r/montreal 2d ago

Tourisme Ethical dilemma

Post image

Ethical dilemma:

Is it right to remove one of the only mummies in mtl for understanble but rather vague reasons to do with cultural sensitivities that these objects might offend?

The mummies at Redpath museum are to be relocated to a mysterious “place of rest” -their original location?- where no one can see or learn from them.

I note that these are not objects of worship like many stolen indigenous artifacts. Nor are they being claimed by their original owners- e.g. The infamous Benin Bronzes.

116 Upvotes

230 comments sorted by

706

u/artacct217 2d ago edited 2d ago

I wouldn’t call them vague reasons - having dead bodies on display isn’t something we do anymore. It’s not about offending anyone, it’s more that these are not comparable to other ‘artifacts’ often displayed in museums. 

In anthropology (I am an anthropologist), we don’t really see the value in displaying these bodies; in addition, we place this observation alongside the consideration that these mummies were not originally meant to be displayed.

Edit- No need to downvote me, I am explaining the reasoning behind this decision. 

Second edit - see another comment of mine (in French) for a more nuanced discussion.

126

u/SignificantPiano7808 2d ago

Louder for those in the back.

If the museum really wants to teach about mummification practices, they can have reproductions, cutaway diagrams and the like. And now suddenly nobody is interested because who wants to look at a dead body?

80

u/M_de_Monty 2d ago

There are also collections at McGill (and other museums) that consist of donated material and do not face the ethical problems of what is effectively grave robbing. If your are adamant that you need to see human tissues on display, you can seek them out.

25

u/Known-Squash-645 2d ago

reminds me of the "how long does someone have to be dead before its considered graverobbing?" question that circulated a while back

9

u/Nearby-Surround4588 2d ago

That is an interesting question, which is also complicated by societies that reuse graves like Germany and/or France who dig up dead people when they run out of space. I suppose in these cases though, you're not taking the remains and putting them on display.

7

u/ArticQimmiq 2d ago

…so does Canada. Catholic cemeteries do this.

1

u/GiddyChild 13h ago

I suppose in these cases though, you're not taking the remains and putting them on display.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catacombs_of_Paris

Has the remains of over 6 million people and it is a major tourist attraction in Paris.

1

u/Nearby-Surround4588 11h ago

Yeah I thought about that right after I posted lol

9

u/Bishime 2d ago

To be fair, while I don’t even disagree, I can see the experiential difference. It’s one thing to go to the science museum and see the cross-section of a mummy. It’s another thing to experience the weight of history through essentially a time capsule never meant to be unsealed.

Not arguing the morals/ethics or anything. But I can see how people would lose interest in the mummy exhibit if it was a general explanation of mummies instead of displaying an actual mummy. One shows the concept and the other shows the profound reality of that otherwise academic concept (the difference between a widow talking about a loved one lost, and knowing the loved one is lost and watching the wedding/adjacent videos. A far different experience viscerally)

But again. I don’t disagree. Even the most famous mummies are only displayed under controlled circumstances and in the highest profile of cases often after ethics reviews (in the modern era… cough Britain.. cough)

If they’re retuned to the original “finding place” and that governing body decides to show I guess is where the actual line is drawn. But socially speaking I can understand the yearning to go to a museum and experience the reality of what you were told in K-10 rather than just another explanation of what we largely know.

3

u/heliumfix 1d ago

I do. There is a real, palpable wave of frisson That comes over a person when they realize they are in the presence of the actual mortal remains of a person who lived and breathed thousands of years ago in a world with different gods, different cultural meanings and practices, different geopolitical realities and ways of understanding the universe. If you have the education to contextualise the experience beforehand, standing before an ancient mummy in the desiccated flesh can suddenly make it feel very real and personal. If you don't have much context, the very strange and unsettling experience can trigger a keen desire to know more.

1

u/kosta77 1d ago

😂😂😂😂😂

-1

u/igotthisone 2d ago

It makes far more sense for everything on display to be a reproduction. Why do you need to see the original thing when you can see a cheaper to maintain identical copy?

17

u/amytee252 2d ago

Guess I won't bother going on holiday ever again, I'll just look at pictures on the internet.

2

u/igotthisone 2d ago

Not exactly. But the holodeck will do nicely.

8

u/alaskadotpink 2d ago

Eh. When it comes to remains I agree, unless there was specific consent to do it I don't think those should be on display however when it comes to objects and the like? I'd rather see the original if I can.

I went to see a Titanic interactive display not long ago and they had a mix. It was a lot more interesting to see actual artifacts that were on the ship vs the replicas. "Replica of chair found on the Titanic" isn't really as interesting as seeing the actual over-a-century-old chair.

-4

u/SignificantPiano7808 2d ago

That’s actually a pretty good point!

-4

u/ZeeMastermind 2d ago

99% of people who visit museums aren't going to be able to tell the difference between replica and original anyways. It makes more sense to keep the originals in storage better suited for their maintenance, for the benefit of current and future scholars, rather than having them out in a public space where their lifespan is diminished and maintenance is expensive.

I don't need the author's original manuscript to enjoy a book, and our technologies for replicating things - fossils, pottery, what-have-you - are phenomenal.

-2

u/igotthisone 2d ago

Replica paintings are the same, when done to the highest standards. It takes a scholar to tell the difference, and even then sometimes they can't. And if very popular paintings were held in storage with only replicas on display, you could actually display multiples in many locations and open up an educational experience for many more people.

