Abstract
Concerns have recently been expressed about the continuing availability of human bones from India, obtained originally for educational purposes but lacking the requisite informed consent that would be expected today. More generally, a broader claim is being made, namely, that the practice of using any unconsented bones in educational settings is unethical and should cease. These calls, in turn, raise broader issues regarding the availability of anonymous archival collections in anatomy museums. Although this debate centers on undergraduate anatomy teaching, much anthropological research utilizes human remains of past populations for which there can have been no consent. A suggested alternative for undergraduate teaching is the use of 3D images of human bones, rather than the bones themselves. In addressing these issues, the background to the India bone trade is assessed, and the year 1985 is pinpointed as having significant ethical weight. The cultural and ethical interests inherent in studying archival anonymous skeletal material are weighed against indiscriminate reburial. Although any use of unconsented material represents ethical compromise, account should be taken of changing ethical expectations with time. It is concluded that: there is no justification for repatriation or disposal of all bones for which specific informed consent has not been obtained; continued use of anonymous archival human bones in a professional setting is acceptable, even in the absence of informed consent, with the proviso that there are no culturally relevant groups seeking repatriation; the continued existence of bones in long-standing private collections cannot be justified since it amounts to long-term storage with no identified goals; the notion that 3D images are an ethically superior alternative to actual human bones is unsustainable, since there is an intimate connection between the bones and the 3D images.