Human body parts for sale, on display and in collections: Law, policy and campaigns for repatriation

Approximate read time: 15 minutes

On 13 March 2025 the House of Lords will discuss the following question for short debate:

Lord Boateng (Labour) to ask His Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the offence caused to the Indigenous peoples affected by the sale of human body parts in public auctions, and their display and retention in public collections.

1. Offence and harm caused by the display, retention and sale of human remains

1.1 Overview

In the UK, human remains are held both in museums and private collections. They can be in the form of body parts, whole skeletons or preserved remains, or items like hair, teeth or bones incorporated into other artefacts.^[1]

Government guidance for museums states that “the vast majority of human remains in UK museums are of UK origin, excavated under uncontentious conditions”.^[2] However, it also acknowledges “some human remains were obtained in circumstances that are considered unacceptable. For example, some were acquired between 100 and 200 years ago from Indigenous peoples in colonial circumstances, where there was a very uneven divide of power”.^[3]

A 2003 government working group found:

There are many records of attempts by communities of origin to prevent removal of remains, and of protests when such material was taken. That people were unable to prevent the removal of human remains (including, in some cases, the bodies of loved ones recently deceased) was, and remains, a source of great pain and anger.^[4]

The group’s evidence showed that for some communities:

[…] the removal of human remains occurred simultaneously with the imposition of colonial rule, scientific and political assertion of the superiority of settler society, and the use of such theories to justify attempts to assimilate or eradicate Indigenous peoples. It also occurred simultaneously with other losses such as those affecting land, self-determination and customary rights. […] Human remains are therefore both a reminder and a cause of great pain to such Indigenous peoples, who see the continued holding of remains in museum collections as reflecting continuing injustice.^[5]

Communities also have a range of cultural beliefs about death. If bodies are inappropriately handled or are not disposed of according to traditional practices, some communities believe that the person and their descendants cannot be at peace.

1.2 Examples

In November 2024 a UK-based antiques centre intended to auction a 19th-century skull from the Naga people, originally from an area which is now largely within the north-eastern Indian state of Nagaland.^[6] The auction also listed shrunken heads from the Jivaro people of South America and skulls from the Ekoi people of West Africa.

Neiphiu Rio, the chief minister of Nagaland in India, wrote to India’s foreign minister objecting to the auction:

You will agree that the human remains of any deceased person belongs to those people and their land. Moreover, the auctioning of human remains deeply hurts the sentiments of the people, is an act of dehumanisation and is considered as continued colonial violence upon our people.^[7]

While that sale was called off after protest, Alok Kumar Kanungo, a scholar of Naga culture, estimates that the UK’s public museums and private collections alone hold around 50,000 Naga objects.^[8] Arkotong Longkumer, an anthropologist of Nagaland, has said:

For more than 100 years, museums across Europe have displayed Naga objects as exotic and primitive, taken as souvenirs and under duress during colonial expeditions—a fact that exposes the harsh realities of imperialism and their contemporary resonances.^[9]

Dr Longkumer’s research group has been travelling to villages, meeting Naga elders, who expressed distress that their ancestral remains were abroad. Some raised spiritual concerns that this could make “the soul of their ancestors restless”.^[10]

As part of an ethical review, the Pitt Rivers Museum in Oxford, which holds one of the world’s largest collections of Naga artefacts, removed Naga skulls from public display in 2020 and placed them in storage. Director of the Pitt Rivers Museum Laura Van Broekhoven said the museum had been contacting communities:

They can tell us how they would like us to care for them or if they would like them to be repatriated. All of that is possible when they’re held in public collections like ours. We can be held accountable, whereas once they go up for auction, they’re out of public use and there’s no way for a community to be in contact.^[11]

The museum told the BBC that it has repatriated 35 items to Indigenous peoples in Australia, New Zealand, the US and Canada.^[12]

Other museums which have repatriated human remains in recent years include the National Army Museum returning locks of hair of Emperor Tewodros II to Ethiopia and the Natural History Museum to the Moriori community in New Zealand.^[13]

In New Zealand, a repatriation programme based at Te Papa, New Zealand’s national museum, aims to work until every Māori and Moriori ancestor is returned home. Sir Pou Temara, the repatriation advisory panel chair at the museum, said: “We believe that our ancestors are not resting in peace while behind the glass cabinets and in vaults in institutions overseas”.^[14]