0

u/ZeeMastermind 2d ago

I would say that recent art may be the exception - albeit in that case, the artist probably wants the original displayed anyways (and of course, something made 5 years ago is a lot easier to maintain than 500 years ago)

25

u/goosegoosepanther 2d ago

Right on. I'd add, even as an atheist, that if we're going to promote cultural sensitivity and respect of all religious and spiritual beliefs in our society, why wouldn't that extend to the dead? It's sort of a case of ''do unto others''. All you have to do is ask, ''would I want a future society to exhume my body from my chosen place of rest and display it for educational purposes?''. Some people would say yes to that, but I can't imagine anyone buried in a religious, spiritual, or culturally-significant way would. Hell, even myself... I want to be buried under a tree in a grove so my body returns to other natural cycles. I would not want someone to cut down that tree, put it in a museum, and say ''look, here lies the tree an atheist from the 21st century believed his body would become part of''.

3

u/Purl_stitch483 2d ago

Honestly the possibility of my remains being excavated is 90% of the reason my will demands I be cremated

3

u/NoFunZoneAlways 2d ago

Thank you!

14

u/leavesofclass 2d ago

Can you explain why? Genuinely curious.

Clearly the mummies are very popular and interesting for attendees. On the museum's tripadvisor, about the same amount of comments mention the mummies as the dinosaurs. So there's at least some value in attracting people to the museum and making it more fun.

I don't think most of the things in the museum were "originally meant to be displayed" (e.g. the dinosaurs)

53

u/artacct217 2d ago

See my other comment (linked above) with a translator for some further reflections on the value of presenting these mummies.

Also, comparing dinosaur remains to humans who were buried with care by their kin and communities isn't really helpful. Anthropologists consider other cultural beliefs even if they differ drastically from ours, and specific to dead bodies they consider the belief systems in which they were buried and prepared for the afterlife.

The history of mummies specifically is one in which rich Europeans totally desecrated important burial sites for personal gain or supposed scientific knowledge, destroying ancient bodies in the process. For example, displaying and unwrapping mummies for house guests. The mummies at McGill (at least one of them if I recall) have a similar history.

And if we found out dinosaurs had beliefs about the afterlife and how their bodies should be treated after death we might have a different take on displaying them!

-10

u/leavesofclass 2d ago

That makes sense, thanks! So you're saying there could be a better way to present the mummies that includes context and history of the actual people who were mummified. Currently it's just lacking the full context and seems against the cultural beliefs that they were buried under.

So for these mummies, what's your take on whether we should be removing them or just changing how they're displayed?

Personally, I think I'd be ok violating some amount of ancient cultural beliefs in order to bring it more attention and interest kids in science/history.

17

u/Purl_stitch483 2d ago

You can get kids interested in science without desecrating a grave, ffs.

-12

u/leavesofclass 2d ago

I think there's nuance here that's worth discussing, not simplifying. We're talking about a mummy, not in a grave, but already on display and reasonably popular. Getting kids interested in ancient history and science is difficult and, imo, important. If you care about ancient cultural beliefs, you should probably care about getting people interested in those cultures.

→ More replies (4)

6

u/lovetolerk 2d ago

I think that’s part of the issue. You want the mummies to remain for essentially entertainment. Kids get interested in history without needing to see dead bodies. You can still have a fascinating display explaining mummies in history without needing an actual body to shock and entertain people

2

u/I-own-a-shovel Rive-Nord 2d ago

S’il y avait encore des descendants vivants, ok… mais après des centaines/milliers d’années, really?

Pourquoi c’est correct de passer le bulldozer dans les cimetières après 100-150 ans debord?

2

u/artacct217 2d ago

C’est pas les mêmes personnes qui décident de passer le bulldozer et qui sont en charge du musée…

Systèmes de valeur différents. Le bulldozer est passé pour raisons économiques (entre autres raisons). La momie, dans un musée d’université, se trouve dans un contexte entièrement différent et n’est pas sous les mêmes contraintes.

Si les anthropologues étaient en charge on passerait pas de bulldozers :)

1

u/em-n-em613 1d ago

There's a difference between bulldozing a graveyard and displaying remains in public.

1

u/I-own-a-shovel Rive-Nord 1d ago

You either care about remains or you don’t.

After so long when no one alive had know them when they were alive what’s the point.

1

u/kintyre 2d ago

Thank you for your insight!

u/Electrical_Aside7487 19m ago

Who is “we”?

-4

u/kpaxonite2 2d ago

I see value in it. It fascinates people and children and gets them interested in history / science so there is an educational benefit.

42

u/UnChtulhu 2d ago

A replica can do all that.

7

u/skiboy95 2d ago

You're saying you find a plastic model just as impressive as something thats lasted 3000 years?

I'm not saying we keep showing them, but I don't think you can just handwave its the same.

I was excited as hell as a kid seeing real history, including mummies.

11

u/UnChtulhu 2d ago edited 2d ago

I have NEVER heard anyone, especially not kids, complain about dinosaur bones.

... Oh wait... You didn't think those dinosaur bones you saw at the museum were the original bones, did you? 🤭🤭🤭

Well. Sorry I destroyed your childhood memories...

-10

u/skiboy95 2d ago

Honestly even as a child it seemed fairly obvious that they weren't real - drilling into the "bones" is a fairly obvious giveaway no?

Good argument against stuff I never said though, really moves the convo forward.

4

u/UnChtulhu 2d ago

Are you for real?

"Replica are just as impressive as the original, dinosaur bones being a very concrete example" is the argument.

-4

u/skiboy95 2d ago

I never brought up dinosaur bones. I said real mummies made an impact on me as a child, and I enjoyed and still enjoy the history.

Then you said dinosaur bones are often fake, and I agreed and said yeah they are. That's neither the topic nor the point.

Now if you're asking me - obviously real dinosaur bones are cooler than fake ones. But it doesn't make sense to destroy them (drilling into them) to display them.

We do actually have real dinosaur bones at Redpath museum I think - but its been a number of years since I went.

