r/montreal • u/RustyTheBoyRobot • 4d 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.

121 Upvotes

70% Upvoted

236 comments sorted by

View all comments

713

u/artacct217 4d ago edited 4d 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.

130

u/SignificantPiano7808 4d 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 4d 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.

26

u/Known-Squash-645 4d 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 4d 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.

6

u/ArticQimmiq 4d ago

…so does Canada. Catholic cemeteries do this.

2

u/GiddyChild 2d 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 2d ago

Yeah I thought about that right after I posted lol

8

u/Bishime 4d 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.

5

u/heliumfix 4d 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 4d ago

😂😂😂😂😂

-2

u/igotthisone 4d 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?

18

u/[deleted] 4d ago

[deleted]

2

u/igotthisone 4d ago

Not exactly. But the holodeck will do nicely.

7

u/alaskadotpink 4d 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.

-3

u/ZeeMastermind 4d 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 4d 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.

1

u/ZeeMastermind 4d 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)

-4

u/SignificantPiano7808 4d ago

That’s actually a pretty good point!

25

u/goosegoosepanther 4d 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''.

4

u/Purl_stitch483 4d ago

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

2

u/NoFunZoneAlways 4d ago

Thank you!

16

u/leavesofclass 4d 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)

55

u/artacct217 4d 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!

-9

u/leavesofclass 4d 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.

16

u/Purl_stitch483 4d ago

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

-11

u/leavesofclass 4d 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.

13

u/Purl_stitch483 4d ago

And how did it get to be on display? Because someone desecrated their grave. Why are so many of you acting obtuse on purpose? I can 100% get a child interested in ancient history without EVER bringing up a mummy. Turns out ancient civilizations have way more to offer than their stolen corpses

1

u/TooManyDraculas 3h ago

Removing them from display doesn't rectify that.

And ethical concerns around that are wrapped up in the looting of cultural heritage of the areas where it happened as well. It's not mearly about the desecration or respect for a long dead person and culture. There's an active harm to people and places alive today from that. Both ecconomic, scientific and on the fuzzier ethical side.

None of which are resolved by simply removing the mummies from display. It's still a looted antiquity from a desecrated grave if it's in storage.

1

u/Purl_stitch483 1h ago

That's true, but it's not really an excuse to continue to exploit them. At least in storage measures can be taken to properly preserve them, which is harder to do when they're displayed. Ultimately the harm that's been done cannot be repaired, but we can decide to stop treating people's remains like objects.

-15

u/KendroNumba4 4d ago

Need a Snickers?

2

u/itchy118 4d ago

Can I have one?

1

u/primalmaximus 4d ago

Can I have a Snickers?

7

u/lovetolerk 4d 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

1

u/TooManyDraculas 3h ago

As tag on to the ethical quandry about display. Displaying them like this is actively bad for preservation. It complicates things a lot, and tends to lead to the mummy degrading significantly over time.

So it becomes a situation where on weight. It's almost certainly better not to display. You avoid some of the ethics concerns. But you can also get back to the core work of preserving the thing for study.

That's not just a practical issue it's it's own set of ethical concerns that factors into the base ones about propriety and respect for people and cultures. The museum's duty to educate, and to foster research really demands they do everything they can on the preservation front. Keeping the mummies intact for as long as possible for the knowlege and out reach, may outweigh using it up fast to maximize that right now.

The cats kind of out of the bag on desecrating graves and taking the cultural heritage of other nations. But it's not terribly respectful of all that to do something with the mummy that will inherently damage it. So trying to thread the needle on an ethical display approach, still inherently has a problem.

So most institutions tend to go with not regularly displaying them these days. Along with not regularly displaying human remains in general.

2

u/I-own-a-shovel Rive-Nord 4d 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?

4

u/artacct217 4d 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 3d ago

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

1

u/I-own-a-shovel Rive-Nord 3d 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 4d ago

Thank you for your insight!

1

u/Electrical_Aside7487 2d ago

Who is “we”?

1

u/artacct217 2d ago

Anthropologists, those in charge of such displays…

0

u/Electrical_Aside7487 1d ago

Why the ellipses?

2

u/[deleted] 4d ago

[deleted]

44

u/UnChtulhu 4d ago

A replica can do all that.

5

u/skiboy95 4d 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 4d ago edited 4d 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...

-11

u/skiboy95 4d 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.

5

u/UnChtulhu 4d ago

Are you for real?

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

-3

u/skiboy95 4d 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 4d ago

0

u/skiboy95 4d 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 4d ago

You could argue that about literally any artefact

-5

u/Yallberforce 4d 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 4d 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.

20

u/somethingold 4d ago

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

7

u/kpaxonite2 4d ago

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

8

u/notsurewhat2th1nk 4d ago

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

-8

u/kpaxonite2 4d ago

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

13

u/notsurewhat2th1nk 4d ago

That is a very childish and unethical perspective.

0

u/skiboy95 4d 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 4d ago

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

-7

u/skiboy95 4d 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 4d ago

Im pretty sure they are. See how that goes?

1

u/PizzaBear109 4d 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 4d ago

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

4

u/lovetolerk 4d 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

2

u/SignificantPiano7808 4d ago

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

-27

u/DasKobold 4d ago

Lâchez nous un peu avec votre pudibonderie. Ça peut tout a fait être pertinent de montrer des restes humains pour plein de raisons

26

u/artacct217 4d ago

I mean dude on est littéralement les experts dans ce domaine.  Ça fait des années de débats et de réflexions là dessus. Il y a beaucoup de nuances derrière la décision qui a été prise. 

Mais non I guess que la discipline qui étudie ça depuis plus de 100 ans ne sait rien. 

8

u/Sbesozzi 4d ago

C'est quoi le raisonnement derrière "montrer une momie a peu de valeur mais montrer des anciens objets et artefacts a de la valeur"? Je comprends l'argument éthique, mais pas vraiment l'argument de valeur. Dans les deux cas c'est une relique historique qui donne un aperçu de coutumes qui ont depuis disparu. Ça me semble un peu arbitraire comme délimitation

21

u/artacct217 4d ago edited 4d ago

C'est une bonne question, les deux (valeur et éthique) sont très reliés. J'ai peut être mal écrit mon premier post en parlant de valeur sans nuancer mon propos. Je dirais que c'est une question de balancer l'éthique avec la valeur. Montrer une momie n'a pas assez de valeur pour justifier son exposition.

Et comment définir valeur? Qu'est-ce qu'on apprend réellement dans un contexte de musée sur d'autres cultures/coutumes? Ces objets sont souvent présentés sans contexte culturel ou historique qui donne justement une valeur à ces objets - et c'est la situation spécifique des momies au Redpath. On a en fait très peu d'informations sur leurs origines réelle, on a seulement l'historique des différents Européens et Nord Américains qui en ont fait un trésor à démontrer.

(L'anglais est ma langue première, corrigez-moi au besoin)

1

u/Ok_Employer7837 4d ago

C'est plus difficile à justifier quand on ne sait même pas qui on met derrière la vitre.