The shrunken heads at Pitt Rivers museum (Oxford)

Good thing too. When I visited with my grandson he asked 'was that once a real person?'

I have no problem with returning artefacts that were taken without permission as long as they are going to be cared for properly. Unfortunately, sometimes, they are later destroyed in revolutionary or other activities, as has happened to important archaeological/historical/cultural sites in parts of the Middle East or Australia (the ancient cave sacred to the Aborigine people). Some of the artefacts wouldn't have survived if they hadn't been 'plundered'.

It is a contentious issue but I think each case has to be considered individually. As an archaeologist, I might have a different view from many folk.

suziewoozie, we might not agree entirely, but your word 'information' is the critical one - it's information that is needed and I certainly agree with you on that.

Earlier this year, I visited some war graves in Belgium. The stark beauty and order of these cemeteries contrasts with the disorder and suffering the represent. I’m always particularly moved when I see a German grave - still tended and cared for. Perhaps their bodies or bits of them should have been brought back to the UK and put on display in the Imperial War Museum so our children could learn about their history.

It’s the right thing to do - these were plundered goods, no consent. When you think of the importance we attach to funerals, death etc and associated concepts of respect, dignity, memory, love. As for eradicating history, what utter tosh - the thing to do is put information in their place explaining what was there, how they were plundered and why they have been returned.

People can be too precious about these things, although I agree that there are circumstances in which the displays are far from tasteful. In the past, at least, there were cultures which kept the bodies of their ancestors in their homes, almost as a continuation of the family. They obviously had no problem with seeing the bodies and, in fact, saw it as a way of showing respect for their ancestors.

My biggest complaint is the whitewashing of history when it would be much better to provide information about ALL aspects of a subject, good and bad. It's called education.

I’ve never liked seeing human remains of any sort in museums. I’m certainly fascinated by them eg when the remains of Richard the Third were discovered I was very interested to see the photos but I don’t know that I need to see them.

Again, I’ve not seen it myself but I’ve always felt sad at Joseph Merrick aka Elephant Man having his skeleton on display. Maybe he agreed to it, I don’t know, but it seems disrespectful.

?

I know lemongrove. Mine always made for Barnack Man first, in all his peaty splendour.

Gruesome little beasts, aren't they?

I still dont like it though.

Surely these are part of the culture in the Countries they came from, I can understand them being returned to their place of origin if requested but why should children be deprived of knowledge.
The Africa Museum here had a five year re-vamp and the new exhibitions are excellent, not a white wash in any way just educational and very interesting.
None of my sub-Saharan African friends have been offended by it in fact some have said it is often the only real way their children can experience their parents and Grandparents culture.

Really?! our children were fascinated by them, our DGC too.
They were the things they headed for first, when we entered the museum.
All those glass cases full of things and cabinet drawers to open and gape in wonder at.
I think it’s the done thing now to eradicate anything that may upset sensibilities in case of accusations of something or
other.

I've always thought it was distasteful to have human remains on display for the public to gawk at.

So I'm happy they've gone.