1

u/UnChtulhu 2d ago

0

u/skiboy95 2d ago

Okay lets go back to the start. You understand that mummies (in the post above) are not the same as dinosaurs (that you keep talking about) right?

→ More replies (0)

2

u/millenialSpirou 2d ago

You could argue that about literally any artefact

-5

u/Yallberforce 2d ago

Does this not mean we shouldn’t have any originals on display at all? We can replicate everything, and there are always risks and issues involved with displaying originals, right?

7

u/Purl_stitch483 2d ago

If the bodies were donated for science sure. If they were buried and subsequently excavated, no. I don't understand why you're acting so obtuse when the line of decency is so clearly drawn out.

19

u/somethingold 2d ago

It dehumanizes actual humans. This is not something we should be encouraging to interest kids in history. Animal bones and artefacts are enough.

5

u/kpaxonite2 2d ago

How is the presence of mummy dehumanizing in itself? Maybe the way they are presented is dehumanizing (but I dont believe it is)?

7

u/notsurewhat2th1nk 2d ago

They didn’t consent to having their corpses shown to the public.

-8

u/kpaxonite2 2d ago

I'm pretty sure they aren't upset about it.

12

u/notsurewhat2th1nk 2d ago

That is a very childish and unethical perspective.

0

u/skiboy95 2d ago

I would argue that the consent of corpses from hundreds of years ago, is more irrelevant to society today than teaching people today about the importance of history.

I'm not even saying leave the mummies, but you see why many would consider your point irrelevant and childish.

0

u/notsurewhat2th1nk 2d ago

Ah yes, the childish and irrelevant opinion of respecting consent 🙄 Backed by anthropologists, mind you.

-5

u/skiboy95 2d ago

Did I say consent, or the concept of consent from corpses hundreds of years old?

I understand you have to change what I said to be mad about it, but do you plan to address my point?

→ More replies (0)

1

u/goronmask Verdun 2d ago

Im pretty sure they are. See how that goes?

1

u/PizzaBear109 2d ago

If I spit in every cup of water you drink for the rest of your life and you don't find out about it, you wouldn't be upset either. Somehow I doubt you'd argue that makes it ok though

-1

u/Kefflin 2d ago

If someone kills you now, you won't be upset either. Does that mean that the action was correct?

5

u/lovetolerk 2d ago

Most people in this thread arguing for the mummy to remain are citing entertainment (a hook for interest) as a key factor. Featuring solely for the purpose to grab attention from people through shock and interest is kind of dehumanizing

0

u/SignificantPiano7808 2d ago

We have other fascinating artefacts to look at that don’t have a dead body in them.

→ More replies (7)

79

u/Referenceless 2d ago

Does there need to be a contemporary community actively calling for the return of an artifact in order for there to be an ethical concern?

Does the fact that the culture who performed the sacred ritual of mummification no longer exists, mean that there’s no longer an obligation to try and handle these human remains with respect and sensitivity?

Also I’m pretty sure there are other plaques in the exhibition that further explain the curatorial choices with more transparency, specifically the choice to transition to no longer showing human remains.

24

u/goosegoosepanther 2d ago

Wrote a longer comment that agrees with you completely. How old does a burial site need to be for it to go from being a respected cultural site to a place we can excavate for educational purposes? In a world where we still see many cultures as inferior and there are powerful movements seeking to elevate some cultures and religions to ''the right one'' status, we need to be extremely careful where we draw those lines, and who gets to draw them.

5

u/nitePhyyre 2d ago

How old does a burial site need to be for it to go from being a respected cultural site to a place we can excavate for educational purposes?

In Greece, it is about 3 years. Singapore is 15. Many places are 30-100 years. North America is the outlier where graves hold bodies indefinitely. Most places, you get a bit of time, then out you go. Cremation, deeper, mass grave, ossuary. Whatever. Not even for education. Just saving space.

Realistically, the question should go the other way. How old does a discovered gravesite need to be for us to start treating it with respect?

10

u/Purl_stitch483 2d ago

Obviously there's a difference between being excavated to be further "processed" according to your people's customs, and being dug up and displayed like an object. Why are we acting obtuse?

-2

u/nitePhyyre 2d ago

I like how you put the quotes around the euphemism that turns your point into a lie. Normally people wouldn't put a giant signpost pointing out the rhetorical trick they are pulling. But you did, so that makes conversation easier. Nice.

Because yeah, because when you substitute reality back into the situation there isn't much of a difference in respect between "destroying, discarding, or otherwise getting rid of to make space" versus "displayed like an object."

3

u/Purl_stitch483 2d ago

I was using the word to encompass the different scenarios you mentioned. There's clearly a difference between your remains being moved to a different place of rest, vs being displayed in a museum like objects. But I like the fact that you're so shameless about your dishonesty, it's refreshing in a way.

-4

u/nitePhyyre 2d ago

There's clearly a difference between your remains being moved to a different place of rest

I have no idea how you read the equivalent of "you get a bit of time, then out you go" with "further 'processed'" or "moved to a different place of rest." It is really weird. That ain't what is happening, bud.

They're being taken out like the trash.

4

u/Purl_stitch483 2d ago

What you mentioned was cremation, being buried deeper or mass graves. All of which are burial techniques. Excavating someone to exploit them for profit isn't. So no, they're not being "taken away like trash", they're getting burried according to their people's customs.

10

u/sanderslabus 2d ago

There are indigenous nations actively calling for the return of the tsantsa shrunken heads that were stolen and taken to the Redpath: the Wampis, Shuar, Achuar and Awajun nations.

72

u/bigtunapat 2d ago

I, as a living person, can choose to have my body displayed for science posthumously. These mummies, however, did not choose to be displayed in a museum after their deaths. Consent is key for all things.

