The Law of Human Remains

The inevitability of death has prompted a broad range of responses across cultures, societies, and religions as to what (if anything) comes after death and how to treat the physical remains of a deceased person. This facet of the human condition is so essential that societies often rely on the force of the law to enforce the values and sensitivities which have emerged surrounding the remains of those who have passed away.

Here, we can observe a highly diversified (some might call it fragmented) legal regime that contains different restrictions depending on how close the human remains in question are to our immediate present. The remains of individual who are recently deceased are often protected with the objective of safeguarding that individual's dignity even post mortem (e.g., during armed conflict) or the interests of their relatives. That link, however, becomes increasingly tenuous the more time has passed since the death of the individual. Here, the motive for legal protection might emanate from an archaeological interest in the preservation of the remains or, typically in the context of indigenous communities, the desire to protect ancestral remains. Once we go even further back, these motivations might progressively fade, too, as we move into the prehistoric era and the remains of early Homo sapiens. Their protection and preservation might be chiefly driven by a scientific concern to make these remains available for palaeoanthropologists to study. And if we cast the widest net possible, we might even include the remains of other species from the genus Homo within the scope of human remains: H. neanderthalensis, H. erectus, H. heidelbergensis and so on. And ultimately, what about other hominins like the australopithecines?

Here, we can observe a highly diversified (some might call it fragmented) legal regime that contains different restrictions depending on how close the human remains in question are to our immediate present. The remains of individual who are recently deceased are often protected with the objective of safeguarding that individual’s dignity even post mortem (e.g., during armed conflict) or the interests of their relatives. That link, however, becomes increasingly tenuous the more time has passed since the death of the individual. Here, the motive for legal protection might emanate from an archaeological interest in the preservation of the remains or, typically in the context of indigenous communities, the desire to protect ancestral remains. Once we go even further back, these motivations might progressively fade, too, as we move into the prehistoric era and the remains of early Homo sapiens. Their protection and preservation might be chiefly driven by a scientific concern to make these remains available for palaeoanthropologists to study. And if we cast the widest net possible, we might even include the remains of other species from the genus Homo within the scope of human remains: H. neanderthalensis, H. erectus, H. heidelbergensis and so on. And ultimately, what about other hominins like the australopithecines?

This interplay between our cultural conceptions and normative convictions surrounding death on the one hand, and their enforcement through law on the other hand fascinates me. To me, it begs a broad range of intriguing questions such as:

• Where do we draw the line between distinct categories of human remains? Or, more provocatively: How much times needs to pass after death before a disturbance of the dead turns into an archaeological excavation?
• Where do we draw the line between human remains and other categories of artifacts that enjoy special protection by law? When do human remains turn into “mere” antiquities, or items of scientific interest?
• What is “human” about human remains? Does it go beyond Homo sapiens and cover human ancestors as well? Does it only cover modern humans?

I think human remains represent a type of objects that challenges legal classification—not least to the heavy normative underpinnings of the relevant legal regimes. It is this sort of friction that I am interested in: regarding human remains, and with respect to palaeontological objects which are the focus of my doctoral research.

Bibliography

• general
• indigenous communities
• archaeology
• trade
• case studies

• Chen, Zhen. “Is a Mummy a Person or a Property: The Classification and Choice of Law of Cultural Objects in Private International Law.” The Chinese Journal of Comparative Law 10, no. 2 (September 1, 2022): 274–96. https://doi.org/10.1093/cjcl/cxac006.

  Clavandier, Gaëlle. “De nouvelles normes à l’égard des restes humains anciens : de la réification à la personnalisation?” Canadian Journal of Bioethics / Revue canadienne de bioéthique 2, no. 3 (2019): 79–87. https://doi.org/10.7202/1066465ar.

  Clegg, Margaret. Human Remains: Curation, Reburial and Repatriation. Cambridge Texts in Human Bioarchaeology and Osteoarchaeology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2020. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781316161654.

  ———, ed. “The Legal Aspects of Human Remains.” In Human Remains: Curation, Reburial and Repatriation, 44–56. Cambridge Texts in Human Bioarchaeology and Osteoarchaeology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2020. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781316161654.004.

  Clippele, Marie-Sophie de. Restes Humains et Patrimoine Culturel : De Quels Droits ? Anthemis, 2023.

  Cornu, Marie. “Les restes humains « patrimonialisés » et la loi.” Technè. La science au service de l’histoire de l’art et de la préservation des biens culturels, no. 44 (November 1, 2016): 8–13. https://doi.org/10.4000/techne.909.

  Fontanieu, Guillaume. “La question juridique des restes humains sous l’angle de la dignité de la personne.” Les Annales de droit, no. 8 (May 1, 2014): 197–227. https://doi.org/10.4000/add.739.

  Frerking, Christopher, and Heather Gill-Frerking. “Human Remains as Heritage: Categorisation, Legislation and Protection.” Art Antiquity and Law 22, no. 1 (2017): 49–73.

  Harris, Faye. “Understanding Human Remains Repatriation: Practice Procedures at the British Museum and the Natural History Museum.” Museum Management and Curatorship 30, no. 2 (March 15, 2015): 138–53. https://doi.org/10.1080/09647775.2015.1022904.

  Huang, Jie. “Protecting Non-Indigenous Human Remains under Cultural Heritage Law.” Chinese Journal of International Law 14, no. 4 (December 1, 2015): 709–33. https://doi.org/10.1093/chinesejil/jmv061.

  Imani, Sarah, and Leokadia Melchior. “Über Restitution zu reparativer Gerechtigkeit: Repatriierungs- prozesse als Frage der Grund- und Menschenrechte.” Berlin: European Center for Constitutional and Human Rights, 2024. https://www.ecchr.eu/fileadmin/ECCHR_PP_RG_DE_F.pdf.

