VThe Ethics of the Virtual Display of Human Remains: A Case Study of The British Museum’s Presence on Google Arts and Culture

  • Madeline Mungo, The George Washington University

It is an unfortunate truth that for many museum visitors and outsiders to archaeology that there is a certain association, even expectation, of human remains.1 This perceived conflation of archaeology and graves/funerary sites is something that museums, at least historically, have benefited from. The British Museum is no stranger to this concept, currently holding over 6,000 examples of human remains, the most notable of which are on public display in their galleries.2 Because of this display in-gallery, the remains are also displayed virtually via The British Museum’s partnership with Google Arts & Culture, whose Explore feature allows users to navigate the museum using the same technology as Google Street View.3 With the rise of COVID-19, virtual tours have become in large part the only way to experience museums, and even before the current situation, virtual tours allowed visitors from around the world to visit museums from the comfort of their home. Undeniably, virtual tours such as Google Arts & Culture brings access to museums that was unheard of even a decade ago, and this has certainly drawn some discussion over its benefits and drawbacks as a true alternative to in-person visitation.4567 However, as this technology has taken off, and has reaped what has been correctly argued in these previous discussions to be important rewards in universal accessibility, we may have missed an important conversation to be had in regard to these human remains on public, virtual display.

How can we understand the ethics of the display of human remains, without the added solemnity of an in-person experience? There are certainly no shortage of questions on the ethics of displaying human remains in general, but their virtual display is one that remains under-theorized. Researchers like Dr. Angela Stienne have done some thinking about the display of human remains on social media platforms like Instagram, which is interesting to think about, however, for the purposes of this paper, I will focus solely on Google Arts & Culture.8 While it is difficult to control virtual display when it is only showing what is on in-person display at the museum, by looking at both the virtual Google Arts & Culture experience and the codes and laws that govern the British Museum, I argue that the current iteration of the virtual display of these remains is glaringly unethical, largely due to a lack of clear guidance. To rectify this, at the very least, a revisitation of the British Museum’s “Human Remains Policy” and increased collaboration between the British Museum and Google is necessary to create best practice for the virtual display of human remains and ensure it remains ethical.

The Virtual Tour

Despite not being in person, one does get much the same awe-inspiring impression of the British Museum through its presence on Google Arts & Culture as one might in real life. The home page features a prominent picture of their Great Court, with its glass ceiling, circular reading room, and neoclassical designs on the walls, looking every bit the grand museum one would expect from a “former” colonial power like Britain.9 A short description provides base numbers (how many visitors, how many years, etc.) as well as highlights to look for, including the Rosetta Stone, the Parthenon Sculptures, and of course, their collection of Egyptian mummies. At the bottom of the page, the two “Museum Views” can be accessed, one for the exterior, and one for the interior. Both function the same as Google Street View, with large, white arrows at the bottom of the screen that take the viewer one step that direction when clicked. The process quickly becomes somewhat tedious, as it takes many clicks to get anywhere, and they are not always intuitive, sometimes requiring you to “move” backwards in space to be given the option to “move” forward in the direction you desire. Likely to combat this slightly frustrating mechanism, at the very bottom of the screen, there are options to move directly to certain highlights, represented either by thumbnails of the exhibition or by pictures of objects. Multiple of these will take you to the Egyptian galleries, and by proxy, the mummies.

There is much to be said about how the British Museum chooses to display their remains, but suffice it to say, virtually, it is hard to pick up on the solemnity, care, and respect that the museum claims to put at the forefront of their display planning.10 Immediately upon landing in the exhibit highlighted at the bottom with a thumbnail of Egyptian coffins, one is greeted by at least two examples of wrapped human remains, without even taking a “step.” Moving through the exhibit, more and more remains make themselves apparent, including one unwrapped mummy displayed alongside skulls and bits of pottery. Exploring the rest of what is labeled in the sidebar as the 3rd Floor, one comes upon the Gebelein Man laying in situ, as well as a skeleton in the Ancient Iran gallery, and a crushed skull with hair and jewelry in the Ancient Saudi Arabia gallery. More examples of remains can be found throughout the rest of the museum, as well.

All human remains visible to the in-person visitor are visible to the virtual visitor with no censoring, and often, given the nature of the technology used, no way to read the wall labels. The remains seem unavoidable, as not only are they pervasive, but on a small screen like a phone, it is hard to see what is in a case until you have gotten close enough to see graphic detail. While it seems none of the human remains are such objects that Google Arts & Culture allows the visitor to zoom in on to access a separate page with more information, the remains can certainly be still be zoomed in on in the more traditional sense, allowing the virtual visitor to get an even closer look than they could in person.