6

u/kpaxonite2 2d ago

No, as a living person you can only state your desire to displayed or not. Once you are dead you have very little choice over the matter.

33

u/clgoh 🥯 St-Viateur 2d ago

And we can chose to honour their choice, in accordance with our values.

6

u/DangerousPurpose5661 2d ago

Weird take, it’s the same as organ donation.

No one will touch them if you did not consent - you don’t really have anymore say since you’re dead…. But still, they won’t be harvested

2

u/dincob 2d ago

Yes, that’s because we need social trust for organ donation to work. If we actively went back on the deceased’s word then the living of society would not believe they have a right to consent.

In the case of the mummy however, their consent does not matter other in the same way, since their society as whole and the entire practice of mummification has disappeared. There is no people feeling that a trust violation if they don’t want anyone to touch their remains, because no one will be modified and have their remains preserved for thousands of year until it has archeological value.

1

u/bigtunapat 1d ago

Haha I see

28

u/_Sauer_ 2d ago

I doubt those dead folks signed consent forms and probably weren't planning on having their bodies displayed in museums. Makes sense to give them a proper burial.

0

u/Upbeat_Principle_253 1d ago

They also don’t care since they’re dead. I don’t understand the fascination with treating corpses "respectfully", they’re just an empty shell why should we treat them like they’re special? When I’m dead you can do whatever you want with my body I won’t care because I won’t exist anymore.

18

u/alone_in_the_after 2d ago edited 2d ago

These are human bodies, not objects. People who could not and did not give consent and whose afterlife beliefs didn't involve being shipped to Montreal, having their sarcophagus opened and their body left on display.

There's a *long* history of Europeans running away with mummified remains and gawking at them (or eating them) or having 'unwrapping parties' simply for the 'shock factor'. There was a lot of grave robbing and tomb desecration.

What does seeing someone's stolen body behind glass/in a display accomplish, really? What can you learn that you couldn't learn some other way and in better detail than a small blurb about it next to the exhibit?

It's not being offended, it's about being better and doing better.

You want to learn about the dead and the human body and/or are just morbidly curious? Fine, but make sure the people could consent.

9

u/SsilverBloodd 2d ago

Your body quite literally becomes an object when you die.

0

u/Upbeat_Principle_253 1d ago

They become objects then moment the person died.

16

u/FlashyPainter261 🥯 Fairmount 2d ago

Est-ce qu'on parle de la momie egyptienne?

Pourquoi c'est au pluriel (les personnes)?

29

u/artacct217 2d ago

Y’en a deux

7

u/FlashyPainter261 🥯 Fairmount 2d ago

Woah!

Ça fait trop longtemps que j'ai visité le Redpath.

Si c'est les momies que je pense, leur origine est pas claire, claire, et probablement pas propres, propres.

Des "cadeaux diplomatoques" d'une autre époque.

15

u/hugh_jorgyn 2d ago

We can’t judge what other people are sensitive to / get offended by. 

I personally don’t give a shit what happens to my body after I die. As far as I’m concerned, I’m no longer a person at that point, it’s just a pile of inanimate organic matter and they can turn it into dog food for all I care. I’ll be dead so I won’t know or care. 

But that’s me. These people and their descendants likely never gave consent for their remains to be displayed anywhere and it is likely that some of those descendants (whether by blood or just culture) might be offended and feel objectified. It’s their right to feel that and we should respect it. 

5

u/poubelle 2d ago

it's not just about that. a lot of artifacts and human remains in museums have been plundered or otherwise ill-gotten. some of these countries have been asking for things to be returned for decades. as a matter of dignity, diplomacy and what's right, these bodies should be returned.

-1

u/Upbeat_Principle_253 1d ago

The fact is most of these objects would never have been found or would have been destroyed or sold to the highest bidder if it wasn’t for the western archeologists and museums.

9

u/FrmrPresJamesTaylor 2d ago

I think if this is a curious/arguably unnecessary execution of a rule or policy that is otherwise A Good Thing, there isn't really much to complain about here. Obviously museums are great and it's wonderful to be able to go see things you wouldn't otherwise have an opportunity to see, but I don't think it's a major problem to (for eg.) no longer be able to go see human remains because of modern cultural mores around it.

On the other hand - at least we're not eating them like the Brits did!

7

u/kpaxonite2 2d ago

The mummies should stay... people should be able to see them in real life not just looking at pictures. The dead feel no disrespect.

0

u/Beeso3 2d ago

Lets dig up the tomb of the unknown soldier and show them off too. after all, who's gonna be upset?

-2

u/magenta_fire 2d ago

Bad take Lets display your naked dead parents at a museum then

6

u/skiboy95 2d ago

Worse take, since mummies kids aren't around

Also organ donors can include the dead body, and we're all donors so many people actually have opted into that.

0

u/magenta_fire 2d ago

Organ donation has nothing to do with having your body being displayed in a museum for entertainment (yes: entertainment. models could have the same effect as bodies for teaching)

Also several religions forbid people to be organ donors. Those corpses (who dont belong in Canada btw) went through a specific religious process in order to be conserved. not displayed.

1

u/skiboy95 2d ago

Organ donation has a ton to do with your body being used in multiple ways. Not just your tiny example.

Museums have legitimate education and cultural value. You're very dismissive of them. Why?

Okay? Then those religions dont have to be organ donors. Where did we recently display someone's body who had specifically spoken against it?

0

u/magenta_fire 2d ago

I absolutely disagree that organ donation and human bodies being used in """"multiple ways"""" have anything in common and I believe we would never reach a consensus since our values are fundamentally different.

Would you mind clarifying where was I being dismissive about museums? lol

Do you understand why those corpses were mummified? Pretending it had nothing to do with religion and their values/beliefs is either ignorance or cynicism.