  Kurzwelly, Jonatan. “Bones and Injustices: Provenance Research, Restitutions and Identity Politics.” Dialectical Anthropology 47, no. 1 (March 1, 2023): 45–56. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10624-022-09670-9.

• Batt, Fiona. Ancient Indigenous Human Remains and the Law. London: Routledge, 2021. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781003194590.

  Chechi, Alessandro. “Repairing Historic Injustice: The Return of Indigenous Peoples’ Ancestral Human Remains Through Transitional Justice.” International Journal of Cultural Property, May 2, 2024, 1–20. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0940739124000067.

  Clippele, Marie-Sophie de. “Symposium on Confronting Colonial Objects: Are Museums Entering a New Era of Repatriation of Human Remains?” Opinio Juris (blog), April 17, 2024. https://opiniojuris.org/2024/04/17/symposium-on-confronting-colonial-objects-are-museums-entering-a-new-era-of-repatriation-of-human-remains/.

  Fforde, Cressida, C. Timothy McKeown, and Honor Keeler, eds. The Routledge Companion to Indigenous Repatriation: Return, Reconcile, Renew. London: Routledge, 2020. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203730966.

  Förster, Larissa. “The Face of Genocide: Returning Human Remains from German Institutions to Namibia.” In The Routledge Companion to Indigenous Repatriation, edited by Cressida Fforde, C. Timothy McKeown, and Honor Keeler. London: Routledge, 2020.

  Garsha, Jeremiah J. “Expanding Vergangenheitsbewältigung? German Repatriation of Colonial Artefacts and Human Remains.” Journal of Genocide Research 22, no. 1 (January 2, 2020): 46–61. https://doi.org/10.1080/14623528.2019.1633791.

  Gulliford, Andrew. “Bones of Contention: The Repatriation of Native American Human Remains.” The Public Historian 18, no. 4 (1996): 119–43. https://doi.org/10.2307/3379790.

  Heeb, Bernhard S., and Charles Kabwete-Mulinda, eds. Human Remains from the Former German Colony of East Africa: Recontextualization and Approaches for Restitution. Köln: Böhlau, 2022.

• Charlier, Philippe. “Le délicat problème des restes humains en archéologie.” Canadian Journal of Bioethics / Revue canadienne de bioéthique 2, no. 3 (2019): 206–9. https://doi.org/10.7202/1066478ar.

  Colleter, Rozenn, and Paul-Anthelme Adèle. “Les restes humains archéologiques en France : entre objets de science et sujets de droit.” Canadian Journal of Bioethics / Revue canadienne de bioéthique 2, no. 3 (2019): 97–108. https://doi.org/10.7202/1066467ar.

  Joannes-Boyau, Renaud, Alessandro Pelizzon, John Page, Nicole Rice, and Anja Scheffers. “Owning Humankind: Fossils, Humans and Archaeological Remains.” Heliyon 6, no. 6 (June 2020): e04129. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.heliyon.2020.e04129.

  Kurzwelly, Jonatan, and Malin S Wilckens. “Calcified Identities: Persisting Essentialism in Academic Collections of Human Remains.” Anthropological Theory 23, no. 1 (March 1, 2023): 100–122. https://doi.org/10.1177/14634996221133872.

  Marquez-Grant, Nicholas, and Linda Fibiger. The Routledge Handbook of Archaeological Human Remains and Legislation: An International Guide to Laws and Practice in the Excavation and Treatment of Archaeological Human Remains. Taylor & Francis, 2011.

  Mathieu, Agnès. “Les restes humains et l’archéologie : état des lieux juridique.” Canadian Journal of Bioethics / Revue canadienne de bioéthique 2, no. 3 (2019): 201–5. https://doi.org/10.7202/1066477ar.

  Seidemann, Ryan M. “Bones of Contention: A Comparative Examination of Law Governing Human Remains from Archaeological Contexts in Formerly Colonial Countries.” Louisiana Law Review 64, no. 3 (2004): 545–88.

• Cant, Alanna, and Caroline Bennett. “Auction Houses Still Sell Human Remains – and It’s Time They Stopped.” The Conversation, November 14, 2024. http://theconversation.com/auction-houses-still-sell-human-remains-and-its-time-they-stopped-242660.

  Graham, Shawn, and Damien Huffer. These Were People Once: The Online Trade in Human Remains and Why It Matters. New York Oxford: Berghahn Books, 2023.

  Huffer, Damien, Duncan Chappell, Nathan Charlton, and Brian F. Spatola. “Bones of Contention: The Online Trade in Archaeological, Ethnographic and Anatomical Human Remains on Social Media Platforms.” In The Palgrave Handbook on Art Crime, edited by Saskia Hufnagel and Duncan Chappell, 527–56. London: Palgrave Macmillan UK, 2019. https://doi.org/10.1057/978-1-137-54405-6_25.

  Kjærgaard, Peter C. “The Fossil Trade: Paying a Price for Human Origins.” Isis 103, no. 2 (June 2012): 340–55. https://doi.org/10.1086/666365.

• McManamon, Francis P. “Kennewick Man Case: Scientific Studies and Legal Issues.” In Encyclopedia of Global Archaeology, edited by Claire Smith, 4263–72. New York, NY: Springer, 2014. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4419-0465-2_1655.

  Musonda, Francis B. “Decolonising the Broken Hill Skull: Cultural Loss and a Pathway to Zambian Archaeological Sovereignty.” African Archaeological Review 30, no. 2 (June 2013): 195–220.