Codes and Laws

According to their website, the British Museum’s “Human Remains Policy” stems largely from the overarching UK laws regarding the collection of human remains: the Human Tissue Act (2004) and the Department for Media, Culture, and Sports’s Guidance for the Care of Human Remains in Museums (2005).11 The standards set by these laws taken as the default, the actual “Policy” focuses mostly on the legal proceedings of repatriation and ensuring proper collection management.12 Beyond that, it is just contextual information and some reasoning for display, no actual policies on what they consider to be best practice.13 I will define these laws that make up the good majority of the actual ethical practices of the “Human Remains Policy” in the next few paragraphs, but it is interesting to note that for a museum in such a unique position with its collection of human remains, it does not have much of its own original ideas in its policy. Indeed, much of the “Human Remains” page on the British Museum website is dedicated not to specifics on how they ensure proper care, but instead defense of their very existence in the collection.14 Nowhere in the “Human Remains Policy” or on the “Human Remains” page is there mention of virtual display or how that may change their best practices, and searching for Google Arts & Culture on the website as a whole provides no relevant results.

If the British Museum is going to default its ethics to what is laid out by the British government, then it is important to understand just what these guidelines are. Great Britain is unique in its specificity in regards to legal boundaries involving human remains. The Human Tissue Act (2004) gives strict guidelines as to what constitutes human remains, and how the remains must be handled.15 Unfortunately, while giving other industries that worked with human remains some much needed legal guidance on ethically handling lost loved ones, the HTA (2004) is specified for remains that are 100 years old and younger, leaving museums and their much older remains in a tight spot, as well as accidentally making the repatriation of the remains that did not fall under its guidance illegal. Enter the DCMS’s Guidance for the Care of Human Remains in Museums (2005), which once again made repatriation legal and added other, much needed clarity on the care of human remains in museums.16

The standard legal ethics of the collection and display of human remains in Britain are laid out in both the HTA (2004) and DCMS Guidance (2005), however, how these laws continue into virtual display is far less laid out. When these two legal documents were passed, Google Arts & Culture had yet another six years before its release, so understandably, there is no virtual display clause.17 Because there is no legal answer to best practice with virtual display, we can look at the virtual experience and see if it lines up with the accepted best practices given by these two documents.

The DCMS Guidance (2005) acknowledges the ethical conundrum of displaying human remains, but validates its continued practice by citing, as we’ve previously seen, how much visitors enjoy and expect seeing human remains.18 Nonetheless, they say, best practice is to ensure that the remains are on display because they make an incomparable addition to the narrative of the exhibition, that no other object can supply. Furthermore, the DCMS Guidance (2005) strongly advises displaying remains in such a way that visitors would be properly warned/prepared to see them, rather than come upon them unawares, like placing the remains in an alcove away from the rest of the exhibit. I am not sure this practice is one the British Museum has adopted, especially not in its virtual context on Google Arts & Culture. Remains are difficult to avoid, as they are made focal points in several exhibits, even those that do not necessarily focus on remains. The lack of warning and preparation is made even more noticeable in the virtual setting, with remains seeming to pop up out of nowhere as the images load. Moving virtually around the exhibit, unlike in the real world, your scope of vision is relatively short, and smaller wall labels are difficult to read. Contexts that may serve as proper warning and preparation to an in-person visitor simply do not translate into the virtual space. Instead of creating a respectful environment that at its core accentuates the scientific and educational value of human remains, cases of skeletons and mummies jump out at the virtual visitor like a haunted house.

Problems and Solutions

It goes without saying, then, that the current virtual display of human remains visible through Google Arts & Culture does not line up with what has been ascribed as best practice for in-person display. However, what truly is the museum’s responsibility in this case? If we are to believe in true equality between the virtual experience and the in-person experience, then nothing should be changed between what can be accessed by either visitor. However, as is evident by the difference in experience between the in-person experience of viewing remains- one that is easily avoidable and much more of a personal choice- and the virtual experience- one of surprise, wherein human remains jump from inscrutable to close up- these experiences are inherently unequal, and therefore must be treated differently, even if this means sacrificing the 1:1 ratio of the displays.

Clearly, something must be changed in regards to how the remains are currently displayed virtually. However, the British Museum cannot entirely censor its human remains from its presence on Google Arts & Culture, either. The point of the platform is to give the same access to the displays of the museum to the virtual visitor as they would as have an in-person visitor. It has already been established that the difference in platform inherently changes the visitor experience, to change it in a way so tangible as censoring something people may be expecting to see as part of a large museum like the British Museum would be directly antithetical to the goal of partnering with Google Arts & Culture. A middle ground must be found wherein the museum clearly differentiates between the in-person and the virtual visitor, implementing necessary changes, while still maintaining the integrity of the purpose of making the in-person gallery display available online in the first place.

