In recent years, the United Kingdom has seen a surge of calls for change regarding the handling, display, and ownership of African ancestral remains. These remains—ranging from mummified bodies and skulls to various body parts—were taken during the colonial era and brought to Britain as “trophies” or commodities to be traded and exhibited.
A Painful Colonial Legacy
For centuries, during the peak of European colonial expansion, African ancestral remains were removed from their countries of origin under conditions that would today be widely condemned. These remains were often acquired through coercion, violence, or under exploitative circumstances. They eventually found their way into museums, universities, and private collections across Britain and other former colonial powers. At the time, such objects were treated as exotic curiosities, with little regard given to the cultural and spiritual significance they held for African communities. Today, however, this practice is increasingly recognized as a dehumanizing legacy of colonial exploitation that must be urgently rectified.
The Legal Gap: The Human Tissues Act 2004
Central to the current debate is the existing legal framework governing human remains in the United Kingdom. The Human Tissues Act 2004 was designed to regulate the removal, storage, use, and disposal of human tissue. However, a critical limitation of the Act is that it only applies to remains of individuals who died within the past century. As a result, the vast majority of African ancestral remains, which were collected over a hundred years ago, remain legally unprotected. This loophole has effectively permitted institutions to continue displaying these remains without the consent of descendant communities or adequate ethical oversight.
The lack of comprehensive legislation has created what many refer to as a “legislative vacuum.” This gap not only allows the continued exhibition of ancestral remains but also makes it possible for these remains to be commercialized. Recent events have shown that remains, which many believe should be treated with reverence and respect, have even been listed for sale on auction platforms and e-commerce sites. The commercialization of these human relics has sparked outrage among African communities and advocates alike, who view such practices as an affront to human dignity and cultural heritage.
Voices of Outrage and Demand for Change
The debate has been significantly amplified by powerful voices from within the cultural and political spheres. Connie Bell, associated with the ‘Decolonising the Archive’ project, has been a particularly vocal critic. At a recent event organized by a cross-party parliamentary group on reparations, Bell stated, “We cannot allow the dehumanisation of our ancestors.” Her words encapsulate the sentiment shared by many: that the public display and sale of human remains not only disrespect the memory of those who suffered under colonial rule but also perpetuate a narrative of exploitation and marginalization.
Labour MP Bell Ribeiro-Addy has also played a pivotal role in bringing this issue to the forefront. In November 2024, Ribeiro-Addy raised concerns in Parliament, highlighting the troubling reality that colonial-era remains were being traded on modern digital platforms. This intervention underscored the urgent need for updated legal measures that reflect both contemporary ethical standards and the historical realities of colonialism. Ribeiro-Addy’s advocacy has sparked broader discussions within government circles, prompting responses from senior officials including Deputy Prime Minister Angela Rayner, who expressed horror at the revelations and signaled forthcoming discussions with the culture minister.
Policy Proposals: Charting a Path Forward
Amid mounting pressure, several policy recommendations have been proposed to address the issue. A key document in this debate is the policy brief produced by the African Foundation for Development (AFFORD). The brief outlines 14 detailed recommendations aimed at closing the existing legal loopholes and ensuring the respectful treatment of human remains. Among the proposals, AFFORD calls for the following measures:
- Banning the Sale of Human Remains: AFFORD argues that human remains should never be considered commercial objects. Instead, they represent the dignity and heritage of individuals, making any attempt to sell them both ethically and morally unacceptable.
- Amending the Human Tissues Act: One of the most significant recommendations is to amend the Act so that it encompasses all human remains, regardless of when the individual died. Such an amendment would close the gap that currently exempts most colonial-era remains from protection.
- Creating a National Restitution Policy: The brief calls for the establishment of a formal restitution policy. This policy would provide a clear framework for the repatriation of ancestral remains to their countries or communities of origin.
