|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 Posted: Wed Oct 01, 2008 2:58 pm
Original article at:
http://www.news.com.au/heraldsun/story/0,21985,23739349-5005961,00.html
Mummies under wraps after nudity complaints
Article from: Agence France-Presse
From correspondents in London
May 22, 2008 02:42am
A BRITISH museum is covering up its collection of ancient Egyptian mummies following visitor complaints about them going on show "naked".
Two unwrapped mummies and one partially wrapped mummy out of 11 on display at The Manchester Museum in northwest England were covered after comments were received that they should be treated with more respect and dignity.
The mummies will be kept under wraps temporarily while a public consultation is carried out about the best way to display human remains at the centre, said deputy director Piotr Bienkowski.
"This is an interim measure designed to find out public reaction because of the negative comments we have been getting, especially about the unwrapped mummies," he said.
"We collect visitor comments on a regular basis and over the last few months there have been an awful lot of people questioning the public and educational value of showing such mummies."
He said that public perception of displaying human remains, particularly those from the United States, Australia and New Zealand, had shifted and questions are now being asked why Egyptian remains are treated differently.
British public opinion had also been affected by recent revelations about the unauthorised detention by pathologists of children's organs at British hospitals.
Bienkowski accepted that covering the mummies was "slightly provocative" but said it was designed to generate debate and to determine whether the museum's policy on displaying human remains should be applied consistently.
Reaction on the museum's weblog showed that many Egyptologists are against the move. One respondent called it "totally misguided". Another called it "misinformed" while a third called it a "step backwards".
The chairman of the Manchester Ancient Egypt Society, Bob Partridge, called the decision "ridiculous" and that he was "almost at a loss for words".
"If the university museum is to continue its policy of education and informing visitors, then covering up the mummies is not achieveing this end, and is making the museum a subject of ridicule," he wrote on the site.
The Manchester Museum is home to one of Britain's largest collections of artefacts from ancient Egypt, with about 20,000 objects.
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Oct 01, 2008 3:06 pm
What do you think?
I'm a bit confused by the reaction against covering the mummies, personally- and I'd honestly appreciate someone speaking up to explain it to me. I don't think that there would be that much lost in the educational experience if unwrapped mummies were given a "decent" amount of shrouding. Personally, I've found x-rays and CAT scans of the mummies to be far more educational than the outter appearance of them- and for the purposes of seeing the phenomenon of mummification, even just seeing any part of the body gives me concept of the results of this process. I don't agree with lopping off a hand and putting it on display as used to be done in the old days, but if a hand could be allowed to rest outside of a shroud then I don't feel that I need to see the mummy's genitalia to get the picture. However, if the exhibit is specifically about the reconstruction of genitalia during mummification, then diagrams can be used to great effect.
While it is true that modesty about breast exposure is more of a modern concern than it was in ancient Egypt, the groin was always covered- we're already "borrowing" these people's most personal possessions, I think we should treat them respectfully. And I don't think that it would be "ridiculous" to go the step further to veil the chest on female mummies, either- because I feel that covering the remains has an educational purpose all its own. It teaches visitors to the museum to think of these mummies as the remains of actual people, not simply things left behind in a ruin somewhere.
Now I've probably hopelessly skewed the debate, lol. But I would like to know what other folks think about this.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Oct 01, 2008 3:07 pm
I dont see there being a problem with nudity, the egyptains were usually either fully nakid, partically, or their fine linen was see through. so really they were quite ok with the human form which is far more then i can say for our bodily insecurities that havent changed much since the victorian days.
really, what is the big deal??
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Oct 02, 2008 12:47 am
As Crimson Lotus said the Egyptians were naked alot of the time anyway so what's the deal?
I think society needs to stop complaing for once in their life and enjoy the fact that they can actually SEE a mummy instead of it being on the TV or a book.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Oct 02, 2008 6:34 am
Dude. Sex, drugs, alcohol, nudity, etc. is everywhere on television these days. And these people are complaining about a bunch of dead bodies.
Right. Makes total sense.
Now that they've made a big deal about it, everyone who goes to visit the mummies (especially little kids that have seen/heard about this whole debacle) will be like "omg nekkid mumys lol!!!11one!" The dignity of the bodies will be further tarnished.