The first and foremost solution, then, is a revisitation of the policies of the British Museum, specifically the “Human Remains Policy.” The lack of clear guidance on how virtual display is different and should be handled is the largest culprit of the issues present with the current display of human remains one can access via Google Arts & Culture. Revisiting the policy to at least include the existence of virtual display, as well as what mechanisms the British Museum will implement to ensure the virtual display of human remains continues to adhere to the guidelines set in their current “Human Remains Policy,” the HTA (2004), and the DCMS Guidance (2005), is an absolutely necessary step to take. The museum must take responsibility for their presence in Google Arts & Culture, and must ensure the virtual visitor can understand the same level of ethical practice as they could in-person.

Additionally, there must be active partnership and collaboration between Google and the British Museum. It is difficult to glean the true relationship between the two, but it seems that the partnership largely begins and ends with the Explore feature, with some revisitations with newer virtual and VR exhibits. A more active partnership would allow the British Museum to implement the guidance they will add into their policies, in turn creating a more ethical virtual viewing experience. Furthermore, open communication between the two would ensure that as time goes on, these changes continue to be malleable and active: not a one and done solution but an ever-changing understanding of what is ethical.

Certainly many changes are needed, but one I argue is the most important to implement is some form of warning to the virtual visitor about the presence of human remains. Perhaps a warning on the main landing page of the British Museum that human remains are on display throughout the museum. Or, as one can zoom in for more information on a specific object in the museum, a similar mechanism can be used for a warning. Even ensuring a middle landing spot before close ups of the remains, far enough to avoid graphic imagery, but close enough to be able to tell they are indeed human remains, could serve as enough of a forewarning that those sensitive to seeing human remains are able to click away. By adding in this warning, the virtual display once more falls into line with the current guidelines for in-person display without changing the display visible to both types of visitor, thus solving one of the largest problems. Of course, this is not a panacea, much more specific guidelines must be added to the policies of the British Museum to fully cover the differences inherent to virtual vs. in-person display, but adding a warning to the virtual visitor is certainly a good start.

One may argue that the British Museum’s Google Arts & Culture virtual tour is far from the only way one can view human remains on the internet. Images of remains both ancient and modern can be easily found through a Google Image Search. The digitization of museum collections has also made it easier to access images of remains as pictures are taken and posted to their online databases. If one can so easily find images of human remains, frankly with better image quality, then why care so much about their display through Google Arts & Culture? This idea of what ethics follow from real life into the virtual world is not a new one. Especially as technology becomes more advanced, these questions get more complicated. In the end, minimizing risk of harm seems to be a starting point for a company in a virtual space, especially one using virtual reality, augmented reality, and the like.19 Rather than just any entity on the internet, a museum must hold itself to a higher standard, and therefore must consider the ethical ramifications and the potential harm that their virtual display of human remains could create. The British Museum, specifically, has a self-ascribed, as well as legal, duty to ethically display human remains, and just because the display is hosted on a different platform, that does not mean that the museum can shirk this critical part of their display policy.

Conclusion

This essay has examined how the current iteration of the British Museum’s presence on Google Arts & Culture, due to the changes in experience a virtual visitor would have compared to an in-person visitor, has fallen out of line with what their guidelines consider to be ethical. Instead of respectful portrayal that is easily avoided by the more sensitive viewer, the sudden movement of the Google Street View-style virtual tour instead functions more as a jump-scare, with remains going straight from unrecognizable as remains to close up images. The British Museum has so far left this unaddressed, however, the museum has a responsibility not only to the remains themselves, but also to the visitor to ensure ethical display, regardless of the format.

The British Museum’s “Human Remains Policy” is up to be reexamined in 2023, and it is imperative that when they do this, they include their best practices for the virtual display of human remains.20 The museum can no longer ignore its responsibility to the virtual visitor, nor can it continue to believe that they can be likened to the in-person visitor. While perhaps this is sacrificing the egalitarian goal of Google Arts & Culture, the fact remains that the change in platform from in-person to virtual inherently changes the visitors' experience, and thus, makes the virtual display fall out of line with the British Museum’s “Human Remains Policy,” the Human Tissue Act (2004), and the DCMS Guidance for the Care of Human Remains in Museums (2005), and therefore has become unethical. Furthermore, there must be increased collaboration between Google and the British Museum, so that when these changes are published in the new policies, they can be implemented. The virtual display of the remains at the British Museum are suffering from a lack of clear guidance in how they should differ from in-person display, which necessitates not only a revisitation of their policy, but also true, active partnership with Google Arts & Culture, ensuring that the remains are treated with the same ethics virtually as they are in-person. Virtual display has become an essential part of museum existence in the wake of the pandemic, therefore it is more important than ever to ensure ethical museum practice continues no matter the platform.

