I would like to add my "two-cents" worth into this discussion of Mummies
& Politics.
 
If I remember correctly this was originally an inquiry as to how best
exhibit and preserve a mummy.
 
It seems to me that the preservation ethic in this was all too easily
dropped and graveyard politics emerged.
 
The mummy has obviously been long removed from its orignal environment
and the issue here isn't removal, it isn't reinterment, it isn't scientific
study, it is straightforward preservation.
 
One of the great ethical issues facing conservators and curators today is
the care of objects, including mummies & skeletons, which may not have
been scientifically or ethically removed, but they must be cared for.
Most of the ancient objects in our cultural institutions were once
"looted" and many objects in the art market have just that provenance.
Should we do less for those objects then others because of their
unfortunate histories.
 
I would say that this is especially true when one is presented with the
topic of human remains. Once the remains have been removed (and that may
have taken place 100 years ago) they should be preserved - both for
scientific study and for simple respect.
 
I have absolutely no quarrel with the rights of Native Americans. Native
Americans have a right to expect that their ancestors be
treated with respect and be returned to their tribes for reinternment.
The fact is that the Egypitians exhibit mummies in the Cario musuem and
they have a different perspective on their ancestors & culture as do us all.
 
I just find it very interesting that an inquiry about preservation and
care of a mummy has evoked emotional political comment within this group.
People have very strong feeling and opinions about the ethics of the dead
and that is a good thing. But I think that this discussion must primarily
take place with archaeologist & excavators - not with someone who wants
to do the right thing for a mummy in their collection.
 
Dave Harvey
 
=:|\Pinnacle Online                    - Open and dynamic Internet services:=
=:|o\.    |  |      |  ______                                              :=
=:|_/||\ ||\ |   |\.| __  |       Voice: 804/498.3889  email: [log in to unmask]:=
=:|  || \|| \| o | \| \_ .|        Data: 804/498.9762  login: guest or new :=
 
On Mon, 22 Aug 1994, Linda Young wrote:
 
> Wendy Botting asks the really pertinent question in this debate:  Why
> aren't the remains of an ancient Egyptian treated in the same manner as the
> remains of a Native American by all professionals in our field?
>
> It seems to me we are looking at different historical/political relations
> with ancient Egyptians and with ancient Aboriginal people.  We have a
> methodology in Australian heritage management of assessing the significance
> of things or places as historic or social  (plus a few more criteria), and
> the difference is that 'social' significance applies to contemporary
> perception; 'historic' significance to perception in or of the past.  These
> categories define the difference between long-dead Egyptians and
> Aborigines.  The former are of historic interest or significance in our
> western culture (though it might just be different in Egypt - are they at
> all sensitive about mummies there?).  The latter are of significance right
> now, for political reasons of ethnic identity and legal recognition, to a
> certain community, viz their descendents.
>
> In short, the larger moral issue of how we treat the bodies of the dead, in
> whatever culture including our own, is essentially determined by the pulls
> and pushes of power, ie politics.
>
> Linda Young
> [log in to unmask]
>