- Establishing a Repatriation Body: AFFORD suggests the creation of an official body dedicated to handling repatriation claims. This body would be responsible for assessing claims, coordinating with museums and academic institutions, and ensuring that repatriation processes are conducted in a transparent and respectful manner.
- Mapping Institutional Collections: An important step in addressing the issue is to map out all collections of human remains held by museums, universities, and other institutions. Such mapping would provide clarity on the scope of the issue and help in prioritizing efforts for repatriation.
Ethical and Cultural Imperatives
At its core, the debate surrounding the display of African ancestral remains is not solely a legal matter; it is an ethical and cultural imperative. The removal and exhibition of these remains have long been seen as emblematic of the dehumanizing effects of colonialism. Critics argue that institutions that continue to display these remains, without the consent of descendant communities, are complicit in perpetuating historical injustices. The ongoing demand for repatriation is a call for restorative justice—a process through which communities can reclaim their heritage and begin to heal the wounds inflicted by centuries of exploitation.
For many African communities, the return of ancestral remains is not simply a symbolic gesture; it represents an essential step in reconnecting with lost histories and reviving cultural practices that were disrupted by colonial rule. Repatriation would allow families and communities to honor their ancestors in ways that reflect their traditions and spiritual values. Moreover, such measures could help transform museums and cultural institutions into spaces that promote reconciliation, reflection, and learning, rather than being mere repositories of objects stripped of their human context.
The Role of Cultural Institutions
Museums and universities have a critical responsibility in this dialogue. As custodians of historical artifacts and human remains, these institutions must engage in reflective and inclusive practices. Dialogue with descendant communities is essential to determine the most respectful methods for handling ancestral remains. Many institutions are beginning to acknowledge that their collections are not static; they carry with them complex histories that must be interpreted with sensitivity and care.
A shift in institutional practices could involve temporary exhibitions, community-led displays, or even the repatriation of certain remains to their places of origin. By partnering with communities, cultural institutions can help craft narratives that honor the past while looking forward to a future defined by respect, inclusivity, and mutual understanding.
Moving Toward a More Equitable Future
The ongoing debate over ancestral remains is part of a broader reassessment of how societies engage with their colonial pasts. It calls on the UK government, cultural institutions, and society at large to confront uncomfortable historical truths and to take concrete steps toward rectifying them. Legislative reform, as advocated by groups like AFFORD, is a necessary part of this process. Yet, beyond legal changes, there must also be a broader cultural shift—one that prioritizes human dignity and the importance of cultural heritage.
Addressing these issues requires a commitment to transformative justice. Such justice involves acknowledging past wrongs, engaging in open and honest dialogue, and working collaboratively to build systems that respect the humanity of every individual. The repatriation of African ancestral remains, along with corresponding legislative reforms, represents a critical step in this journey toward healing historical wounds and creating a more equitable future.
Conclusion
The call to stop the display of African ancestral remains and to repatriate them is a powerful reminder of the lasting impact of colonialism. It challenges the United Kingdom to reassess its historical practices and to implement reforms that honor the dignity of those who were exploited in the past. By addressing the legislative gaps in the Human Tissues Act 2004, banning the commercial sale of human remains, and establishing clear restitution and repatriation protocols, the UK can take a significant step toward reconciliation.
This movement is not merely about returning objects; it is about restoring respect for human life and heritage. It is a call for museums, universities, and all custodians of history to engage in ethical stewardship of their collections. As discussions continue in Parliament and beyond, the hope is that these efforts will pave the way for a future where the legacy of colonialism is acknowledged, repented for, and ultimately transformed into an opportunity for healing and justice.
The journey toward repatriation and legislative reform is complex and multifaceted. It requires not only changes in law but also a profound shift in cultural attitudes. By embracing these challenges, the United Kingdom has the opportunity to set a global precedent—one that respects the memories of the past while building bridges for a more inclusive and respectful future.
In confronting its colonial legacy, the UK can lead by example, demonstrating that historical accountability and ethical responsibility are not relics of the past, but active commitments to human dignity in the present and the future.
