New evidence shows ex-Tasmanian premier William Crowther ‘had Aborigine Lanne’s skull and gave it up’, but historians say he ‘may have been duped’

New evidence about the bone-hunting antics of a former premier has prompted historians to urge a stay on the tearing down of his statue, but Indigenous calls for its immediate removal.

William Crowther statue at Franklin Square, Hobart. Picture: Chris Kidd

New evidence about the bone-hunting antics of a former premier has prompted historians to urge a stay on the tearing down of his statue but sparked Indigenous calls to ­expedite its removal.

Hobart City Council will vote on Monday on a recommendation to remove a statue of ex-premier and surgeon William Crowther, accused of severing and stealing the skull from the corpse of Aborigine William Lanne in 1869.

Crowther (1817-1885) was known to have wanted the skull to send to the Royal College of ­Surgeons, London, but denied the allegation, which was never ­proven and which he alleged was politically motivated.

The Australian has seen a ­letter uncovered by Tasmanian historians in recent days, sent by the college to the Tasmanian ­Museum in 1904, suggesting Crowther had Lanne’s skull at one point.

Read into the minutes of a Royal Society of Tasmania meeting on September 14, 1904, the ­letter from college secretary J. Forrest Cowell to museum ­director Alex Morton reads:

“Some correspondence upon the subject took place with Dr Crowther, and from his letters it appears he intended to present the skull to this college, but that, owing to an agitation which arose in Tasmania regarding the disposal of the remains of William Lannee (sic), he was obliged to give up the skull, of which he had obtained possession.”

Hobart City Council will vote on Monday on a recommendation to remove a statue of William Crowther. Picture: Chris Kidd

Historians Scott Seymour and Ian McFarlane also found other archival documents they said ­suggested Crowther may have ­obtained a skull after the event, thinking it was Lanne’s, but later realising he had probably been duped.

This included records showing a skull that the University of Edinburgh received in 1888, which Crowther’s son had advised had been in his father’s possession and was “possibly” Lanne’s, was found a ­century later to be female.

That this Edinburgh skull, repatriated to Tasmania for burial in the early 1990s, was not Lanne’s is supported by minutes of the Royal Society meeting that considered the college letter in 1904.

These minutes record Tasmanian Museum director Alex Morton as advising “he had good reason to believe that the skull (of Lanne) was in the possession of a gentleman at present residing in Hobart”.

Morton told the ­meeting he hoped this “gentleman”, whom he did not name, would “show some patriotism and present it to the Hobart Museum”. It is not known if this occurred.

The historians said the new material showed much more ­research was required before the HCC judged Crowther guilty 153 years after the events. “I would like some sort of forum to test new ideas and ­research to arrive at a better and more informed understanding of this piece of our history,” said Dr McFarlane.

However, veteran Aboriginal activist Michael Mansell said there was a clear case for the statue’s removal. “While there is no doubt that many things happened in Tasmania and elsewhere that people today could not prove in a court of law, it does not mean those things did not happen,” Mr Mansell said.

“Most reasonable people accept that Crowther was a body-snatcher and should not be honoured in the shape of a statue.”

Mr Seymour called for a stay of execution on Crowther’s statue. “It’s still a mystery as to what happened – but it’s not as clear cut as the HCC is making it seem,” Mr Seymour said.