In April 2024, a UK-based auction house offered Ancient Egyptian people’s skulls for sale.^[15] The remains were listed as originally taken from tombs in El Wadi, the southwestern region of Egypt, in 1881. Labour MP Bell Ribeiro-Addy, who is a member of the All-Party Parliamentary Group for Afrikan Reparations, said:

It is sickening that in 2024 the sale of African humans is still an issue. This despicable trade perpetuates a dark legacy of exploitation, colonialism, and dehumanisation. It is a gross violation of human dignity and an affront to the memory of those whose lives were unjustly taken, or whose final resting places were desecrated. We cannot allow profit to be made from the exploits of those who often hoped to find evidence for their racist ideology. It is imperative that we take decisive action to end such practices and ensure that the remains of those who were stolen from their homelands are respectfully repatriated.^[16]

2. What is the law on human remains being held in museums, private collections, and being offered for sale?

2.1 Is it possible to own someone else’s body part?

Under English law, human body parts are not technically property, so they cannot legally be ‘owned’ or attract a right to claim ownership in the same way as other items.^[17]

However, there is precedent for body parts to become ‘owned’ if work, skill or a technical process is applied. In 1998, the Court of Appeal for England and Wales upheld a conviction against an artist who stole anatomical specimens from the Royal College of Surgeons in London on the grounds that the college’s application of skill to create the specimens made them property, therefore taking them was theft.^[18]

2.2 Are there any restrictions on body parts being displayed and sold?

Anyone can possess, buy, and sell human body parts, provided they did not acquire the remains illegally and they are not using them for transplant. The Human Tissue Act 2004 established a legislative framework for whole body donation and the taking, storage and use of human organs and tissue. The act set up the Human Tissue Authority (HTA) with a remit covering removal, storage, use and disposal of human material.

Section 29 of the Human Tissue Bill, as introduced in the House of Commons in December 2003, prohibited commercial dealings in human material, with certain exemptions.^[19] The bill, as originally drafted, caused concerns from the biotech industry about whether clinical research activities, such as payments to participants in clinical trials or companies that source tissue for research projects, would remain lawful. In response to these concerns, the then government amended the trafficking clause at report stage in the House of Commons to limit prohibited activities to the trafficking of tissue intended for transplantation.^[20]

The public display of human tissue is subject to licensing by the HTA and legal requirements relating to consent.^[21] The Human Tissue Act 2004 requires that regulated activities are undertaken only with the prior consent of the individual from whom the tissue is taken. However, there are exemptions for existing holdings, imported remains and human remains that are older than 100 years. In practical terms, this means that the activities of museums and other institutions with collections of older human remains are largely exempt from needing consent.

The HTA states that the sale of human remains is generally outside the remit of the HTA, though it advises sellers to make purchasers aware of consent and licensing provisions of the Human Tissue Act 2004. It also notes:

Those involved in the sale or purchase of human bodies, body parts or tissue, and those who may host adverts for such sales (such as internet sites), may be subject to their own professional standards or other external requirements. Individuals and organisations intending to advertise, sell or purchase human bodies, body parts or tissue should consider the appropriateness of doing so within these established frameworks.^[22]

Where items are being sold online, the terms and conditions of certain platforms prohibit the sale of human body parts.^[23] For example, Meta, the parent company of Facebook and Instagram, prohibits the sale of body parts on its platforms and says that it removes content brought to its attention.

2.3 Can museums choose whether to repatriate items?

Section 47 of the Human Tissue Act 2004 allows key national museums, including the British Museum and the Science Museum, to remove human remains from their collections if they are reasonably believed to be remains of a person who died less than 1,000 years before the day that section came into force. However, in other circumstances, limitations can apply.

The 2004 act followed from diplomatic conversations and the establishment of a Working Group on Human Remains. In July 2000, the prime ministers of the UK and Australia met in London and made a joint declaration to increase efforts to repatriate human remains to Australian Indigenous communities.^[24] In response to this, in May 2001, the then minister for the arts, Alan Howarth, set up the Working Group on Human Remains, which was charged with examining the status of human remains within the collections of publicly funded museums and galleries in the UK and considering legislative change in this area.

The working group heard a range of opinions.^[25] Some were not in favour of repatriation. Arguments included that the remains formed part of important scientific collections which should be retained for future study. Others suggested that human body parts remaining available for study in the collections of a national museum in their country of origin is different to them being returned to their descendants for burial or cremation. Other participants argued that repatriation was unnecessary if communities were properly engaged and remains were handled in line with their views.

