship to the remains, claimant groups argue that what matters is that they get
some power, recognition and control over their pasts. What happens to those other traces and
associations that remains once held? Where do all the empty boxes and discarded display labels
and catalogue entries go? What are the implications for the treatment of human remains which
are not reclaimed and remain on display (Jenkins 2011: 130)? Are there on going relations
between museums and claimant communities and do those relationships hold any place for
scientific research? How might relationships over distance be forged between those with shared
but different (scientific, cultural and genealogical) connections to human remains?
The project will therefore address the following research questions:
1. How are repatriation decisions enacted and what happens to repatriated remains?
2. How does repatriation change the ways in which human remains are socially and materially
constructed? What meanings and associations do repatriated remains hold for the different
stakeholders involved in the repatriation process?
3. What kinds of relationships are developed between museum and claimant communities as a
result of the repatriation process? What possibilities are there for new kinds of collaborative
agreements, (such as those seen in Australia), in the UK?
Methodologies and timetable
Unlike previous studies of repatriation which have mostly focused on the negotiations and
debates which happened around whether or not remains should be repatriated (Besterman 2004,
Fforde 2004; Jenkins 2012; Hubert and Fforde 2002), this project will focus on tracing what
happens to human remains once the decision has been made to repatriate them. The project will
combine archival work on administrative and institutional records, ethnographic observation
within the museum context and in-depth qualitative interviews with key stakeholders and
participants in the repatriation process in order to map out the social and material practices,
meanings and on-going impacts of repatriation.
In year one, the student will first survey the literature on repatriation and the use and
exploitation of human-derived resources in medical research in both the historical and
contemporary periods, and relevant UK regulations and guidance on the treatment of human
remains in museums. Archival research on the records held at the Royal College of Surgeons
and the NHM and analysis of relevant media coverage will follow in order to select three
relevant repatriation case studies and their associated stakeholders, and provide an
understanding of the academic and popular debates surrounding those specific reparation
instances. Ethnographic observation of the museum context will be facilitated through
undergoing training in curatorial work and working at the HM as a curatorial assistant, and this
will be used to develop the student’s understanding of the museum context and how debates
about repatriation fit within the wider institutional remit. They will gain practical knowledge of
how human remains are handled, viewed and utilised in a museum context. This will allow the
student to develop their knowledge, and thereby their credibility, with museum professionals
who they will seek to interview. They will complete the QM PhD progression process and
ethical review.
In the first part of year two (months 13-17) the student will set up and conduct in-depth
interviews with key UK stakeholders involved in the repatriation of the three selected case-study
instances of the exchange of remains. Interviewees will identified through the archival work and
through advice from senior figures at the Royal College of Surgeons and associates at related
institutions (such as the NHM), but it is envisioned interviewees would include senior RCS
figures, museum staff involved in negotiating the repatriation of remains, curatorial staff
involved in caring for those remains prior to their repatriation, and representatives from key
regulatory bodies such as the 2003 UK Working Group on Human Remains. In the second part
of year two (months 18-22) in-depth interviews will be conducted with members of the
communities to whom remains have been repatriated in mainland Australia, Tasmania and
Hawaii. This will be facilitated by a visiting fellowship and supervision at the National Centre
for Indigenous Studies at ANU (see details of supervision) and funded by applications to the
Queen Mary, University of London Postgraduate Research Fund and to the Royal Geographical
Society Postgraduate Research Award. Interviews will address the key research questions
outlined above, paying particular attention to (i) the practicalities of repatriation, how remains
were identified, collected and transported and what happened to them once they were returned;
(ii) how the interviewees and their wider communities view and value those remains; (iii) what
kind of relationship has been sustained (if any) between the museum and claimant communities.
The number of interviews will depend on the relevant interviewees identified in year one,
however it is planned that 30-50 will be conducted (depending on length and depth). Interviews
will be transcribed as they occur but coded and analysed in the final part of year two (months
23-24) (Cope 2003), drawing on themes and key ideas identified through the archival work and
literature survey in year 1 as well as new themes emerging from the interview material. Our
CDA will also work in concert with cognate research based at Te Papa Tongarewa, New
Zealand.
In year three (months 25-36) the student draft and revise their thesis for submission, participate
in relevant conferences in both geography and museums, work with the HM on human remains
policy, and run a one-day workshop for museum professionals exploring the issues raised by
their research and recommendations for best practice.
Plans for Dissemination The research will be disseminated to academic and non-academic
audiences in a variety of ways: the student will present their research at relevant conferences and
seminars including at least one international conference; draft and ideally submit at least one
paper to an international refereed journal before completion of the thesis; present their research
to museum professionals through a one-day workshop at the HM; and inform HM policy
development.