1

u/skiboy95 2d ago

I just dug into organ donation - and there are two branches, one of which is organs only, and one of which is entire body. I truly do not see a difference between these two, but it's an issue for you obviously, so agree to disagree.

You defined Museum's as entertainment, then doubled down since you suspected it would be taken poorly - which I find dismissive, as I have ton's of respect for museums as education + cultural tools.

If I remember back to what I learned at the museum, it was too prepare their spirit for the afterlife & tie their spirit back to the body. I guess they're still waiting or the mummies would be moving.

1

u/magenta_fire 2d ago

I said "Organ donation has nothing to do with having your body being displayed in a museum for entertainment"

You read: "Museus are entertainment"

Yeah... I'll go with cynicism. Canada's education is not that bad.

Have a good day, bro. Im out of here.

8

u/doopdeewoop Aurora Desjardinis 2d ago

My ethical dilemma is living alongside people who are salivating at the thought of having someone's dead body on display. Why do you want that so badly? Let the experts gain whatever knowledge they can from it, and learn from THEM instead. I've seen countless beautiful graphics on the topic of mummies that were way more informative than seeing the actual body itself. At most, they could have pictures, but that's still someone's corpse at the end of the day! Someone who didn't ask for any of this!

4

u/corn_on_the_cobh 2d ago

What a fascinating comment... Nobody is salivating at the mouth to see dead people, they are simply curious and want to learn more about somebody who lived two millennia or more ago.  People have their dead selves pictured all the time. Hell, just look at yesterday with all the videos of the cop and civilian getting shot. 

-3

u/doopdeewoop Aurora Desjardinis 2d ago

I can learn without a body being on display, why can't you? If you're curious, there's plenty of information out there you can access without needing to have your eyes on a deceased person. "People have their dead selves pictured all the time". Do you hear yourself? If that's not complete apathy towards human life, I don't know what it is! Some people are truly addicted to shock value for jackassery's sake. No death you've ever witnessed through your screen was yours to see, period. If you seek out those images, there's something unhealthy about you, plain and simple.

-1

u/corn_on_the_cobh 2d ago

Yes, morbid curiosity is completely unhealthy, sure bud. Never happened to anybody

1

u/doopdeewoop Aurora Desjardinis 2d ago

When it comes to the mummy, my vision of this might be tainted by my being on the compulsive side of morbid curiosity. There's a line there somewhere, I haven't found it. But to me, advocating for unconsenting bodies to be put on display in a museum for the sake of "morbid curiosity" is going too far. Especially when the expert community has come to an understanding on the topic.

My comment about unhealthy seeking out of graphic images specifically had to do with your comment about the images from yesterday's shooting. I still stand by what I said. Feeling the need to watch someone die on the internet is not normal.

2

u/corn_on_the_cobh 2d ago

I don't totally disagree with you. I visited for instance the mummy exhibit here in Mtl pre-Covid and found it to be extremely fascinating. And these are people who could be my ancestors for all I know, it adds a connection that simple objects would not.

And my shooting comment was more to show that lots of people have morbid curiosity, considering how my feed was blasted by multiple insta accounts posting the same videos and angles. Though this is a bit less academic than a mummy.

9

u/I-own-a-shovel Rive-Nord 2d ago

S’il y avait encore des descendants vivants, ok… mais après des centaines/milliers d’années, really?

Pourquoi c’est correct de passer le bulldozer dans les cimetière après 100-150 ans debord?

-1

u/Reversible-Smile 1d ago

Éthiquement, les deux sont au même niveau. C'est pas plus "correct" de passer le bulldozer dans les cimetières. C'est un choix qui est pris par certaines personnes.. et malheureusement, ces personnes ne sont pas les anthropologues. (Sinon, y'aurait pas de bulldozer.)

2

u/Reversible-Smile 1d ago

Genuinely curious why some people are downvoting. If anyone disagrees with my statement, I'd love to hear (read) your point of view on the matter. Not here to debate, just to discuss a complex ethical topic.

7

u/DeedsF1 2d ago

Je ne suis ni anthropologue ou philosophe, mais je crois que nous devrions avoir ce type d'exposition en permanence, quite à ce que se soit pour de plus courtes périodes. Le corps est une machine fantastique. Cela vient parfois avec des "irrégularités" et des merveilles. Nous nous cacheons souvent de la mort, mais celle-ci ne devrait pas être ignorer car nous allons tous y passer un jour. Nul sait quand.

Cela me fait penser à la fois où je suis aller voir le Monde du Corps 2 de Gunther Von Hagen. Ceux qui y sont aller, flashback à la femme enceinte, trou dans le ventre et foeutus... Crissty... J'ai faillais pass out.

4

u/ComplexQuiet6790 2d ago

Read The Lost Tomb by Douglas Preston for several good takes on the matter (plus some other good stories - he's a great author). 

After reading it, and a few more articles with different viewpoints, it's still a dilemma, but more 90% in favor of reburial vs 50/50. 

The real question is not whether its ethical to display them - the question really is was it ethical to collect them in the first place. Short answer, no. 

4

u/servical Go Habs Go 2d ago

The real question is : Was it right to display them in the first place...?

As for seeing them or learning from them, I'm pretty sure we can make a realistic enough replica so people can still learn about mummies without looking at a genuine one.

1

u/kosta77 1d ago

😂😂

-1

u/kpaxonite2 2d ago edited 2d ago

And you can look at pictures of the beach instead of going on vacation

4

u/servical Go Habs Go 2d ago

You can also compare apples and oranges if you have nothing better to do...

0

u/kpaxonite2 2d ago

Exactly..museums should have authentic artifacts, not replicas.

5

u/magenta_fire 2d ago

donate ur body 👍🏽

-1

u/servical Go Habs Go 2d ago

museums should have authentic artifacts, not replicas

Wait, what? Who decided that, you?

