The Musée du Quay Branly held an international symposium, “From Anatomic Collections to Objects of Worship: Conservation and Exhibition of Human Remains in Museums,” in Paris on February 22–23, 2008, at the museum's Théatre Claude Levy Strauss. The main purpose of the 2-day conference—opened by the French Ministry of Culture and Communication's Christine Albanel—was to stimulate an international debate on a multidisciplinary basis concerning the roles and responsibilities of museums in the exhibition and repatriation of human remains. The subject turned out to be topical, originating from the case of the toi moko, the Maori tattooed head belonging to the collection of the Natural History Museum in Rouen, France, since 1875. The restitution of the toi moko to the Papa Museum in Wellington, New Zealand, deliberated by the city of Rouen, was recently banned by the Administrative Tribunal of Rouen, on request of the Ministry of Culture at the end of 2007. The head actually belonged to a municipal museum, which was in fact part of the Musées de France, and therefore it was considered part of a public collection. Accordingly, the 2002 French statute providing for the inalienability of state properties was applicable.Footnote ¹

The complex ethical, legal, and political issues of responding to claims on objects and remains in museum collections were discussed by a considerable group of museum professionals, legal scholars, anthropologists, and archaeologists—representatives of countries or populations claiming an interest in the collections involved and practitioners from Europe, Africa, America, and Australia. The debate was articulated in four roundtables dedicated to the following topics:

• • “Repatriating Human Remains: Why, for Whom, Under Which Conditions?” Chair Amareswar Galla,Footnote ² keynote speaker Michael F. BrownFootnote ³

• • “Is There Any Place Today for Human Remains Inside Museums?” Chair Claudius Müller,Footnote ⁴ keynote speaker Neil McGregorFootnote ⁵

• • “The Status of Human Remains from a Legal, Ethical and Philosophical Point of View,” Chair Marie-Angèle Hermitte,Footnote ⁶ keynote speaker Didier SicardFootnote ⁷

• • “How to Reach a Mutual Understanding? Institutional Mediations and Negotiations,” Chair Jacques Rigaud,Footnote ⁸ keynote speaker Manlio FrigoFootnote ⁹

The requests for restitution of human remains started in the 1960s, mainly in the United States, as a reparation for genocides and plunders of the native American communities and originated in the well-known NAGPRA (Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act) of 1990, one of the best examples of national legislation—together with the statutes in force in countries such as Australia, Canada, and New Zealand—providing a legal tool for the repatriation of human remains. It is noteworthy that when referring to human remains the aforementioned statute speaks of cultural items (see article 2.3), giving the idea that the value taken into consideration is a cultural value and that the interest to be protected is a cultural one. At the international level, as has been stated by some speakers, the arguments put forward in cases of return fall mainly into four categories. The “human rights approach” considers that a community's treatment of its dead is a basic human right and is frequently invoked to support the return of the remains to their source communities. Strictly linked to the first approach and leading to the same conclusions, the “decolonization approach” considers that generally the remains of indigenous people in the world's metropolitan museums are the product of colonialism; and therefore they should be returned, with a view to facilitating the postcolonial reconciliation process. Third, however, “Science and the Greater Goods”Footnote ¹⁰ considers that human remains in the world's repositories are “a scientific treasure of incalculable value”; and because they can contribute to medical advances and accordingly the interest of the “global community,” they could be weighed against the moral interest of the local community claiming for return. Eventually, a fourth argument highlights the “cultural heritage approach” as an alternative to the human rights approach and considers that human remains are eligible for protection (namely return and restitution) as long as they are considered cultural items by national legislations or international law, falling accordingly into the scope of application of the relevant provisions.

Predictably, the overall debate on the controversial issue of the treatment of human remains in public collections could hardly raise a sole or ultimate solution; for example, no explicit answer about which subject is legitimately entitled to ask and/or negotiate for restitution of items belonging to a local (native) community, as is often the case when human remains are at stake. Nevertheless, the discussion highlighted some crucial topics, such as the extent to which objects involving human remains are persons or artifacts, the cultural and scientific value of human remains, and/or objects including human remains, the relevance and contents of their ownership status, the arguments underlying the different repatriation policies, the possible effect of bioethics national statutes, the solutions emerging in the international practice for a fair and equitable management of human remains, and the positive role of the International Council of Monuments (ICOM) Code of Ethics for Museums, even though it is a soft-law tool.

As stated by Francine Mariani-DucrayFootnote ¹¹ in her closing remarks, one outcome of the symposium was a widespread consensus on the double role museums should play, as places of research and development of knowledge and as institutions representing the social and political awareness of our countries. According to the director, the human remains in museums today are archives of mankind as a whole; and this consideration should be borne in mind, vis-à-vis the concrete difficulties, to go beyond the differences of cultural, political, and even emotional approach. The proposal to the French minister of culture to set up a more permanent working group, to develop a process of mediation between the different approaches in considering the claims for restitution of human remains owned by public collections, was eventually announced by the director.

Incidentally, the Moko mokai has not yet been repatriated to New Zealand.Footnote ¹²