The working group’s recommendations included the removal of legal restrictions on museums’ ability to dispose of human remains, the enacting of uniform provisions for all museums permitting disposal, and the introduction of a licensing system, with the object of regulating the holding, return, treatment, handling and disposal of human remains.^[26]

Following the recommendations of the working group, section 47 of the Human Tissue Act 2004 gave nine named national museums the power to deaccession human remains of people who died less than 1,000 years ago.^[27]

In October 2005, and following a consultation on the report of the working group, the Department for Culture, Media and Sport (DCMS) issued a document, ‘Guidance for the care of human remains in museums’, which provided non-statutory guidance for museums and other institutions in England, Wales and Northern Ireland that held human remains in permanent collections.^[28]

The guidance states that requests for the return of human remains should be resolved by individual museums on a case-by-case basis, considering a range of factors, including:

• the cultural and religious values of the interested individuals or communities and the strength of their relationship to the remains
• cultural, spiritual and religious significance of the remains
• the scientific, educational and historical importance of the material
• the quality of treatment of the remains, both now and in the past, and their care if returned

Aside from cases that would come under the 2004 act, for the British Museum, its trustees make decisions on the disposal of objects in reference to the British Museum Act 1963, which sets out the “limited circumstances under which the museum may deaccession items from its collections”. This allows the deaccession of some objects, including duplicates and objects that in the opinion of trustees are “unfit to be retained in the collections of the museum and can be disposed of without detriment to the interests of students”.

The National Heritage Act 1983 established the Armouries, Science Museum, and Victoria and Albert Museum as non-departmental public bodies. The act states that the board of trustees may not dispose of an object in its collection unless it is either:

• a duplicate of another object in its collection, or
• an object which the board is satisfied has “become useless for the purposes of their collections” because of damage, physical deterioration or infestation.

3. What is the position of the UK government on the presence of human remains in collections and for sale?

In 2007 the UK voted to adopt the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. While it is not legally binding, the declaration included a right for Indigenous peoples to the repatriation of their human remains and said:

States shall seek to enable the access and/or repatriation of ceremonial objects and human remains in their possession through fair, transparent and effective mechanisms developed in conjunction with Indigenous peoples concerned.^[29]

Lord Boateng asked the government in November 2024 what assessment it had made of the presence of ancestral human remains in national collections, and what records it keeps centrally about such items. The government pointed to the 2005 guidance and said:

No such assessment has been made, and there are no centrally kept records. Museums are independent of government and decisions related to their collections are for their trustees to make.^[30]

The previous government also took the view that decisions related to collections were a matter for the trustees of each museum.^[31]

When asked whether it had plans to prohibit sales of human remains in private auctions, the government said in October 2024:

It is for businesses and auction rooms to decide whether to prohibit sales of human remains, taking into account the consent and licensing provisions of the HTA 2004. Those who sell or purchase human remains may also be subject to their own professional standards and codes of conduct.^[32]

4. Calls for policy change

Repatriation advocacy organisation Routes to Return has called on the government to create a national policy and provide funding to facilitate the repatriation of Indigenous human remains and cultural property from UK collections.^[33]

The policy briefing urges the government to act on its commitment to the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples:

The UK’s museum sector has already been slowly undertaking this work with little support for over 30 years, so by providing national policy and funding for international repatriation, the UK has the opportunity to become a world leader in international repatriation.^[34]

It says “specific ongoing funds” should be made available from DCMS and the Arts and Humanities Research Council for provenance research and training and skills programmes, as well as the physical return of human remains and artefacts.

The All-Party Parliamentary Group (APPG) for Afrikan Reparations has held hearings on the restitution of artefacts and remains.^[35] It found the majority of African artefacts and ancestral remains in the UK are not in national museums, but held within the UK’s local museums.^[36] It noted that provenance research can be expensive and complex, and ought to seek African-based expertise.^[37] The group argued that there should be a duty to return remains. The APPG also recommended parliamentarians should consider proposing new legislation that applies similar provisions to those of the Holocaust (Return of Cultural Objects) Act 2009, which set up powers to return certain cultural objects on grounds relating to events occurring during the Nazi era.

5. Read more

• The Conversation, ‘Auction houses still sell human remains—and it’s time they stopped’, 14 November 2024
• Marta Licata et al, ‘Study, conservation and exhibition of human remains: The need of a bioethical perspective’, Acta Biomedica, October 2020, vol 91, issue 4
• International Council of Museums, ‘International repatriation of human remains of Indigenous peoples’, 8 August 2018

---

Cover image by David Yu on Pexels.