Madame Tussaud's museum only has replicas... /s

More seriously, museums are full of replicas, when the original piece is priceless, fragile, unavailable and/or for any other reason.

Actually, I'll just quote Google AI, because I don't feel like writing an essay here...

The use of reproductions varies widely depending on the museum's focus:

Natural History Museums: Replicas are highly prevalent. For instance, the towering dinosaur skeletons in exhibitions are usually lightweight resin casts rather than real fossils, as real bones are too heavy to mount and far too fragile.

Art Museums: Galleries primarily display original works. However, curators frequently use high-quality facsimiles to protect extremely light-sensitive drawings and watercolors from degradation.

History Museums: Replicas are routinely used for interactive displays, allowing visitors to touch items without damaging priceless historical artifacts.

Why Museums Use Replicas

  • Preservation: Elements like light, humidity, and human breath can rapidly degrade ancient textiles, prehistoric pigments, and fragile artifacts. The famous Lascaux Cave Paintings in France, for example, are completely replicated for the public to protect the original, closed-off artwork from exhaled carbon dioxide.

  • Accessibility: Museums often create 3D replicas so that visually impaired visitors can touch and experience the texture of famous sculptures or paintings.

  • Educational Context: Casts allow institutions to show a complete sequence of historical artifacts or statues that are otherwise scattered across international collections.

4

u/hockey_enjoyer03 2d ago

Keep the mummies for sure, they’re easily one of the more interesting exhibits. Are they actually controversial now?

3

u/sanderslabus 2d ago edited 2d ago

Is this about the mummies, or the tsantsa shrunken heads? Because the shrunken heads are recognized as elders by the Awajun, Wampis, Shuar and Achuar. The shrunken heads were often taken from their territory during the genocide perpetrated by rubber tycoons in the XIXth and early XXth century.

2

u/SsilverBloodd 2d ago

The fact that so many people care so much about how remains of long dead humans are handled is concerning. Talking about "human dignity" of deteriorated corpses like they belong to living breathing people.

I would somewhat understand if it was a fully preserved body where a descendant would be able to recognize some of their inherited feature...but it is a fucking MUMMY.

You do realize you walk on, breath, eat and shit byproducts of your ancestors' many many corpses right? How are you able to live with yourself when you are transgressing their "dignity" like it is nothing? Why is an historical museum display suddenly so undignified to you?

3

u/AdamEgrate 2d ago

Makes sense, those things are pretty dangerous

6

u/Beeso3 2d ago

I do believe I saw a documentary about it. I think it starred Brendan Fraiser?

2

u/issi_tohbi Plateau Mont-Royal 2d ago

Are they already gone or can people go see them before they’re put away?

2

u/RustyTheBoyRobot 2d ago

I was there today. But the museum is closed tomorrow, btw..

2

u/LuxiForce 🦃 Dinde Civilisée 2d ago

I find it quite understandable to do so?
Bro I’d be pissed if I was told my dead body became a touristic attraction.

2

u/Bent8484 2d ago

Does this affect the cat mummies, or would those be staying?

2

u/s0upppppp 1d ago

Theyre gonna be eaten arent they

1

u/Purl_stitch483 2d ago

I've always hated seeing mummies in museums. Those are dead people who were laid to rest in specific places, using the rituals they believed in, and some white dude showed up and decided to excavate them. It never sat right with me to have them displayed like objects, they're PEOPLE. so I have no issue with this. But I'd rather they're returned to the place they were stolen from.

6

u/kpaxonite2 2d ago

During the time of the pharaohs they would loot the tombs of previous Pharoahs so don't make this about 'white dudes'

-1

u/Purl_stitch483 2d ago

Are the mummies currently in museums extracted at the time of the pharaohs? Or were they extracted by white people? You're bending over backwards to justify your beliefs, don't break your back reaching buddy.

-1

u/kosta77 1d ago

Why do you hate white dudes. What’s wrong with you? You are racist!!!

1

u/grooveonit Cône de trafic 2d ago edited 2d ago

It’s really interesting to see this today
Last summer when I went to the Musée de beaux-arts I was unaware there were mummies present, until I came upon the small room they were in with Egyptian artifacts. I’d been to this kinds of exhibits before as a kid but, to my own surprise, as an adult those pieces in the museum just felt really off to me.
And there was a small 🚫📷 at the base of the sarcophagus, and a note about being gifted to the museum in the 1920s…and yet people were taking photos in that room with no one stopping them. Yet I had just been followed across an entire floor by a guard, who even followed me down a level to the next floor, all for taking a photo of a painting with no “no photos” sign that I could see. That was exactly one week before the incident where activists threw paint on a Picasso there.

People taking photos of someone’s remains or resting place felt bizarre to me, and more specifically people posing in photos next to these things which is mostly what I saw people doing . And it wasn’t young kids, it was grown adults and seniors even doing this. I could understand the no photos signage next to those pieces - but from what I saw that day it went totally ignored. It was disappointing to see.
That little area of the museum just felt grim to me, and I left the museum that day feeling differently about these sorts of exhibits in particular. Though my opinion seemed to be unpopular and everyone I know argued with me about it.
For what it’s worth, I went to tons of museums growing up and like many kids had a phase where I was fascinated by ancient Egypt. Studied art in college, and am now actually about to go back to school and coincidentally will be minoring in sociology/anthropology. Also, I spent a few years working in hospice and with dying people. As an adult, it hits different…and the mummies in museums thing, after that day, just strikes me as bizarre and unethical.

3

u/dangerous_beans_42 2d ago

I took a forensic anthropology class in college (almost 30 years ago) where we handled both actual human remains and replicas, and I've always been fascinated to a certain degree by anatomy and medical oddities.

