Let the living look after the dead?

[Anchorman]

       On another forum, I  came across  a thread whose originator was concerned regarding archaeologist's treatment of the remains of the ancient dead, and suggesting they remain in situ, their graves or tombs undisturbed, as modern archaeology was a violation of their sanctity, and displaying human remains in museums an act of immorality at best,sacrilege at worst. Not a new idea,I know; but still one which stirs emotions and controversy in quite a few circles. Should we store human remains in university or museum, or return them to their place of burial, if practical?

[Roses]

I am not in the least bit sentimental about dead bodies, which I regard as waste products, if they can be put to good use after death I am all for it.

[Anchorman]

 So you don't think human remains should be treated i any way different from those of animals?
Should the cultural, religious or other ethos be take into account when either handling or displaying individuals?

[Roses]

So you don't think human remains should be treated i any way different from those of animals?
Should the cultural, religious or other ethos be take into account when either handling or displaying individuals?

Absolutely not, we are animals too.

[Anchorman]

Absolutely not, we are animals too.

   



      I remember when, in 1980, as a student, I was part of a team given intimate access to the mummy room in the Cairo museum, before they revamped it.
We were given soft brushes, and the display cases which had covered the mummies of certain individuals from the two cache tombs - DB320 and KV 35 - were removed.
Our task was to brush dust from the faces of the dead kings,and try to remove mould which, because of the conditions in the Cairo, had accumulated.
I was acutely conscious that this was no artefact, no museum exhibit; this was a man, who had been born, lived and died. The fact that he had been a king - Ramesses III - and had lived over three thousand years earlier -  did not seem as important as the fact that this was a human being.
Surely such remains deserved some dignity?

[jeremyp]

       On another forum, I  came across  a thread whose originator was concerned regarding archaeologist's treatment of the remains of the ancient dead, and suggesting they remain in situ, their graves or tombs undisturbed, as modern archaeology was a violation of their sanctity, and displaying human remains in museums an act of immorality at best,sacrilege at worst. Not a new idea,I know; but still one which stirs emotions and controversy in quite a few circles. Should we store human remains in university or museum, or return them to their place of burial, if practical?

They are just bones. I’d say the quest for human knowledge outweighs superstitious respect for old bones that are no longer in use by their original owner.

[Walter]

They are just bones. I’d say the quest for human knowledge outweighs superstitious respect for old bones that are no longer in use by their original owner.

if the bones of any of my dead relatives were being 'messed about with' I think I would be rather angry about that.
Once enough time had passed, then that would be a different   matter.

[Roses]

if the bones of any of my dead relatives were being 'messed about with' I think I would be rather angry about that.
Once enough time had passed, then that would be a different   matter.

How much time?

[Walter]

How much time?

I left that vague to generate discussion , what do you think would be enough time LR?

[Roses]

I left that vague to generate discussion , what do you think would be enough time LR?

Straight after death.

[Walter]

Straight after death.

for me that would be too soon , unless it was the wish of the deceased, as in scientific research .

Btw I've got my children in mind as I type this.
 

[Roses]

for me that would be too soon , unless it was the wish of the deceased, as in scientific research .

Btw I've got my children in mind as I type this.

I hope my children/grandchildren don't go before me, but if they do I would not be sentimental about their mortal remains.

[Walter]

I hope my children/grandchildren don't go before me, but if they do I would not be sentimental about their mortal remains.

I must be more sentimental than you then where my kids are concerned , however that does not extend to other peoples' kids , just mine .

[jeremyp]

How much time?

When there's nobody left alive who knew them personally would be the lower limit. You could add a generation or two for a margin of error, if you like.

[Walter]

When there's nobody left alive who knew them personally would be the lower limit. You could add a generation or two for a margin of error, if you like.

thanks, ill do that .

[Roses]

I must be more sentimental than you then where my kids are concerned , however that does not extend to other peoples' kids , just mine .

I don't know how one can be sentimental about a rotting corpse.

[Anchorman]

I don't know how one can be sentimental about a rotting corpse.

   



Try being less than two inches from the face of someone who died three thousand years ago.
Look into that face; see the wrinkles, realise that this was a living, breathing individual.
Then try not to have feelings of respect.
A friend of mine, Salima Ikram, who is an acknowledged expert on the field, still freely admits to feeliung that respect, and even pathos, when examining remains.

[Roses]

   



Try being less than two inches from the face of someone who died three thousand years ago.
Look into that face; see the wrinkles, realise that this was a living, breathing individual.
Then try not to have feelings of respect.
A friend of mine, Salima Ikram, who is an acknowledged expert on the field, still freely admits to feeliung that respect, and even pathos, when examining remains.

Why should I have respect for a corpse, I don't get it? One should have respect for a living, breathing human if they deserve respect.

[Anchorman]

Why should I have respect for a corpse, I don't get it? One should have respect for a living, breathing human if they deserve respect.