And I thought we Americans were apt to absurd complaints and lawsuits. razz
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Oct 02, 2008 1:36 pm
crimson lotus I dont see there being a problem with nudity, the egyptains were usually either fully nakid, partically, or their fine linen was see through. so really they were quite ok with the human form which is far more then i can say for our bodily insecurities that havent changed much since the victorian days. Good point about the see-through linen- though I disagree that the ancient Egyptians were fully naked on a regular basis, they did wear clothes. Maybe we could find a fine-weave linen, then, to shroud the bodies which would compare to the mostly see-through linen of the upper classes?^_^ Nevira Shadowfire Dude. Sex, drugs, alcohol, nudity, etc. is everywhere on television these days. And these people are complaining about a bunch of dead bodies. Right. Makes total sense. I don't think these people are complaining about being exposed to nudity- rather, they are complaining that the people (the mummies) are being put on public display in a way which they would not have appeared by their own choice, and over which they have no control. It's not about prudishness, but rather about showing respect for the wishes of the people whom we are going to the museum to "meet." I firmly disagree that the ancient Egyptians would have habitually walked about naked- they had very elaborate dress, and only some of it was see-through. Those weaves which were see-through still afforded some cover as they weren't completely transparent. Those images we have of naked women dancing or offering perfumed cones or drink at parties tend to be either slaves or women whose open sexuality was a part of their profession- not the average person. Just for the sake of argument, I have also read that the images of the women wearing the strapped dresses which seem not to cover the nipples of the breast may actually be an illusion brought on by the way in which Egyptian art was presented. The dress is painted in a frontal view- like the eyes and the triangular kilts of the men were painted from a front view- but the woman is painted in profile. Therefore, her breast appears to stick out from the side uncovered, even though in actuality it may likely have been covered under the straps. wink Also, the higher rank a person has, the more clothes they are likely to be wearing- is it a status symbol? Were the poor simply less able to afford clothing? Or are the poor more often depicted in the tombs of the wealthy in attitudes of work where they would wear less clothing so as not to soil it or become too hot and sweaty? I'm really happy to see that I haven't skewed anyone's opinion! LOL! We might have the makings for a conversation here. whee
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Oct 02, 2008 1:51 pm
Rennie` I think society needs to stop complaing for once in their life and enjoy the fact that they can actually SEE a mummy instead of it being on the TV or a book. I don't necessarily agree, I think it's a good sign that people are concerned for the respectful treatment of the mummies. It shows we've come a long way from the period where a mummified hand might be lopped off and sold as a curiosity or a paperweight, and are finally beginning to regard the remains of ancient Egyptians as the remains of people who- despite the time gap- are not so different from us that we feel comfortable denying them the same courtesies which we would respect for ourselves. As the article says, these same courtesies are required for the remains of any other person on display in a museum- but Egyptology has long been separated from the other anthropological sciences, and ancient Egyptian artifacts and remains have been treated differently as a result. Not always to their benefit- since these differences in perception are what led to so many mummies being ground down for fertilizer or sold as souvenirs. I find it charming and heartening to hear that regular museum visitors are commenting on the treatment of these same remains in museums today. heart There is a museum in my area who has a rather famous mummy- famous for our area, at least. He was found in a coffin labeled "Usermontu," although the experts have reason to believe he was not the man for whom this coffin was originally intended. I usually call him Usermontu anyway, since I have no other name to call him. But anyway, he came to the museum in a really interesting way- from a Neiman Marcus catalogue. The company has a unique "His and Her" offer every year around Christmastime, and that year it was a pair of masculine and feminine ancient Egyptian sarcophagi. The museum snapped it up, of course- and the coffins are beautiful! When the company packagers went to ship it, they called the museum and said, "Hey, there's something rattling around in here- want us to throw it away?" LOL. And the museum was like, "zOMG, NO!!!! scream " So they shipped it as it was, and when it arrived they found within the male-headed coffin this mummy, who was not wrapped. Before putting him on display, they loosely swathed his body in a sheet of linen- which was also an artifact on display at the museum- and the effect is quite nice. Usermontu turned out to be a really fascinating mummy, because he'd had surgery done on his knee. A metal pin was implanted in the bone to support a fracture while it healed- and it did heal! There are radiographs also on display around the glass case where his body lies, which show the pin and the healed bone. It's way cool. blaugh
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Dec 12, 2008 1:43 pm
This would never happen in France. You find a mummy, you display it how you found it. Simple. Brits and Amis are so strange.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Dec 14, 2008 12:06 pm
WebenBanu There is a museum in my area who has a rather famous mummy- famous for our area, at least. He was found in a coffin labeled "Usermontu," although the experts have reason to believe he was not the man for whom this coffin was originally intended. I usually call him Usermontu anyway, since I have no other name to call him. But anyway, he came to the museum in a really interesting way- from a Neiman Marcus catalogue. The company has a unique "His and Her" offer every year around Christmastime, and that year it was a pair of masculine and feminine ancient Egyptian sarcophagi. The museum snapped it up, of course- and the coffins are beautiful! When the company packagers went to ship it, they called the museum and said, "Hey, there's something rattling around in here- want us to throw it away?" LOL. And the museum was like, "zOMG, NO!!!! scream " So they shipped it as it was, and when it arrived they found within the male-headed coffin this mummy, who was not wrapped. Before putting him on display, they loosely swathed his body in a sheet of linen- which was also an artifact on display at the museum- and the effect is quite nice. Usermontu turned out to be a really fascinating mummy, because he'd had surgery done on his knee. A metal pin was implanted in the bone to support a fracture while it healed- and it did heal! There are radiographs also on display around the glass case where his body lies, which show the pin and the healed bone. It's way cool. blaugh Srsly?! eek Holy crap. From henceforth on, I will stalk the Neiman Marcus catalog. ninja
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Reply