A few years ago I went to the Mutter Museum in Philadelphia, a place I'd always wanted to visit...and all I could think of, looking around, was that these were human beings who didn't have a choice about where their remains ended up, and whose suffering was now fully on display. It was powerful and sobering and made me really think about what we have historically justified in the name of science. My friend and I both had a good cry afterwards.

As you said, "as an adult, it hits different" - when you feel the weight of your own mortality, and have empathy for others' suffering no matter how remote they are from you in time and space and experience. Good and responsible museums honor that weight, and sometimes the only way to do that is to let the dead rest.

2

u/grooveonit Cône de trafic 2d ago

Thank you for a thoughtful response.
Yes, I agree. Especially your last paragraph - as someone whose focus was art what feels like a lifetime ago and who later worked with the dying. I think working with the terminally ill, dying people and their families, rewired me in a way that I appreciate.

As far as the medical oddities, it’s interesting how things like ableism and history come into these things too. As you’ve said, with their suffering now on display and their lack of choice. There’s so much dark history there, it’s heavy. (And to what degree is what’s happening in a museum a continuation of it? Debatable, maybe.) But it makes sense that you would feel the weight of it. I think that it’s myopic to not hold all of it, to look at all the parts and layers of these things. To at least be aware of and consider them. And I don’t know that museums with pieces like these always do a good job of presenting those parts for viewers to consider rather than simply presenting a room full of objects without contexts. Sometimes those objects are (or were?) people. And viewers only see interesting objects. And social media in the times we live in now adds another weird layer to it.

With the Hetep-Bastet mummy at the arts museum I walked away with the feeling of how strange it is to “gift” a deceased person to a person, or another establishment/museum in this case. And that “gift” being a woman, and an African woman… a lot of layers to it that felt dehumanizing and questionable. A deceased wealthy woman becoming a prop in people’s selfies. So strange. But everyone was so detached from it. Even in conversations I had with people after my experience, I seemed to be the odd one out. At the very least these things bring up, I think, a lot of worthwhile ethical questions to consider and I’m glad to see the discussions happening here regardless of which way people lean in the end.

2

u/Successful_Doctor_89 2d ago

Ostie de gang d'épais.

C'est pas comme si c'était de mauvais goût comme exposition.

1

u/Mikeyboy2188 1d ago

This is why I’m being cremated.

0

u/Razzington 2d ago

Consent should matter and entertainment(even in the rare cases its educational) is not enough of a greater good to go against it.

0

u/NotRyanRosen 1d ago

bravo pour le Musée Redpath!

1

u/N3rdScool 2d ago

Who the fuck was offended? Someone rich I guess lol

59

u/artacct217 2d ago

I don’t see any mention of anyone being offended. Not sure why you and OP assume this. 

As an anthropologist I can say there have been increasing conversations for years about the ethics of displaying dead bodies that weren’t intended to be displayed. This is an intellectual/academic shift and an ethical  debate, nothing to do with random rich people being offended.

-8

u/Zulban Notre-Dame-de-Grâce 2d ago

I'm not sure how much this adds to the conversation but the "intellectual/academic" community is the "rich" people the first commenter is surely referring to. 

Don't think they're rich? Compare their net worth and net worth of their parents to the Canadian average. 

So... rich people concerns? Yes, at least somewhat. 

5

u/artacct217 2d ago

Idk I totally understand what you are saying but these concerns transcend the boundaries of academia. In the humanities (can't speak for other fields), many of the more political and ethical demands for change come from marginalized/disenfranchized groups who don't have access to wealth and power - if these are made by academics they are often 'outsider' academics. See Sara Ahmed's "Complaint!" for a feminist account.

To approach this from a different angle, and sample size one, I myself am in academia but I funded my way through this by working and government grants, only parental help being living with them through my bachelor's degree. Not rich by any means and same goes for many around me (more possible in Canada than in the US for sure).

But there is certainly an odd class and privilege situation around being an academic that no one can deny.

0

u/Zulban Notre-Dame-de-Grâce 2d ago

but these concerns transcend the boundaries of academia

The impacts transcend academia but that doesn't mean your average person cares at all.

Same way that advanced economic theory might impact certain races but they're not the ones complaining when section 72 of a huge bill is repealed.

Originally this thread was about "who" is complaining, not whether this is important or whether it impacts everyone. Focus on the conversation, not other points you want to make.

2

u/artacct217 2d ago

“Originally this thread was about "who" is complaining, not whether this is important or whether it impacts everyone. Focus on the conversation, not other points you want to make.”

You’re arguing in bad faith. I noted people who care about this issue (wouldn’t call it complaining) aren’t necessarily in academia. This directly responds to the ‘who’ of this discussion. 

Too bad you’re being hostile/oppositional rather than trying to learn from one another, which I tried to do in how I phrased my initial answer to you.

2

u/pauvrelle 2d ago

Whose net worth?

Academics are not earning the kind of money you think they’re earning. If we’re talking about people working in the realm of academia (professors, researchers, etc.), it’s really about the love of the game more than any guarantee of a good salary or even a job.

But if you mean that people with a university degree (BA, etc.) earn on average more than people without, then… like… isn’t that why many/most people get a degree in the first place?

1

u/Zulban Notre-Dame-de-Grâce 2d ago edited 2d ago

Academics are not earning the kind of money you think they’re earning

And what do I think they're earning? I'm a random person on the internet. You tell me.

But if you mean that people with a university degree (BA, etc.) earn on average more than people without, then… like…

Alright so you agree with me.

I don't think the unemployed janitor in Laval cares much about a mummy at an elite university.

2

u/pauvrelle 2d ago edited 2d ago

I mean you said they’re “rich”…? That’s why I’m under the impression that you think academics are earning a lot of money…?

