Prof Liv Nilsson Stutz and Prof Sarah Tarlow respond to an article on ethical questions about remains from overseas in UK museums

Regarding your article on “overseas” human remains in British museums ( Vast scale of overseas human remains held in UK museums decried by MPs and experts, 7 March ), while the public may be surprised, the issue of human remains in museums has been central to archaeologists, anthropologists and museum professionals for decades. The question for us is not whether it is acceptable that human remains can be found in “sacrilegious” conditions (clearly not), but how can we best care for human remains in museum collections? What we find both counterproductive and incorrect is the suggestion that collection managers and museums are unmoved by the ethical challenges posed by the remains in their care.

We recently concluded a large research project examining the ethical treatment of human remains in European institutions. Our survey clearly shows that collection managers, often with very scarce resources, are deeply concerned with the human remains in their care, and overwhelmingly demonstrate empathy and concern for them. Moreover, human remains from colonial contexts tend to receive more, not less, ethical attention than human remains from local or archaeological contexts.

Prof Liv Nilsson Stutz and Prof Sarah Tarlow respond to an article on ethical questions about remains from overseas in UK museums

Regarding your article on “overseas” human remains in British museums ( Vast scale of overseas human remains held in UK museums decried by MPs and experts, 7 March ), while the public may be surprised, the issue of human remains in museums has been central to archaeologists, anthropologists and museum professionals for decades. The question for us is not whether it is acceptable that human remains can be found in “sacrilegious” conditions (clearly not), but how can we best care for human remains in museum collections? What we find both counterproductive and incorrect is the suggestion that collection managers and museums are unmoved by the ethical challenges posed by the remains in their care.

We recently concluded a large research project examining the ethical treatment of human remains in European institutions. Our survey clearly shows that collection managers, often with very scarce resources, are deeply concerned with the human remains in their care, and overwhelmingly demonstrate empathy and concern for them. Moreover, human remains from colonial contexts tend to receive more, not less, ethical attention than human remains from local or archaeological contexts.

Prof Liv Nilsson Stutz and Prof Sarah Tarlow respond to an article on ethical questions about remains from overseas in UK museums

Regarding your article on “overseas” human remains in British museums ( Vast scale of overseas human remains held in UK museums decried by MPs and experts, 7 March ), while the public may be surprised, the issue of human remains in museums has been central to archaeologists, anthropologists and museum professionals for decades. The question for us is not whether it is acceptable that human remains can be found in “sacrilegious” conditions (clearly not), but how can we best care for human remains in museum collections? What we find both counterproductive and incorrect is the suggestion that collection managers and museums are unmoved by the ethical challenges posed by the remains in their care.

We recently concluded a large research project examining the ethical treatment of human remains in European institutions. Our survey clearly shows that collection managers, often with very scarce resources, are deeply concerned with the human remains in their care, and overwhelmingly demonstrate empathy and concern for them. Moreover, human remains from colonial contexts tend to receive more, not less, ethical attention than human remains from local or archaeological contexts.