Notes

  1. Neil G.W. Curtis, “Human Remains: The Sacred, Museums, and Archaeology,” Public Archaeology, 3 (2003): 22. https://doi.org/10.1179/pua.2003.3.1.21. ↩︎

  2. “Human Remains,” The British Museum, accessed October 7, 2021, https://www.britishmuseum.org/our-work/departments/human-remains. ↩︎

  3. “Experience,” About, Google Arts & Culture, accessed September 20, 2021, https://about.artsandculture.google.com/experience/. ↩︎

  4. Megan K. Udell, “The Museum of the Infinite Scroll: Assessing the Effectiveness of Google Arts and Culture as a Virtual Tool for Museum Accessibility,” Masters thesis, University of San Francisco, (2019) https://repository.usfca.edu/capstone/979/. ↩︎

  5. Ratri Wahyuningtyas, “Eliminating Boundaries in Learning Culture Through Technology: A Review of Google Arts and Culture,” (2017), in The Tenth International Conference Proceedings: Revisiting English Teaching, Literature, and Translation in the Borderless World: My World, Your World, Whose World?, Salatiga, Indonesia, March 18, 2017, 179-184, (Salatiga: Satya Wacana University Press, 2017). ↩︎

  6. Ana Verde and Jose Manuel Valero, “Virtual Museums and Google Arts & Culture: Alternatives to the Face-to-Face Visit to Experience Art,” International Journal of Education and Research, 9, no. 2 (February 2021): 43-54, https://www.ijern.com/journal/2021/February-2021/05.pdf. ↩︎

  7. Showkat Ahmad Wani, Asifa Ali, and Shabir Ahmad Ganaie, “The Digitally Preserved Old-Age Art, Culture, and Artists: An Exploration of Google Arts and Culture,” PSU Research Review, 3, no. 2 (August 2019): 111-122, https://www.emerald.com/insight/content/doi/10.1108/PRR-08-2018-0026/full/html. ↩︎

  8. Angela Stienne, Twitter post, November 1, 2021, 1:54 P.M., https://twitter.com/Angela_stienne/status/1455231912621006862?s=20. ↩︎

  9. “The British Museum” Google Arts & Culture, accessed October 4, 2021, https://artsandculture.google.com/partner/the-british-museum. ↩︎

  10. Alexandria Fletcher, Daniel Antoine, and JD Hill, eds., Regarding the Dead: Human Remains in the British Museum (London: British Museum Press, 2014), vi. ↩︎

  11. The British Museum, “Human Remains.” ↩︎

  12. “British Museum Policy: Human Remains in the Collection,” The British Museum, accessed October 28, 2021, https://www.britishmuseum.org/sites/default/files/2019-10/Human_Remains_policy_061218.pdf. ↩︎

  13. Claudia von der Borch, “Guest Blog: Are Human Remains in Ethically Safe Hands?” Mummy Stories (blog), April 9, 2020, https://www.mummystories.com/single-post/are-human-remains-in-ethically-safe-hands. ↩︎

  14. The British Museum, “Human Remains.” ↩︎

  15. Myra Giesen, ed., Curating Human Remains: Caring for the Dead in the United Kingdom (Suffolk: Boydell Press, 2013), 33. ↩︎

  16. Giesen, Curating Human Remains, 47. ↩︎

  17. “Google Art Project: How the Biggest Museum Collection in the World is Organized,” Culture and Creativity, accessed September 20, 2021, https://www.culturepartnership.eu/en/article/google-art-project-kak-ustroena-krupneyshaya-v-mire-muzeynaya-kollektsiya. ↩︎

  18. “Guidance for the Care of Human Remains in Museums,” The British Museum, accessed October 10, 2021, https://www.britishmuseum.org/sites/default/files/2019-11/DCMS-Guidance-for-the-care-of-human-remains-in-museum.pdf. ↩︎

  19. Mel Slater et. al., “The Ethics of Realism in Virtual and Augmented Reality,” Frontiers in Virtual Reality, 1 (March 2020): 8-9, https://doi.org/10.3389/frvir.2020.00001. ↩︎

  20. The British Museum, “British Museum Policy.” ↩︎