Expected outcomes The main academic outcome of the research will be the student’s doctoral
thesis. This promises to make an innovative contribution to several academic fields including
museum studies, science and technology studies, the history of medicine and geographies of
health and biomedicine. The student will also have completed a range of research training and
will have acquired hands-on curatorial skills. The main outcomes for the HM will be: new
information on the impacts of repatriation which will contribute to bicentenary reflections and
be used to inform the HM museum acquisition and disposal policies and the management of
existing collections of human remains; a professional development workshop on the legacies of
repatriation for HM staff and other professionals; contributions to the museum catalogue
through the student’s archival and curatorial work; a basis for the HM to re-invigorate relations
with communities to whom remains have been repatriated; and a strong base for future
collaboration and knowledge exchange between HM, QM and other institutions.
The Hunterian Museum at the Royal College of Surgeons
The Royal College of Surgeons of England (Registered Charity 212808) is an independent
professional body committed to promoting and advancing the highest standards of surgical
care for patients, and regulating surgery and dentistry. The College is located at Lincoln's Inn
Fields in London. For 200 years the Hunterian Museum has been not only the College's
public face but also a key site for medical training and an unparalleled biomedical research
resource. The Museum functions within the College’s Museums and Archives Department
(18 staff). Collections include human remains, natural history specimens, and historic
surgical instruments. The four main activities of RCS Museums and Archives are:
1. Engagement through public programmes, exhibitions and display loans.
2. Training surgeons and other medical professionals and providing formal and informal
learning opportunities for others including Key Stage 4 students.
3. Facilitating and generating excellent biomedical, historical and museological research.
4. Developing the for present and future users and protect their integrity with appropriate
standards of care and documentation.
Research activity (3) has been an area of particular growth; over 1,000 researchers use the
collections per annum; the Director, Head of Conservation, curators and conservators are
research active in their respective fields as workflow allows. As a small museum with
relatively few research-active staff, however, the Hunterian Museum works collaboratively
with other museums and with universities to exploit the full potential of the collections.
Current research projects include ‘Digitised Diseases’ (with the University of Bradford and
Museum of London Archaeology, JISC funded) and ‘Stories of a Different Kind’ (with the
University of Leicester, the Royal College of Physicians and the Science Museum,
Wellcome Trust funded).
Queen Mary, University of London
The student will be part of School of Geography, at Queen Mary, University of London. The
School of Geography at Queen Mary is one of the leading centres of geographical research in
the UK. The School was ranked joint first in the 2008 Research Assessment Exercise, with
three-quarters of our research rated as ‘world-leading/internationally excellent’. We are
recognised by ESRC, NERC and AHRC for full-time, part-time and CASE postgraduate
studentships. The School of Geography at QM has a strong record of collaborative research,
including AHRC and ESRC CDAs, and much experience in working effectively with a wide
range of partners, and to support research students in transfer, exchange and exploitation of
their knowledge. The student will play a full part in QMUL graduate activities in the School
of Geography.
The Studentship
The award will cover university tuition fees and provide the standard AHRC maintenance
award for three years (currently £15,726 per year per year). In addition, the student will
receive research support from the Royal College of Surgeons of up to £1000.
Supervision and Training
Supervisions will be held weekly or fortnightly for the first semester, and monthly thereafter.
Students will participate in QMUL’s graduate school training programme as well as
receiving specific training in the School of Geography. The Hunterian Museum will provide
training in curating including human remains collection management, research support and
exhibitions.
Person Specification
Essential skills, qualities and knowledge






A first class or upper second class honours degree in a relevant discipline. Candidates
would normally be expected to hold a Masters degree in a relevant area by October
2012.
Knowledge of at least one of the following research areas: anthropology,
archaeology, human geography, musuem studies, medical humanities, science and
technology studies.
Ability to work critically with secondary literature.
Ability to work within the Hunterian Museum in order to undertake research and to
engage in policy development.
Ability to be self-motivated, well-organized, and to respond to constructive criticism.
Willingness to take a full part in the QMUL postgraduate community, and the
research activities at QMUL and at the Hunterian Musuem.
Desirable skills, qualities and knowledge
 Familiarity with current scholarship on repatriation.
 Experience of undertaking qualitative social and cultural research, or,
museum/curatorial experience.
 Experience of museum work, especially collection management.
Please note:
The AHRC has strict residential eligibility criteria governing the students that can be
nominated for this award. If you are not a British citizen and/or not usually resident in the
UK (and have not been for the past three years), please check your eligibility and discuss this
with the project supervisors so that your eligibility can be determined.
Application Process
Candidates should complete a QMUL postgraduate application form applying to the School
of Geography, and submit it either online or by post. You will need to include a CV, two
references, academic transcript and a 1000 word statement of purpose which should
explain why you would be interested in undertaking the programme of research and what
experience and skills you would bring to the post. The statement should also include details
about previous research experience and training and anything else that you feel is relevant.
To be considered for this studentship your application must be received by Queen Mary’s
Admissions and Recruitment Office no later than 4pm on 28th June 2013.
All short-listed applicants will be interviewed (either face-to-face or, in the case of overseas
candidates, by telephone) and applicants must be available for interview on the 16th July
2012. Any particular requirements for the interview will be communicated when shortlisted
candidates are contacted in early July.
Applications may be submitted in hard copy to The Admissions and Recruitment Office,
Queen Mary, University of London, Mile End Road, London E1 4NS, United Kingdom.