   



No, probably you don't get it.
Yet this decaying lump of leathery flesh which still has a slightly nasty odor, combined as it is with the sweetness of the oils used to preserve it, does command respect. It was an individual, with hopes, dreams and beliefs, even if I didn't share them.
(It was also a murder victim)
Anyway, look for yourself, and then tell me.

https://www.livescience.com/25653-mummy-king-ramessess-iii.html

[Owlswing]

   
      I remember when, in 1980, as a student, I was part of a team given intimate access to the mummy room in the Cairo museum, before they revamped it.

We were given soft brushes, and the display cases which had covered the mummies of certain individuals from the two cache tombs - DB320 and KV 35 - were removed.

Our task was to brush dust from the faces of the dead kings,and try to remove mould which, because of the conditions in the Cairo, had accumulated.

I was acutely conscious that this was no artefact, no museum exhibit; this was a man, who had been born, lived and died. The fact that he had been a king - Ramesses III - and had lived over three thousand years earlier -  did not seem as important as the fact that this was a human being.

Surely such remains deserved some dignity?

Remains is, I think, the important word here.

What made the man the important person here was is no longer there, what made him him has moved on to greener pastures.

Define 'dignity' in this respect - I would suggest that in a place like the Cairo Museum such remains would receive more respect than anywhere else.

The disrespect was perpetrated by those who treated the tombs as a source of wealth.

[Roses]

   



No, probably you don't get it.
Yet this decaying lump of leathery flesh which still has a slightly nasty odor, combined as it is with the sweetness of the oils used to preserve it, does command respect. It was an individual, with hopes, dreams and beliefs, even if I didn't share them.
(It was also a murder victim)
Anyway, look for yourself, and then tell me.

https://www.livescience.com/25653-mummy-king-ramessess-iii.html

YUCK, that is a ghastly sight.

I have had quite a lot of contact with corpses having laid out quite a few, during the nine months in 1968 I had nursing training imposed on me, before I kicked it into touch. It was no big deal, once a person is dead, end of story, imo.

[Anchorman]

Yes. After all, the state stripped the royal dead of all the valuables around 1000 BC. To have left them in their makeshift resting places would have meant leaving them to the less than tender mercies of tomb robbers. After all, the DB320 cache was only discovered after certain funerary artefacts started appearing on the antiquities market...the then archaeologists had to risk life and limb to rescue the mummies from a tomb robbig gang. The modern display cases in the Cairo are hermetically sealed, climate controlled. The mummies rest o sterile sand covered trays, and only their heads and feet are exposed to public view. Nowadays, photographing these mummies is prohibited out of respect.

[Owlswing]

I don't know how one can be sentimental about a rotting corpse.

The 'rotting corpses', as you put it are not the object of the sentimentality. It is the memories of the living person that has become the 'rotting corpse'.

When you look at the 'rotting corpse' you are not seeing the corpse, you are seeing the grandfather who always had a sweet hidden for the time when he didn't agree with the reason your parents were refusing you a sweet; the granma who made the most magnificent toffee, a sister who you held in you seven year old arms two days before she became a two-week-old rotting corpse!

You LR, must have a heart of stone and I wonder how your family that you leave behind will view your 'rotting corpse'.

[Roses]

The 'rotting corpses', as you put it are not the object of the sentimentality. It is the memories of the living person that has become the 'rotting corpse'.

When you look at the 'rotting corpse' you are not seeing the corpse, you are seeing the grandfather who always had a sweet hidden for the time when he didn't agree with the reason your parents were refusing you a sweet; the granma who made the most magnificent toffee, a sister who you held in you seven year old arms two days before she became a two-week-old rotting corpse!

You LR, must have a heart of stone and I wonder how your family that you leave behind will view your 'rotting corpse'.

I wish to remember a person as how they were in life, not as a corpse, which is why I have never seen any  relative once they are dead. I have only attended one funeral relating to my family that of my father in 2005. I didn't attend my mother's funeral six years ago.

[Samuel]

The way human remains are treated is entirely contextual. I don't think there are hard and fast rules. Any group whose history has been left unrecorded, been erased or includes a lot of persecution are likely to feel much more strongly about human remains that are directly relevent to them. I have native american indians in mind here but really its any group with a cultrual history similarly defined by loss. What if a mass grave of murdered african slaves was discovered? should they be treated as assets for the museum sector? What about the horrific story of the Tuam babies in Ireland? should we not bother with them?

I don't say human remains should always be treated as 'sacred' but the decision about that is highly nuanced and relates to the nature of the remains, their context, the circumstances of the death, the historical age... etc, etc.

Another example... here in Dorset a few years back a mass grave of vikings was discovered during the building of a road. They had all been publically beheaded very much in some sort of intentional legal or ceremonial setting. This happened roughly 700 years ago. The story of these young men is vaugue, and no one is exactly sure what motivated their deaths, but it was a gruesome act and a chilling fate. Now, those remains all went on display, and some still are. But there is still a recognition that the way they are described and their stories interpreted needs to be sensitive to the fact that these people are related to the national history of another country and another culture.

Reducing it to sentimentality is a rather serious underestimation of the importance of these things to people and the role human remains and their associated stories play in continually feeding into a shared sense of heritage, culture and identity.