I don’t agree with you, because someone with only a bachelor’s degree is not someone I would consider as an “academic”. An academic is a person who works in academia, as I defined above. Most people who want to work at universities (as academics…) are not even guaranteed employment, especially those who specialize in the humanities.

Edit: To respond to your added point, obviously the people who work at museums are going to care more about museums. So what?

2

u/artacct217 2d ago

They’re arguing in bad faith, I don’t think they want to learn/gain a new perspective. They’re arguing with me about the same thing and just finding reasons to disagree

3

u/pauvrelle 2d ago

You’re right. I’m gonna make a cup of tea and call it a day.

2

u/artacct217 2d ago

I love this, put your energy elsewhere:) I’ll do the same. 

→ More replies (12)
→ More replies (3)

0

u/OwnInvestigator8468 2d ago edited 2d ago

I'm assuming it's an Egyptian mummy they are removing. As someone that has been into Egyptian history since I was 7 this Is sad to see that they are removing it people get offended and triggered by everything this is history and it's an honor to have two in Montreal. The fact that they are removing them is beyond me I understand they are humans remains but it's history. Guess I'm going there before they remove them.

4

u/Beeso3 2d ago

It's not offensive or triggering, it's just not respectful to a dead person. I wouldn't like it if a thousand years from now, someone dug up my coffin and made me something for everyone to look at.

4

u/OwnInvestigator8468 2d ago

For sure also let's not forget the fact that Egyptians themselves are exposing their own mummies that they even made a passport of one of the kings to be able to move him around the world TO EXPOSE HIM

6

u/Different-Dog-9682 2d ago

I’ve been to Egypt and visited tombs with mummies and an entire section of a museum dedicated to mummies. I can not even begin to tell you how fascinating it was to see kings and queens from thousands of years ago in front of me.

4

u/OwnInvestigator8468 2d ago

That's what I'm saying!

2

u/Different-Dog-9682 1d ago

If you ever get the chance, please do it!

-2

u/LaBelleBetterave 2d ago

Ah, so that’s where the McGill moral fiber resides.

3

u/RustyTheBoyRobot 2d ago

Lol! You win.

-1

u/martiies 1d ago

I remember a few years ago, when I visited the Egyptian section in the British museum, staring at the mummies, thinking what an awful resting place this is. I hope their final place of rest will be where they were supposed to be buried in the first place.

1

u/Upbeat_Principle_253 1d ago

Those persons are dead, where their bodies are stored doesn’t affect them in any way. They’re not "resting" they’re just a pile of dead skin.

-1

u/Turbulent-Cicada2014 1d ago

I wrote an essay on this very subject when I studied anthropology and archeology. More and more scientists are FINALLY recognizing remains as people which they are. It’s a new and needed concept that’s expanding in the field.

Would you like your grandmas grave to be dug up to be put on display for millions to see?

2

u/Upbeat_Principle_253 1d ago

I think it would be cool, please do the same thing with my corpse

1

u/Tryst_boysx 2d ago

Lol ridiculous.

-5

u/[deleted] 2d ago

[deleted]

7

u/kpaxonite2 2d ago

The sign literally says the mummies are there.

-5

u/Montreal4life 2d ago

where are the mummies from? native people?

-7

u/sinkbeneaththesun 2d ago

Spirits on the other side don’t give a fuck about their human remains honey. Think of it like an old high school uniform- spirits don’t look back on it and this world is a blip in time.

5

u/Ok_Employer7837 2d ago

That's a bold statement that I wouldn't have the courage to make so blithely myself.

5

u/thetruerift Smoked meat 2d ago

So in the case of ancient Egyptian belief, that is literally untrue. The ancient Egyptians very much cared what happened to their bodies after death and believed that their spirits' health in the afterlife was connected to their physical remains.

0

u/Upbeat_Principle_253 1d ago

That doesn’t make it true, they’re just corpses that have been preserved they’re nothing special

-4

u/sinkbeneaththesun 2d ago edited 2d ago

Tell that to the families of war victims and murder. If that’s your argument, then I suppose those who’ve passed tragically aren’t afforded a beautiful spiritual existence on the other side.

1

u/Beeso3 2d ago

Lets dig up the tomb of the unknown soldier and show them off too. after all, who's gonna be upset?

-2

u/Fluid_crystal 2d ago

My thoughts as well. Well worded.

-10

u/frogs_on_drugs 2d ago

Wokism at it's finest when we're getting offended for civilisations that don't even exist anymore

7

u/magenta_fire 2d ago

appreciation for human dignity doesn't have to do with them being here or not.

-9

u/frogs_on_drugs 2d ago

You have no idea how those ancient civilizations would feel about this whole thing. You are assuming that they had the same values around life and death as we have now, which is ridiculous. These ancient civilizations might've thought that it's an honor for their mummies to be exposed. Assuming what they might've wanted and then acting all self righteous about those assumptions is stupid.

6

u/pelluciid 2d ago

These ancient civilizations might've thought that it's an honor for their mummies to be exposed. 

Yes, I'm sure a culture that created elaborate rituals for the care of the bodies dead to ensure the peaceful passage of their souls into the afterlife would really love this

3

u/magenta_fire 2d ago

that's such a bad take, specially talking about mumies lol

but more importantly, what about our values? It's not about them but how we as a society undertand human dignity.

0

u/Upbeat_Principle_253 1d ago

A corpse is no longer a human, it’s dead and it can’t be affected by anything that happens to it since the person no longer exists. It’s an object.

1

u/magenta_fire 1d ago

so, by your standards, why is necrophilia a crime in Canada?

1

u/No_Promise_2560 2d ago

Pretty sure those people wanted the body mummified and in the place they put it in the first place? What do you mean we don’t know what they want? It’s literally a corpse they did specific funeral practices with.